previous LL questions or contact details

jeffwebb36

I purchased an apt with tenants. The rules are that the furniture comes with the apt unless someone (ie a tenant) makes a claim with evidence (receipts bank credit card statement ect ect) . My tenant made a claim that because his previous LL was a cheap charlie he (the tenant had to buy the fridge/ washing machine and bed) the tenant could not show evidence so I asked for LL details but he ignored my requests and he recovered the cost he claims to have paid for the furniture ect by not paying some of the rent. We are now in an overholding dispute and damage to my furniture dispute. The only way to ascertain the true condition of the furniture and who paid for what furniture is to contact the previous LL so I asked the RTB for contact details of the last LL but they said no because it broke the data protection act, so I asked for them (the RTB) to question the previous LL but they refused. Hence I have to give the furniture to my tenants or take the money from the deposit. This is where the catch comes in I ask for evidence as to who owns the furniture the RTB reject the request I then retain money from the deposit to pay for the furniture stolen from me and the tenants make a complaint. Then the RTB will say I have no evidence that the furniture belongs to me. Therefore catch 22 the RTB prevent a LL from obtaining evidence and then prosecute him for not having evidence

Iscreamkone

I didn’t know you could buy an apartment with tenants in situ. No mortgage?

kenmm

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I purchased an apt with tenants. The rules are that the furniture comes with the apt unless someone (ie a tenant) makes a claim with evidence (receipts bank credit card statement ect ect) .

I don't understand this part? IE 'the rules'.
Regardless, it's not the rtb who has to sort this question of ownership out. Can't you go back to the solicitors involved when you bought the place?

Either way, I'm pretty sure the rent needs to be paid as normal until this is resolved.


I would consider trying to sort this out amicably. An old fridge and a couple of items of furniture- doesn't sound much, can you meet in the middle on the cost of it or something else possible? I know that's not the point, but it seems sloppy on both your sides that you can't prove what you own (although I would imagine it's easier if there was card statements etc...)

Dav010

If the tenant is over holding because of this, pay him, it is likely to be the path of least resistance to you getting possession of your property. You could stand on principle and say the deduction he in rent paid equates to the cost of the appliances so they belong to the previous owner, but if the tenant digs in, it will be a long stressful process for you to remove him.

jeffwebb36

kenmm wrote: »

I don't understand this part? IE 'the rules'.
Regardless, it's not the rtb who has to sort this question of ownership out. Can't you go back to the solicitors involved when you bought the place?

Either way, I'm pretty sure the rent needs to be paid as normal until this is resolved.


I would consider trying to sort this out amicably. An old fridge and a couple of items of furniture- doesn't sound much, can you meet in the middle on the cost of it or something else possible? I know that's not the point, but it seems sloppy on both your sides that you can't prove what you own (although I would imagine it's easier if there was card statements etc...)

I will give you a suggestion ...if you catch someone stealing your furniture it wont be worth much so I suggest you let them keep half the stuff they stole and you keep the other half....The point of the post is that establishing contact with ex LL would sort everything out

jeffwebb36

Dav010 wrote: »

If the tenant is over holding because of this, pay him, it is likely to be the path of least resistance to you getting possession of your property. You could stand on principle and say the deduction he in rent paid equates to the cost of the appliances so they belong to the previous owner, but if the tenant digs in, it will be a long stressful process for you to remove him.

It's not just you the RTB and other replies say I should give the thieves money in order to save stress

kenmm

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I will give you a suggestion ...if you catch someone stealing your furniture it wont be worth much so I suggest you let them keep half the stuff they stole and you keep the other half....The point of the post is that establishing contact with ex LL would sort everything out

Irrelevant to the situation as described.

If you can't conduct your business in a way where you know what own or don't own, it's entirely different.
I was merely offering an easier way out of what seems to be a mess that may cost you a lot more than a second hand fridge.

Edit: I did also say I'm pretty sure that he can't hold rent - you should probably lodge a complaint for that.

And edit 2- where is the solicitor in all this? They would sort it out surely?

Dav010

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

It's not just you the RTB and other replies say I should give the thieves money in order to save stress

Bare in mind, if he stops paying rent, it will take up to a year and costs multiples to remove him.

kenmm

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

It's not just you the RTB and other replies say I should give the thieves money in order to save stress

Sometimes it's just the cost of doing business. Sh!t happens and as a percentage of your business a few hundred quid isn't that much to be holding a grudge and all the stress.

Don't take it personally and be better prepared the next time.

kenmm

Dav010 wrote: »

Bare in mind, if he stops paying rent, it will take up to a year and costs multiples to remove him.

I'm surprised this needs to be pointed out tbh. It's well known that there are many rules and if not managed properly it's a potentially difficult business to be in.

jeffwebb36

kenmm wrote: »

Irrelevant to the situation as described.

If you can't conduct your business in a way where you know what own or don't own, it's entirely different.
I was merely offering an easier way out of what seems to be a mess that may cost you a lot more than a second hand fridge.

Edit: I did also say I'm pretty sure that he can't hold rent - you should probably lodge a complaint for that.

And edit 2- where is the solicitor in all this? They would sort it out surely?

the holding rent bit the rtb are biased to the tenant
the lawyer bit well they are more capable and honest than the rtb but they are rather dodgy characters and make a lot of mistakes

jeffwebb36

Dav010 wrote: »

Bare in mind, if he stops paying rent, it will take up to a year and costs multiples to remove him.

I have already explained he is already overholding , now maybe I am not as clever as you but thinking logically it would seem him not paying rent will be helpful to me. He is extremely mean, and a thief and he probably receives legal advice from the RTB. So if he or the RTB thought he could stay there for another year if he stops paying rent ...then I suspect the rent payments would stop but they have not

Dav010

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I have already explained he is already overholding , now maybe I am not as clever as you but thinking logically it would seem him not paying rent will be helpful to me. He is extremely mean, and a thief and he probably receives legal advice from the RTB. So if he or the RTB thought he could stay there for another year if he stops paying rent ...then I suspect the rent payments would stop but they have not

I think it is worth considering that if you file a dispute, it may be some time before the hearing is held, then you have to wait for the adjudication. If you win, you then have to apply to the Court to have it enforced, this will cost you a lot of time and money. If you both get stuck into each other, the rent will stop being paid, it would be logical for him to stop paying, he is already over holding so why bother paying rent? The “clever” thing to do is to stop and ask yourself, how am I going to get this guy out as quickly as possible? Pay him, get him out.

kenmm

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

the holding rent bit the rtb are biased to the tenant
the lawyer bit well they are more capable and honest than the rtb but they are rather dodgy characters and make a lot of mistakes

But you used a solicitor to buy, no?

jeffwebb36

kenmm wrote: »

But you used a solicitor to buy, no?

no i didn't I acted for myself it was a deed of assignment because it was unregistered and searches had to be done. The Vendor lawyer being a dodgy person and member of the law society of ireland dated the deed of assignment wrongly on purpose. i asked her to correct her mistake but she refused, so I studied her work and noticed she had failed to follow proper protocol for receivership sales. Then I wrote her a letter pointing out her mistakes I did not make blackmail threats but there was a hint. Anyway I received a letter from her saying she would correct the mistake she made on the deed of asignment

dennyk

Iscreamkone wrote: »

I didn’t know you could buy an apartment with tenants in situ. No mortgage?

You absolutely can, with a buy to let mortgage or by paying cash. The existing tenancy remains intact under the same terms, whether it's a fixed term lease or a periodic tenancy under Part 4. A tenant in situ would only be an issue with an owner occupier mortgage, as you generally can't draw down such a mortgage until you have vacant possession of the property, which means you won't be able to close on the sale until the tenant is actually gone.

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I purchased an apt with tenants. The rules are that the furniture comes with the apt unless someone (ie a tenant) makes a claim with evidence (receipts bank credit card statement ect ect) . My tenant made a claim that because his previous LL was a cheap charlie he (the tenant had to buy the fridge/ washing machine and bed) the tenant could not show evidence so I asked for LL details but he ignored my requests and he recovered the cost he claims to have paid for the furniture ect by not paying some of the rent.

If you've purchased the apartment, how is it you don't have the contact details of the previous owner that you purchased it from? If you purchased it from receivership or something, the bank might be able to give you information on the previous owner, or you might be able to find out who they were on the land registry or registry of deeds. Whether they'd be interested in helping you anyway is another matter, though, and they'd be under no obligation to.

Honestly you're probably better off just writing off whatever furnishings are in the place at this point. You have no way to prove which items came with the property and which were bought by the tenant, and if the stuff is worn out or damaged anyway, you're arguing over very little value regardless. You can definitely get on the tenant about their rent arrears, and you'll likely win that dispute as withholding rent is not allowed regardless of the circumstances, but beyond that, it's best to let it go and just re-furnish the place whenever the tenant leaves. Pressing the issue is likely to get you little or nothing in the end.

kenmm

dennyk wrote: »

Pressing the issue is likely to get you little or nothing in the end.

Except a lot of stress, arguments, and confrontation, which may prove costly in many ways.

beauf

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I have already explained he is already overholding , now maybe I am not as clever as you but thinking logically it would seem him not paying rent will be helpful to me. He is extremely mean, and a thief and he probably receives legal advice from the RTB. So if he or the RTB thought he could stay there for another year if he stops paying rent ...then I suspect the rent payments would stop but they have not

You're only objective is to get the property vacant, as fast as possible.

Everything else is a side show and a distraction. I would not be squabbling over petty contents, I'm guessing they would be worth relatively little.

Tenants being practically untouchable in disputes is one of the main reasons landlords get out of the business. The risk of huge costs is too great. Because the legal costs and time involved (where there is no income) dwarfs any amounts that can be recovered.

This is another reason people won't touch a place with tenants in situ.

Grolschevik

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

nThe Vendor lawyer being a ... member of the law society of ireland

Ehhh... And?

the_syco

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I purchased an apt with tenants.
When you bought the house, did you get a inventory of what furniture that you own? If not, you have no proof that you own the furniture.

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

Hence I have to give the furniture to my tenants or take the money from the deposit. This is where the catch comes in I ask for evidence as to who owns the furniture the RTB reject the request I then retain money from the deposit to pay for the furniture stolen from me and the tenants make a complaint. Then the RTB will say I have no evidence that the furniture belongs to me. Therefore catch 22 the RTB prevent a LL from obtaining evidence and then prosecute him for not having evidence

Hah. So you asked for proof, and the tenants showed them their receipts, and the RTB then asked you for proof of your claim, and you couldn't produce jack.

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

I have already explained he is already overholding

If they're paying rent. for what reason are you trying to evict them?

Have you considered that the house was sold with tenants, as the previous landlord couldn't evict them?

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

no i didn't I acted for myself it was a deed of assignment because it was unregistered and searches had to be done.

I wonder what else you missed that a solicitor wouldn't have?

kenmm

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder what else you missed that a solicitor wouldn't have?

yeah, this - I mean - there is something strange here, you don't know if you bought it with or without furniture. You don't know who you bought it from.

You seem to have trust issues with the tenants and the legal profession (but wont get any of the required documentation).

You need to take stock (literally and metaphorically!) a bit here and do more to protect your investment/business and cause less stress all round, because it sounds (from what I read so far) a very stressful and needlessly complicated situation you are getting into.

jeffwebb36

Grolschevik wrote: »

Ehhh... And?

I know they are all members but she was something special in the law society she advertised being something special director? advisor to? in order to give an impression of higher integrity than normal lawyers...but she lacked integrity

Dav010

This thread is a wind up, none of it makes sense.

jeffwebb36

kenmm wrote: »

yeah, this - I mean - there is something strange here, you don't know if you bought it with or without furniture. You don't know who you bought it from.

You seem to have trust issues with the tenants and the legal profession (but wont get any of the required documentation).

You need to take stock (literally and metaphorically!) a bit here and do more to protect your investment/business and cause less stress all round, because it sounds (from what I read so far) a very stressful and needlessly complicated situation you are getting into.

Oh dear. The main reason why I did the conveyancing myself because my southampton lawyer missed the point that in my block of apts the upper floors can block the drains but me on the ground floor had to unblock their blockages, he also missed that the apts enjojoyed shared gardens but it was only me who had to pay for the gardens upkeep. Then there was another soton lawyer (<SNIP>) who said I had to sell the property and re-buy it in order to change it from mummy owning it to me and mummy owning it. Then there was another soton lawyer who was told to correct the name on my mothers deeds from catherine to kathleen but he forgot which nearly lost me the house.Then there was the limerick lawyer who said student village apts could not be lived in by non students and had to be kept on the pooled rent system...I proved him wrong within a few months. Then there was the soton lawyer who had the correct address on papers but decided to send my mums will to the wrong address
Not only are you wrong about Lawyers not making a massive amount of mistakes you also lie saying I do not know who i bought it from ...your dishonest so I suppose your a lawyer

kenmm

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

Oh dear. The main reason why I did the conveyancing myself because my southampton lawyer missed the point that in my block of apts the upper floors can block the drains but me on the ground floor had to unblock their blockages, he also missed that the apts enjojoyed shared gardens but it was only me who had to pay for the gardens upkeep. Then there was another soton lawyer (<SNIP>) who said I had to sell the property and re-buy it in order to change it from mummy owning it to me and mummy owning it. Then there was another soton lawyer who was told to correct the name on my mothers deeds from catherine to kathleen but he forgot which nearly lost me the house.Then there was the limerick lawyer who said student village apts could not be lived in by non students and had to be kept on the pooled rent system...I proved him wrong within a few months. Then there was the soton lawyer who had the correct address on papers but decided to send my mums will to the wrong address
Not only are you wrong about Lawyers not making a massive amount of mistakes you also lie saying I do not know who i bought it from ...your dishonest so I suppose your a lawyer

Oh dear yourself - you are looking for advice on the internet and people (including myself) are taking time to help out, despite your explanations being a little bit shaky.

I am beginning to see why your tenants are tempted to chance their arm with the furniture (*if* that's the case) with an attitude like that.

May you get the help you deserve. Good luck.

Dav010

How would your lawyer know about structural issues? that would be in your surveyors report.

In relation to student accommodation, the planning permission typically prohibits habitation by non students, except for short lets during summer recess.

kenmm

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

you also lie saying I do not know who i bought it from

So go ask them who owns the crappy fridge then? Quite simple really?

And I kindly ask you don't refer to me as a liar, simply because you can't get your affairs in order.

beauf

In fairness you're both being passive aggressive for no real reason.

I wouldn't trust legal professionals either. There are good and bad in every job.

I wouldn't buy a property with Tenants either.
Too much hassle.

kenmm

beauf wrote: »

In fairness you're both bring passive aggressive for no real reason.
.

??

I'm trying to help, and the first response back I got was snarky. Trying to dig through the information and actually help, then I get more snark.

Feck that when I've got nothing to gain.

beauf

This property and thread has run away written all over.

the_syco

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

Then there was another soton lawyer (<SNIP>) who said I had to sell the property and re-buy it in order to change it from mummy owning it to me and mummy owning it.

Sounds like you were attempting to dodge tax.

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

student village apts

HAH! Best of luck getting anyone out of them!

jeffwebb36 wrote: »

...your dishonest so I suppose your a lawyer

Your dishonest, so I suppose you'll be getting fined by the RTB.

beauf wrote: »

This property and thread has run away written all over.

If the english landlord evicts tenants in Limerick, it'll be on social media fairly lively!