Banks evicting tenants as a matter of course, is it legal?

Have the Banks being acting legally up to now in cases where they have been granted by the courts the right to receivership (which is how I understand it works) in property where there may be at least one tenancy and thus tenancy in place falling under the relevant legislation.

Q: Can Banks legally evict people who are not their legal tenants i.e. they have no contract with these people which allows them exercise such rights?

Q: Are the Banks in gross breech of Tenancy law for some years now?

Q: If so is there are case there may be hundreds of thousands of people due compensation?

Place any other info and questions you may think of yourself in this thread and let’s keep it on the point, anecdotes on topic are also fine and welcome.

To answer you question with a question. How does the receiver legally step into the shoes of the landlord, if the receiver is legally charged to get possession as cleanly of the assets. I am aware their is a role of rent receiver but I think these are exclusive receiverships. I am assuming in most cases it’s the receivership pertaining to assets is what is generally in play.

A residential lease to my mind is a separate is a legal contract between two other parties not within the concern of the receivership and covered under exclusive residential/prtb legislation.

In reality there is an asset/s that happens to also contain people who essentially have possession (though residential leases may not consider this, in the case were their is no binding contract between both parties it may be applicable).

So as far as I understand, it is not clearly within the remit of the receiver (in the case of property). Maybe legislation was changed recently that I am not aware of. Maybe there is provision for this in the legislation that underpins the PRTB.

Technically how is it that a receiver can be exempt from all the legal obligations of all parties in any typical tenancy? How can the receiver also receiver the tenancy and thus tenants. So many questions or in other words how can the Bank legally evict another person tenants?

Real world example from a tenants point of view. A letter arrives from a receiver acting on behalf of any duffed bank. ThIt states notice within the parameters of PRTB/legislation which gives it an air of legitimacy.

Are you under any legal obligation to even respond. I’m not sure you are.

When a fixed charge receiver is appointed (generally through the security documents covering the property) the FCR takes the place of the previous landlord (the insolvent/defaulted borrower).

A Landlord is allowed terminate a residential tenancy agreement (i.e. a lease) on the basis the property is to be sold within 3 months.

Clause from the Act Below

Link to the Act below

Sorry, I misread the previous posts. Assumed they were in reference to part 4.

Squatters rights have never quite gone away and on long running tenancies (those of at least 12 years and probably more like 14 or 15 years) the adverse possession laws aka squatters rights have some validity , even when rent was paid over that time. Needs a good lawyer as the case law is obscure and complex in Ireland on the issue. I do know of someone ( now dead) who could not be shifted as they were at least 15 years into a tenancy and that was perhaps 2008 or so. The law has not changed much since for tenants.

Anecdote alert. A friend is a tenant in a building taken over by a prominent receiver. There have been some issues with tenants continuing to pay landlord and some refusing to pay either party. He switched to paying the rent receiver immediately.

Says its the best landlord he’s ever had, renovations done on request and not a whiff of a rent increase despite it being at 2011 rates.

At the same time he’s not sure if the calf is being fattened for sale and if he’ll get the boot in due course.

But what’s the difference really? Landlords can effectively evict tenants without reason in Ireland anyway so he reckons not much has changed on the tenure front.

PS: the story in yesterday’s IT is the usual comedy stuff. Swift repossessions are actually slightly positive in terms of freeing up housing stock and increasing quality. Long, drawn-out legal proceedings could well result in vacant properties. It’s clear from Seamus Coffey’s blog that some that come up in front of the County Registrar are abandoned with landlords having left the country. Houses in the crosshairs of the banks don’t get much maintenance either I’ll bet.

The thought that repossessions (which measure in the hundreds every year) have an appreciable impact on the rental market is ridiculous. Some three hundred thousand Irish households move home every year. Only a tiny percentage of this will ever be due to repossessions.

That is a good question. I am however framing in the context that it is the Bank who have the power in this situation and seem to get to play all the sides, invoke the rights without any of the obligations.

The general advice and also legal advice I received for this type of situation is pay neither the landlord or the receiver until their is some actual legal clarity. Put the rent aside and wait. If in that period however long it is you happen to secure other accommodation. There is most probably no repercussions.

To my eye seems like the receiver is happy to get a few quid from those quick enough to conform on command while the former owner goes through the wrangle. Some of the other tenants are probably enjoying rent free living possibly for many many months.

Do you have any further info as to what has happened to those who have paid the landlord or not paid at all?

If the receiver is properly appointed and the mortgage is properly drafted then he can take over the right to collect rent by notifying the tenant afaik. While it may sound sensible to advise somebody to withhold rent until the situation becomes clear, the fact is that most people do not put the unpaid rent aside but rather dip into it leaving them in a very tough situation when it does become due.

I have noticed a lot of people saying that homelessness is not exacerbated by rented accommodation being taken out of the market for sale. I don’t think that is correct. People saving under their parents roof are getting out of the misery of living at home while grown adults but they are pushing low income families out of accommodation altogether as evicted tenants trickle down to other properties. Homelessness for low income people is therefore increasing the entire time.

I couldn’t’ be so sure.

Reality is you might have people as existing tenants able to pay their rent via a separate contract then face losing their home because the owner or mortgage holder can not and the Bank seem to have a superior position if the receiver is able to legally serve notice to quit and terminate a tenancy. How can a receiver also legally assume the rights of the landlord without ever having to comply with legal obligations, i.e. registering as a landlord, registering the tenancy, paying income tax on rent recieved… you get the point.

What is the legal mechanisim that allows this to happen? I dont’ know but there has to be one if they can act as they do. So exactly, what is it? Anyone?

Seamus Coffey looks at DCC figures on homelessness and repossession

DCC figures show 2 of the 109 repossessions made led to the evictee entering homeless services and in both cases the evictee was able to find accomodation in the private rental sector.

Nothing to do with freeman-ism but what you might encounter in Ireland is more a Sovereign movement, the freemen are more an English centric movement and look only to use the common law in their favour rather than be ignorant of their common law rights. The Sovereign’s here tend to make a distinction with Irish sovereignty coming form the people and paying recognition to common law which is seen as english origin where the Monarch is the sovereign brings much aghast.

I’ll check out the previous link Andy palced up but to ask, is that the unambiguous law you refer to?

Buy To Lets And Sitting Ducks … ing-ducks/

Me too. :smiley:

I actually made this point on at least one occasion here many many moons ago.

As much as you are vetted so too should the landlord, at least provide a Bank reference to the tenant.

Maybe so, but those tenants who did not enter homelessness services entered into competition with others for rental properties. This leads to increases in rents. It also leads to people with better jobs competing with those with less stable incomes or and those reliant on welfare. Ultimately, the least wealthy tenants are pushed out of the market.

There are a number of different sources of receiver’s powers. The primary ones that spring to mind are as follows:

  1. Deed of mortgage - contract assignment: The borrower can legally assign some or all of his rights under the letting contract to the receiver. This is effective once the tenant is notified unless the tenancy agreement provides otherwise.
  2. Deed of mortgage - power of attorney: The mortgage deed will normally provide that the borrower appoints the receiver as the borrower’s attorney. Therefore the receiver can collect the rent and administer the letting agreement while the borrower is still the registered landlord.
  3. Statutory provisions as to Receiver’s powers.

Your question requires research that somebody research the above fully and unfortunately I don’t have the time. There are many more aspects to the mortgage deed including in relation to title and ownership of the property but I am not sure that these impact on receivers (as opposed to mortgagees in possession) collecting rent.

That’s a fine start NC thank you and as earlier I did wonder as to what might be in the mortgage.

I suppose it would be helpful if these proof’s were furnished to tenants. I am sure they would be within their rights to request all relevant documentation to make sure it’s been done properly.

It is very enlightening for those in the grip of being evicted and it is an issue the is very much at the centre of the forums inception. Tenants need to know that it is above board and need to be armed with the correct information to ask the right questions. The courts are not infallible nor the system as we know. The broadsheet piece was also very instructive.

From first hand experience when you are in the middle of such events ability to access information and guidance is important.

The houses that the evictees left are available to be occupied so there is no net effect on rental availability.
The fact that nearly 50% of properties for repossession were previously vacant is the factor which affects rental availability.