# Landlord wants me to pay him, although a Receiver has been appointed!



## boardmember (20 Jul 2014)

Hi, 

Just wondering what to do in this situation, I have been renting for the past three years and pay just over 1300 a month for a two bed muse in D6. The landlord has had trouble with his business which has a result has bankrupt him. 

Recently the landlord has told me that market rates for the house are 1800+ and he needed to up the rental payment. He wants me to pay an extra 250, which I think is a bit excessive, however I said I would consider. He is now telling me that this increase has to be paid in cash or to another bank account. I don't agree with this and have asked for it in writing.... I asked why it could not be paid with the existing standing order, and he said it was going direct to the bank who have taken all his assets.

Not sure what to do here...


----------



## Branz (20 Jul 2014)

Formula 1 fast!
If he is bankrupt as you say, then he seems to be trying to divert funds from the Official Assignee.

Have you independent verification that he is bust?

Is it a different bank?


----------



## boardmember (20 Jul 2014)

I am 100% certain, I got a letter from the receiver last year to say they were taking over rent and it was to be paid to them. 

Now he is asking me to pay 250 extra in cash or to a separate bank account. I don't like this as I will want to demonstrate consistent rent payment when I apply for a mortgage.. Any advice on this one?


----------



## Jim2007 (20 Jul 2014)

boardmember said:


> I am 100% certain, I got a letter from the receiver last year to say they were taking over rent and it was to be paid to them.
> 
> Now he is asking me to pay 250 extra in cash or to a separate bank account. I don't like this as I will want to demonstrate consistent rent payment when I apply for a mortgage.. Any advice on this one?



In that case it is very simple, show him the letter from the receiver and tell him that until you receive further instructions from the receiver that is how it is going to be.   But if he likes, you'll check with the receiver and see what they say.... that should put the wind up him.


----------



## Padraigb (20 Jul 2014)

What Jim said.

I don't know why you put a question mark at the end of your header. It's blindingly obvious that he is trying to divert funds from his creditors.


----------



## Branz (20 Jul 2014)

Padraigb said:


> What Jim said.
> 
> I don't know why you put a question mark at the end of your header. It's blindingly obvious that he is trying to divert funds from his creditors.


Warp speed fast yes, but the ? might help BB with any libel actions if it turned out to be that the LL was kosher 

OP: just to be pedantic: a letter from a receiver does not always mean he is bankrupt...he is in dire straits yes but not necessarily bkrupt
Could be just a rent receiver...


----------



## boardmember (20 Jul 2014)

Up until now I've had a professional relationship with him, in the 4 years we have never needed any assistance and maintained the property to an excellent standard. I just don't want to be put in a position where we get kicked out for not accepting to pay an increase, but the increase he is pushing on us is unlawful to fill his pockets (imo). 

I'm fairly sure he is in dire straights, in a conversation 4 months back he said that the bank pay him a very small living allowance.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jul 2014)

boardmember said:


> I am 100% certain, I got a letter from the receiver last year to say they were taking over rent and it was to be paid to them.




If a receiver has been validly appointed, you should be paying the rent to the receiver and not to the landlord. 

There is a real danger that the Receiver might come looking for the back rent from you since their appointment. 

Brendan


----------



## boardmember (20 Jul 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If a receiver has been validly appointed, you should be paying the rent to the receiver and not to the landlord.
> 
> There is a real danger that the Receiver might come looking for the back rent from you since their appointment.
> 
> Brendan



Hi Brendan, 

I have being paying to the receiver, its just he is looking to get an extra 250 and this to be paid in cash or a separate account..


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2014)

Hi boardmember

Are you saying that the Receiver is asking for a cash payment? 

Brendan


----------



## no_moolah (21 Jul 2014)

boardmember said:


> Up until now I've had a professional relationship with him, in the 4 years we have never needed any assistance and maintained the property to an excellent standard. I just don't want to be put in a position where we get kicked out for not accepting to pay an increase, but the increase he is pushing on us is unlawful to fill his pockets (imo).
> 
> I'm fairly sure he is in dire straights, in a conversation 4 months back he said that the bank pay him a very small living allowance.


 
I don't think the LL can kick you out if a Receiver is appointed. Surely that's up to the Receiver? As he takes over the receipt of rent and management of the property and if the bank decide to put the property on the market he will deal with that too.

When a Receiver was appointed to take over my property I had no dealings with it whatsoever from that point on. I didn't make any contact with the tenants - I'm pretty sure I wasn't allowed to.


----------



## boardmember (21 Jul 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi boardmember
> 
> Are you saying that the Receiver is asking for a cash payment?
> 
> Brendan



Nope the landlord is asking for a cash payment.. in addition to the money I am paying the receiver


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2014)

Hi boardmember

As no moolah points out, the former landlord is no longer your landlord.  Your landlord is now the receiver.  

So to answer your initial question, your former landlord is trying to pull a fast one.


----------



## 44brendan (21 Jul 2014)

Absolutely boardmember. When a receiver is appointed by a Bank all tenants are officially notified of this. Your former landlord is no longer the owner of the property and you should have no further dealings with him as per the letter from the receiver. Ignore any requests for rent increases or payments to the landlord as the receiver is now your landlord.


----------



## G7979 (21 Jul 2014)

Out of curiosity - have you had an official 28 days written notice of the rent increase as required? 

If not ask for it - including asking him to put your new payment arrangement in writing. 

If so forward it on to the receivers and ask for their views on the new payment arrangement and get their agreement to same.


I couldnt find a link on the PRTB site, but this will give you the idea - 

http://www.threshold.ie/advice/deal...your-tenancy/how-to-deal-with-rent-increases/


----------



## Padraigb (21 Jul 2014)

OP, if you bring this matter to the attention of the receiver, it might then occur to the receiver that a rent increase is warranted.

If, on the other hand, you ignore your *former* landlord's rquest, then nothing untoward might happen.


----------



## jdwex (21 Jul 2014)

44brendan said:


> Absolutely boardmember. When a receiver is appointed by a Bank all tenants are officially notified of this. Your former landlord is no longer the owner of the property and you should have no further dealings with him as per the letter from the receiver. Ignore any requests for rent increases or payments to the landlord as the receiver is now your landlord.



Sometimes a rent receiver is appointed, and the landlord is still the owner, though all rent is paid to the bank. It can lead to problems with repairs etc, and also with management companies if the property is an apartment, and there are service charge arrears.

Here is a document [broken link removed] (though it is from the banks POV)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2014)

jdwex said:


> Here is a document [broken link removed] (though it is from the banks POV)




Very interesting document jd.

Would you be able to write one from the tenant's point of view? 

Presumably the tenant has lost their deposit. If  a receiver is appointed, presumably the landlord doesn't have the money to pay the deposit. 

In practice how does the tenant protect themselves? By withholding a month's rent? 

What if the Receiver does not do the repairs? Should the tenant do them himself and withhold payment? 

Some tenants might see this as an opportunity to buy the premises. Can they make an offer to the Receiver?


----------

