# Reporting suspected tenancies to the PRTB



## GeneralZod (15 Jan 2007)

Want to guage opinion on this - I suspect the answer is going to be report them. That's what I'm inclined to do anyway. But maybe not as a full frontal assault might have unforeseen negative consequences on the development like good neighbours moving out or maintenance fees not being paid promptly.

I live in a small apartment scheme (less than 20 apartments). Most of the apartments are rented out. I came across this Public Register of Tenancies.  I know who owns each apartment as I'm on the management co committee. Some of the apartments are registered but 8 of the apartments that I know have tenants in them are not on the register. I doubt that most of them have exemptions from registration.


----------



## auto320 (15 Jan 2007)

Be careful here. You have data in your care about who owns what in this development, I would check carefully that I was not in breach of the data protection act before passing this data to a third party.

Sure, these apartments should be registered, but this may not be the way to do it. If you are on the management company committee, could you not introduce a ruling that all rented apartments should be on the register, and that anyone defaulting on that would then be reported? Many of the defaulters, I would suspect, have simply forgotten to do so or are unaware of their responsibilities, and a simple jog of the memory like this will probably sort out most of the problem.


----------



## z107 (15 Jan 2007)

I agree with auto320.

You should certainly use this data only for the purpose it was collected for. 

It is also quite possible that the landlords of the properties will realise that suddenly they're all getting letters from the PRTB. They'll probably be able to collectively deduce what happened.


----------



## Howitzer (15 Jan 2007)

Agree 100% with auto320. 

Registering with the PRTB shouldn't be a witch hunt.


----------



## GeneralZod (16 Jan 2007)

I take the point about data privacy although its something that one could easily form a suspicion on by observing the changeover in residents and comparison with the PRTB list.

Good idea about making it a rule that rented apartments be on the register. 

I wondered how many of them also aren't declaring to the revenue. Most of the apartments are owned by a couple of investers and some of this group are declared and others aren't.


----------



## auto320 (16 Jan 2007)

I would suspect that most landlords now pay their taxes; it is far too risky not to, and tax breaks are much better now than they were when the balck economy was at its height.

Again, I would stress that the best way to deal with this is to have the Management Company insist that all landlords be registered. This wil give a strong signal to any defaulters regarding revenue responsibilities. Any landlord who is regstered will most likely not risk avoiding his taxes.

Don't get too worked up about these kinds of issues, they can become an obsession! Just deal with it through the management company and move on. Not a good idea to become a one-man crimefighter, you don't know what kind of baddies own such properties. Let the system take care of them.


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Jan 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> .
> 
> Good idea about making it a rule that rented apartments be on the register.


 
Can this be enforced?  On what basis?


----------



## elcato (16 Jan 2007)

The last time I checked the registry I was still not in there despite being registered for 6 months. I would not rely on those files to be up to date. I would be very surprised if they were not registered to be honest and as stated I dont think you should use your position to make these checks. Why not just contact the PRTB and ask how up to date this information is ?


----------



## ClubMan (16 Jan 2007)

SPC100 said:


> I think there are lots of "new" smalltime amateur landlords in the country.
> I would suspect lots of them are not using accountants, not researching their tax liabilities and not worrying too much about their tax returns, with whitewash statments like well my mortgage equals my rent, so there is no need.


I also suspect, going by some of the posts here on _AAM_, that some simply don't have a clue about their responsibilities and liabilities! Not saying that that's any excuse but there does seem to be a certain tendancy on the part of some to plunge into "bricks and mortar" without any research of understanding.


----------



## thewatcher (16 Jan 2007)

I'm renting a place at the moment that doesn't appear on the list,the landlord is a lovely man not the slightest bit "dodgy".I presume he just isn't aware of his "responsibilities".I'll be claiming rent relief when i move on though !.


----------



## Dreamerb (17 Jan 2007)

thewatcher said:


> I'm renting a place at the moment that doesn't appear on the list,the landlord is a lovely man not the slightest bit "dodgy".I presume he just isn't aware of his "responsibilities".I'll be claiming rent relief when i move on though !.


If he's such a lovely man, be nice and make him aware of his responsibilities rather than just landing him in hot water! You should know if the place is registered because each tenancy must be registered and you would have had to sign a PRTB form and provide your PPSN (not all registered properties appear, or appear identifiably, in the register, which as published online is in any case a snapshot only). 

Revenue has got very good at cross referencing rent relief with the registered property owners. Having provided my tenants with the Revenue rent relief form when they moved in, Revenue promptly on receipt of that sent me a decidedly snotty "explain yourself or we'll come inspect you" letter. [All was entirely above-board: it was the first year it had been rented, ergo no tax return was yet due. Yes, in accordance with the AAM mantra, I do believe in paying my taxes - and registering with the dratted PRTB, even though the primary legislation is so drafted as to ensure the process is entirely paper-based, cumbersome and cannot be made simple and painless without a new Act. Grr. Oh yeah, and they have severe backlogs, largely because of the foregoing.] 

Speaking as an amateur landlord, I agree that the bulk of amateur landlords haven't a breeze what they're doing and are investing because "You can't go wrong with property."  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see quite a number of them making tax-defaulters lists for very large sums (mostly interest and penalties) over the next few years.


----------



## z107 (17 Jan 2007)

> I wouldn't be at all surprised to see quite a number of them making tax-defaulters lists for very large sums (mostly interest and penalties) over the next few years.



Yes, that is probably what will happen. The revenue will deliberately wait a few years before cashing in. They will then be able to add fines and interest etc. A good way to double your money.


----------



## goodtiming (23 Jan 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> Want to guage opinion on this - I suspect the answer is going to be report them. That's what I'm inclined to do anyway. But maybe not as a full frontal assault might have unforeseen negative consequences on the development like good neighbours moving out or maintenance fees not being paid promptly.
> 
> I live in a small apartment scheme (less than 20 apartments). Most of the apartments are rented out. I came across this Public Register of Tenancies. I know who owns each apartment as I'm on the management co committee. Some of the apartments are registered but 8 of the apartments that I know have tenants in them are not on the register. I doubt that most of them have exemptions from registration.


 
Why would you do this? What makes you feel it's necessary for you to report them. When did people need to start fearing their neighbours would report them to the authorities. When did we become such a nation of begrudgers that we feel it necessary to phone the taxman if someone isn't doing what we feel they should. Live and let live I say. If you wish to be on the register that's your prerogative but Mind your own business when it comes to others.
If you see a plumber coming in to do some work will you ring the taxman to make sure he's not doing a nixer?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Jan 2007)

goodtiming said:


> If you wish to be on the register that's your prerogative


Registration with the _PRTB _is not a prerogative/choice - it is a legal obligation for most landlords. I'm not making a value judgement either way on the original issue but just wish to correct this mistaken assertion.


----------



## jem (23 Jan 2007)

goodtiming said:


> Why would you do this? What makes you feel it's necessary for you to report them. When did people need to start fearing their neighbours would report them to the authorities. When did we become such a nation of begrudgers that we feel it necessary to phone the taxman if someone isn't doing what we feel they should. Live and let live I say. If you wish to be on the register that's your prerogative but Mind your own business when it comes to others.
> If you see a plumber coming in to do some work will you ring the taxman to make sure he's not doing a nixer?


 
I actually agree with the sentiments of this post.


----------



## Howitzer (23 Jan 2007)

goodtiming said:


> Why would you do this? What makes you feel it's necessary for you to report them. When did people need to start fearing their neighbours would report them to the authorities. When did we become such a nation of begrudgers that we feel it necessary to phone the taxman if someone isn't doing what we feel they should. Live and let live I say. If you wish to be on the register that's your prerogative but Mind your own business when it comes to others.
> If you see a plumber coming in to do some work will you ring the taxman to make sure he's not doing a nixer?





jem said:


> I actually agree with the sentiments of this post.


 
It's now begrudgery to resent someone flouting the law? Begrudgery to resent someone not taking their social responsibilities seriously and possibly abusing their tenants rights? 

I've made my position clear on the OPs suggestion earlier but this post is absolute nonsense. If I saw someone robbing an old woman on O'Connell St it'd hardly be begrudgery to phone the Guards and maybe give the old woman a helping hand. What am I supposed to be doing in New Ireland, give the thief the big thumbs up and applaud his ingenuity? There goes another up and coming entrepreneur, fair play to him.


----------



## CCOVICH (23 Jan 2007)

Folks lets try and keep this to facts etc.

Allegations and ranting about begrudgery can be taken to _Letting Off Steam_.


----------



## jem (23 Jan 2007)

Howitzer said:


> It's now begrudgery to resent someone flouting the law? Begrudgery to resent someone not taking their social responsibilities seriously and possibly abusing their tenants rights?
> 
> I've made my position clear on the OPs suggestion earlier but this post is absolute nonsense. If I saw someone robbing an old woman on O'Connell St it'd hardly be begrudgery to phone the Guards and maybe give the old woman a helping hand. What am I supposed to be be doing in New Ireland, give the thief the big thumbs up and applaud his ingenuity? There goes another up and coming entrepreneur, fair play to him.


I would sugest that the two items are completly different.
You know that the person is robbing the old woman, you have no such definite knowledge with regard to the flat.How do you know the owner is not" taking their social responsibilities seriously" what ever that means- you dont, full stop, likewise how do you know the owner "is abusing their tenants rights"The owner could be the best landlord in teh world for all you know.
I would sugest that you and the op should mind your own business unless you have definit 100% proof that someone is breaking the law.


----------



## Howitzer (23 Jan 2007)

jem said:


> I would sugest that the two items are completly different.
> You know that the person is robbing the old woman, you have no such definite knowledge with regard to the flat.How do you know the owner is not" taking their social responsibilities seriously" what ever that means- you dont, full stop, likewise how do you know the owner "is abusing their tenants rights"The owner could be the best landlord in teh world for all you know.
> I would sugest that you and the op should mind your own business unless you have definit 100% proof that someone is breaking the law.


By not registering their tenancy the landlord is breaking the law. Full Stop.


> Tenancies falling within the scope of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 must be registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. It is the *responsibility* of the landlord to register the details with the Board. Both the landlord and the tenants are entitled to a copy of their details entered on the register


 This is taken from the first page of the PRTB site. My highlight.

I said possibly abusing the tenants rights. If a tenancy is not registered with the PRTB their rights under Residential Tenancies Act 2004 are not protected.

I already stated in the thread that I completely disagreed with what the OP was suggesting.

I believe the last couple of posts aren't ranting and are relevant to the thread as there is a question of legality in terms of having to register with the PRTB which many people aren't aware of. Ensuring people are aware of a law and it's enforcement is not begrudgery.


----------



## money man (23 Jan 2007)

Why should some pay tax and not others...why should some register and not others? The registers are very slow to be updated as far as i can see though and he may be registered. Also i would not recommend going up to him and kindly informing him of his obligations. it has been well documented and reported what a landlords obligations are.


----------



## MandaC (23 Jan 2007)

I had problems with tenants in a rented property two doors up from me. I rang PTRB to see if there was anything they could do and they advised me that the property was not registered. I advised them that the property was rented and they were going to follow up.

When the landlord arrived to collect his rent a few weeks later, I told him I had been in touch with PTRB and that he needs to contact them to register as I had been looking to contact him through PTRB in respect of his rented property.

I dont know what happened between him and PTRB after that, as its his own business.

If his tenants were not bothering me, I would certainly not have rang PTRB just to report him.  However, he is the one doing this as a business venture, therefore he needs to look after his responsibilities. The tenants were  far away from him, he could not hear them, think he preferred it that way, but I certainly didnt.


----------



## jem (23 Jan 2007)

Howitzer said:


> By not registering their tenancy the landlord is breaking the law. Full Stop.
> This is taken from the first page of the PRTB site. My highlight.
> 
> I said possibly abusing the tenants rights. If a tenancy is not registered with the PRTB their rights under Residential Tenancies Act 2004 are not protected.
> ...


i said& still say :



jem said:


> I would sugest that the two items are completly different.
> You know that the person is robbing the old woman, you have no such definite knowledge with regard to the flat.How do you know the owner is not" taking their social responsibilities seriously" what ever that means- you dont, full stop, likewise how do you know the owner "is abusing their tenants rights"The owner could be the best landlord in teh world for all you know.
> I would sugest that you and the op should mind your own business unless you have definit 100% proof that someone is breaking the law.


you don't know whether the website is up to date or not, the property could be redg, likewise the property may be loaned out to friends and therefore no landlord tennant relationship exists bottom line you don't know and to be honest it doesnt effect you.


Howitzer said:


> Ensuring people are aware of a law and it's enforcement is not begrudgery.


Again this is neither your or the op's problem and I would sugest that you should mind ones own business.


----------



## Howitzer (23 Jan 2007)

Well actually it is the OPs problem. The OP is on the committee of the management company of his apartment block. It is common practice for management companies to send round circulars to all owners reminding them of their responsibilties, such as paying maintenance charges and ensuring noise is kept to a minimum at night. By sending these circulars they aren't insinuating that everyone is having all night raves and that nobody has paid their maintenance charges, they're merely reminding everyone of their social responsibilities.

As MandaC pointed out if a landlord is not registered with the PRTB it is much harder for neighbours to address any issues that may arise and it is perfectly within the rights of a management company to have this issue brought to the attention of it's members. Not to report them, but to remind them. They can if they want make it a rule within the complex, that is up to them as the management company.

As a member of the board of his management company it IS therefore the OPs responsibility to remind all apt owners within the complex of their obligations with regards to the PRTB and not doing so could be negligent on his behalf.


----------



## jem (23 Jan 2007)

To be honest you are changing your tune slightly.
Again I would question what business is it of the op whetehr or not it is redg or not.


Howitzer said:


> They can if they want make it a rule within the complex, that is up to them as the management company.


Who inforces the "rule"?, what is the result of ignoring the rule?


----------



## Howitzer (23 Jan 2007)

jem said:


> To be honest you are changing your tune slightly.
> Again I would question what business is it of the op whetehr or not it is redg or not.


Not really. I was originally responding to the post that stated that people should just mind their own business, and that anyone who stuck their nose in was a begrudger. Nonsense. And I then referred back to the OPs original scenario. It was suggested by Auto320 that the OP put it onto the agenda to make it a rule of the management company, the owners could agree or disagree at their discretion. And I agreed with that suggestion.



auto320 said:


> If you are on the management company committee, could you not introduce a ruling that all rented apartments should be on the register, and that anyone defaulting on that would then be reported? Many of the defaulters, I would suspect, have simply forgotten to do so or are unaware of their responsibilities, and a simple jog of the memory like this will probably sort out most of the problem.


 


jem said:


> Who inforces the "rule"?, what is the result of ignoring the rule?


I dunno. Who enforces the other non-legally binding rules of management companies? At the end of the day no one. You either agree to the rules and abide by them or you become involved in the management company yourself and change them.


----------



## jem (23 Jan 2007)

Howitzer said:


> Who enforces the other non-legally binding rules of management companies? At the end of the day no one. You either agree to the rules and abide by them or you become involved in the management company yourself and change them.


or the third option just ignore the management comm altogether.


----------



## CCOVICH (23 Jan 2007)

Howitzer said:
			
		

> Who enforces the other non-legally binding rules of management companies?


 
Management company rules will be outlined in the lease agreement (legally binding) signed by the purchaser of each apartment.  Unless this mentions that all apartments that are rented out must be registered with the PRTB, I don't see who this falls within their (directors of the management company) remit.


----------



## CCOVICH (23 Jan 2007)

jem said:


> or the third option just ignore the management comm altogether.


 

If you sign the leasehold agreement (with any new apartment) this isn't really an option.


----------



## Howitzer (23 Jan 2007)

CCOVICH said:


> Management company rules will be outlined in the lease agreement (legally binding) signed by the purchaser of each apartment. Unless this mentions that all apartments that are rented out must be registered with the PRTB, I don't see who this falls within their (directors of the management company) remit.


So you put it in the leasehold.



auto320 said:


> If you are on the management company committee, could you not introduce a ruling that all rented apartments should be on the register, and that anyone defaulting on that would then be reported? Many of the defaulters, I would suspect, have simply forgotten to do so or are unaware of their responsibilities, and a simple jog of the memory like this will probably sort out most of the problem.


This certainly isn't begrudgery. It's social responsibility.


----------



## CCOVICH (23 Jan 2007)

But can you change the leasehold after it has been signed? I wouldn't have thought so (at least not unilaterally)-we discussing an existing development.

And I haven't accused anyone of begrudgery-I have asked that sentiments like that be left aside. I don't have any opinion on whether reporting someone is right or wrong-I am just curious as to whether the management company can enforce rules that aren't in existence when the lease agreement is signed.


----------



## Vanilla (23 Jan 2007)

There could be a generic sort of clause in the original covenants in the Lease to obey such rules and regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by the mgt company?


----------



## goodtiming (23 Jan 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Registration with the _PRTB _is not a prerogative/choice - it is a legal obligation for most landlords. I'm not making a value judgement either way on the original issue but just wish to correct this mistaken assertion.


 

When I say it is the landlords prerogative I mean that it's his property and if he wishes to make full disclosure that should be up to him, otherwise you are "Big brother" deciding for us. Where do you draw the line on being an informer?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Jan 2007)

goodtiming said:


> When I say it is the landlords prerogative I mean that it's his property and if he wishes to make full disclosure that should be up to him, otherwise you are "Big brother" deciding for us. Where do you draw the line on being an informer?


Well I personally have no problem with the reporting tax evasion where it is known to be happening or where there are good grounds for suspecting that this is the case. I would consider this direct action against one of the real, rather than imagined, rip-offs that is not uncommon in our society. When it comes to some publicans legitimately charging €7 for a pint and some people evading their tax liabilities and thus placing a heavier burden on compliant taxpayers then I know which one I consider the real rip-off.


----------



## Dreamerb (24 Jan 2007)

Howitzer said:


> I said possibly abusing the tenants rights. If a tenancy is not registered with the PRTB their rights under Residential Tenancies Act 2004 are not protected.


For information only, this is (happily) not accurate. Tenants' rights are protected under the RTA 2004 irrespective of whether the landlord has properly registered the tenancy, and all tenants may bring disputes to the PRTB whether or not their landlords are registered. 

It is, however, a legal obligation on all landlords to register tenancies, and those who do not do so will, in the event of a dispute with their tenants, not only as a minimum be forced to register at the higher "late fee", but if that landlord, after receipt of a notice from the PRTB still does not register then he or she may be guilty of an offence under the Act and may be subject to a fine of up to €3,000, or up to six months' imprisonment, or both. And daily fines of €250 for such period as the offence continues. 

I do feel that enforcement should be the responsibility of the proper authorities, namely the PRTB and Revenue. In the case where one is in receipt of information within an official role, I don't think it appropriate to convey that information onward, purely because it is, effectively, privileged information. However, this is - obviously - a subjective opinion only, and I do not condone evasion by landlords of their legal responsibilities. 

In the circumstances outlined by the OP, if I were absolutely determined to take on the role of the relevant authorities and ensure that everyone came into compliance, I would recommend the issuing of a notice providing four to six weeks' grace period to enable delinquent landlords to come into compliance prior to onward provision of any information to the PRTB.


----------



## cinders (24 Jan 2007)

Would a '2-pronged' approach be useful here?  1 - remind all apt owners of the PTRB & their obligations if they are renting, & 2 - remind all occupiers of the rental reliefts that are available e.g. Rent Relief or TRS etc?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Jan 2007)

Good suggestion. I seem to recall our management company reminding landlord housholders of their responsibilities in relation to _PRTB _registration and other "house rules" that apply under the estate's management company lease/covenant. I don't know if they also sent anything to tenants about their entitlement to rent relief though.


----------



## additional (24 Jan 2007)

When does an "amatuer landlord" become a "professional landlord? Confused!


----------



## Dreamerb (24 Jan 2007)

additional said:


> When does an "amatuer landlord" become a "professional landlord? Confused!


I use the term "amateur landlord" to refer to people like myself who've bought investment properties, particularly in recent years, as a medium to long term investment, probably have not more than one or two properties, who don't rely on the income except to defray costs, and who may rely on some level of capital appreciation to determine their perceptions of asset return. 

There are, by contrast, quite a number of professional landlords, who have multiple properties, the profit rent from which they rely on as a major source of income, and many (though by no means all) of whom are fully au fait with their legal obligations and tax liability.

There's also sometimes a certain pejorative quality to referring to someone as an "amateur landlord" (though since I happily refer to myself as one, you may gather I don't necessarily share the prejudice); it comes from the fact that many such recent investors remain (blissfully / wilfully ?) unaware of their legal obligations, don't register with the PRTB, don't declare income, sometimes even resent enormously any necessary maintenance and repair costs, etcetera.

I'm being rather black and white about it, but that, at any rate, is what I tend to mean when making the distinction!


----------



## ClubMan (24 Jan 2007)

additional said:


> When does an "amatuer landlord" become a "professional landlord? Confused!


I think the latter means investor and the former means speculator.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Jan 2007)

That issue was mentioned earlier.


----------



## z107 (31 Jan 2007)

> When does an "amatuer landlord" become a "professional landlord? Confused!



An amature is someone that does something for the love of it, without pay. Like an amature footballer.
There probably aren't that many 'amatures' in this particular field. I can imagine the conversation in the pub: 
- "so bill, how's the golf going?"
- "great, got a birdie yesterday. My swing is really improving. How about your amature land-lording?"
- "Yeah, not too bad. I unblocked a drain last week..."


----------



## Marie (31 Jan 2007)

Dreamerb said:


> I use the term "amateur landlord" to refer to people like myself who've bought investment properties, particularly in recent years, as a medium to long term investment, probably have not more than one or two properties, who don't rely on the income except to defray costs, and who may rely on some level of capital appreciation to determine their perceptions of asset return.
> 
> There are, by contrast, quite a number of professional landlords, who have multiple properties, the profit rent from which they rely on as a major source of income, and many (though by no means all) of whom are fully au fait with their legal obligations and tax liability.
> 
> ...


 
It seems the Revenue are determined there will be more of a distinction from now on according to this from today's I.T.:-

_*Thousands of property owners could face fines or other penalties as a result of a Revenue clampdown on abuse of stamp duty relief. The Revenue exercise is targeting individuals availing of owner-occupier stamp duty relief who rent out their properties within five years of purchase.*_
_*The relief claimed is supposed to be paid back in such circumstances.*_
_*The Revenue is currently conducting a pilot project in the Dublin area involving a random sample of 1,000 transactions from 2003 where purchasers availed of full "owner- occupier" relief on new properties with a certified floor area of less than 125sq m.*_
_*This is due to be completed in March, when it could be extended to cover other areas of stamp duty relief, including a more specific focus on first-time buyer relief.*_
*The pilot project is understood to have already indicated a significant level of non-entitlement, with one conservative estimate placing this at "more than 10 per cent".*
_*....................*_
_*The Revenue has acted in response to concerns that individuals may be wrongly applying for the owner-occupier relief when purchasing a property. Instead of living there for the required five years from the date of execution of the deed on the property, they are renting it out without paying back the relief plus interest due - known as "claw-back" - as required by law.*_
_*The Revenue is anxious to encourage members of the public to contact it directly with any concerns they might have about owner-occupier relief they have been granted. By doing so they can also significantly mitigate the penalties which they may face.*_
_*However, at a minimum they will have to pay back the relief owed plus interest.*_
_*It is understood that a particular focus of the Revenue investigation will be on investors who may have used the relief as a springboard to put together a portfolio of properties - rather than as a means of owning and occupying their own home.*_
_*When the results of the completed pilot project have been analysed, the Revenue will decide whether to examine the wider field of owner-occupier exemption claims since 2000"*_


----------



## Dreamerb (1 Feb 2007)

I'm not surprised there's a significant level of non-compliance, though I suspect most of it is by neglect / making of lazy assumptions rather than deliberate fraud. For clarity, though, I'd like to point out that amateur (or speculator ) though I may be, my own tax affairs are definitely in order!


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2007)

Marie said:


> It seems the Revenue are determined there will be more of a distinction from now on according to this from today's I.T.:-


See here:

Revenue acts on abuse of stamp duty relief


----------



## money man (1 Feb 2007)

I have read in a few places in UK mortgage brokers/insurance brokers etc and ARLA where they define a professional landlord as one who owns and rents more than 10 properties. It doesnt seem very scientific to me but thats what i have read. I might look it up again and see can i find the reference.


----------



## Marie (1 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> See here:
> 
> Revenue acts on abuse of stamp duty relief


 
Thanks ClubMan - I hadn't noticed that thread!


----------

