evicting an unregistered tenant

[Dermot]

You give them the 90 plus days notice in writing and give them 3 examples of rent in writing for similar properties in the area which have been advertised in the month prior to you giving the notice. The same as you would do in a normal situation where you have a tenant in a property.

 

[galway_blow_in]

You give them the 90 plus days notice in writing and give them 3 examples of rent in writing for similar properties in the area which have been advertised in the month prior to you giving the notice. The same as you would do in a normal situation where you have a tenant in a property.

Something wrong with that advice, so what rent do i say is in place when I register the tenancy with the RTB?, even outside a RPZ, you can only do a rent review every two years.

Are you suggesting i collect no rent for three months?, i thought a rent review happens within the context of an existing rent arrangement?

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

Say I register a tenancy from the middle of January 2020 or thereabouts, I have the tenants details ( pps etc), can I simply include the new revised higher rent when I am registering the tenancy?

I presume so.

do I need agreement in writing from the tenant prior to registering a new - higher rent?

It's a good idea to have a rental contract, but technically not.

Do I need proof of receipt of payment in order to register the rent amount?

No.

Are you suggesting i collect no rent for three months?, i thought a rent review happens within the context of an existing rent arrangement?

Assume there is no existing rental arrangement. There is no written record of one ever existing. They have not paid rent for a year according to themselves. Just tell them that you are the new landlord and you would like them to sign a contract on market terms.

 

[galway_blow_in]

I presume so.



It's a good idea to have a rental contract, but technically not.



No.



Assume there is no existing rental arrangement. There is no written record of one ever existing. They have not paid rent for a year according to themselves. Just tell them that you are the new landlord and you would like them to sign a contract on market terms.

While i can't know for sure until i bring it up, if the tenants are opposed to a market rent, at least if i register the rent at the same time as commencing a tenancy, I've shielded the property from future government meddling, I. E a base has been set.

One thing that bothers me however, were I to end up with the occupants at a RTB hearing either by way of a tenancy termination or whatever, if the tenants produce utility bills from the past number of years, my commencing the tenancy in January 2020 will potentially make me look like a liar?

Tenants have less rights in the first six months, part 4 tenancy rights don't kick in until that point

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

One thing that bothers me however, were I to end up with the occupants at a RTB hearing either by way of a tenancy termination or whatever, if the tenants produce utility bills from the past number of years, my commencing the tenancy in January 2020 will potentially make me look like a liar?

The tenants would first have to prove the the RTB that a tenancy existed. You could argue that they were there as guests of the previous owner and it would be their word against yours to prove that an oral agreement which constituted a tenancy even existed. In their favour they would have utility bills but I don't know how the RTB would view it. You can search judgements on the RTB website using keywords to see if there is any similar situation.

Possession is very powerful and if they don't want to engage then you could be stuck for a year or more rent-free with the quality of the house decaying. Try and talk to a solicitor with expertise in the area before you go back to the tenants. My guess is that cash in hand could be quite powerful in getting occupants to act, and in the end cheaper than the legal route. Once they're gone you'll be able to set up a new tenancy at market rate without any problem.

Anyway I think you have to clearly define your objectives before you embark on a course of action. You seem a bit unclear as to whether you want to keep them there, renovate, or get new tenants in.

 

[galway_blow_in]

The tenants would first have to prove the the RTB that a tenancy existed. You could argue that they were there as guests of the previous owner and it would be their word against yours to prove that an oral agreement which constituted a tenancy even existed. In their favour they would have utility bills but I don't know how the RTB would view it. You can search judgements on the RTB website using keywords to see if there is any similar situation.

Possession is very powerful and if they don't want to engage then you could be stuck for a year or more rent-free with the quality of the house decaying. Try and talk to a solicitor with expertise in the area before you go back to the tenants. My guess is that cash in hand could be quite powerful in getting occupants to act, and in the end cheaper than the legal route. Once they're gone you'll be able to set up a new tenancy at market rate without any problem.

Anyway I think you have to clearly define your objectives before you embark on a course of action. You seem a bit unclear as to whether you want to keep them there, renovate, or get new tenants in.

According to literature I've read, The tenants rights are in no way diminished by the fact that there was no RTB registration

I'd be reluctant to suggest these people were guests, wouldn't want to stray too close to squatters rights territory

I will certainly need to engage with a solicitor who specialises in tenancy law, the difference in opinion on this matter is pretty stark

 

[cremeegg]

I will certainly need to engage with a solicitor who specialises in tenancy law, the difference in opinion on this matter is pretty stark

You bought a house with sitting tenants, only for the brave, but potentially lucrative. Now you are behaving like a nervous schoolgirl.

Tell the tenants the new rent, register the tenancy with the RTB, and don't go looking for trouble.

Tell the tenants the new rent. Having done a rental review in line with the RTB rules, and having told the tenants that you will be charging the market rent.

 

[galway_blow_in]

You bought a house with sitting tenants, only for the brave, but potentially lucrative. Now you are behaving like a nervous schoolgirl.

Tell the tenants the new rent, register the tenancy with the RTB, and don't go looking for trouble.

Tell the tenants the new rent. Having done a rental review in line with the RTB rules, and having told the tenants that you will be charging the market rent.

Thanks cremegg, hearing a tonne of conflicting views, hence the degree of uncertainty

One individual told me that if the occupants had a "no fixed term" lease with the original landlord, i inherit all those conditions and can never increase the rent above where it was

The guy i dealt with the other night told me he was paying 500 euro per month until the receivers moved in but that the landlord covered the electricity and gas bills, obviously that would be a disaster if such an obligation transferred to me and was set in stone

 

[Dermot]

If you comply with the RTB rules re notification etc and the rent is in line with the local rates for similar properties the tenants can move on if they do not like your increase and you can move on with your life. You are not in a RPZ

 

[galway_blow_in]

If you comply with the RTB rules re notification etc and the rent is in line with the local rates for similar properties the tenants can move on if they do not like your increase and you can move on with your life. You are not in a RPZ

Dermot, all that is clear to me, I've done rent reviews before on property, however I'm referring to a situation where there may exist a "no fixed term" lease

 

[Dermot]

Sorry I have to plead ignorance as I never heard of a"no fixed term lease". Could you please explain what it means to me.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

According to literature I've read, The tenants rights are in no way diminished by the fact that there was no RTB registration

Indeed. But the tenants will struggle to prove that a tenancy ever existed! They would likely need the oral evidence of the former landlord, but this doesn't seem likely to be forthcoming.

I'd be reluctant to suggest these people were guests, wouldn't want to stray too close to squatters rights territory

Squatters' rights don't come into play until 12 years, and they are nowhere near that from what you say.


As @cremeegg writes you are engaged in a high-risk, high-reward activity. You may have to contemplate cash up front at some point to get them to move on. But this would wipe the slate totally clean.

 

[galway_blow_in]

Sorry I have to plead ignorance as I never heard of a"no fixed term lease". Could you please explain what it means to me.

check this out

Buying A Property With Tenants In Situ / Terminations - Irish Property Owners' Association

Landlord Query Of The Week: This Week - Buying A Property With Tennats In Situ, Can I Terminate? ......... Read More For Practical Help For Landlords

ipoa.ie

 

[galway_blow_in]

Indeed. But the tenants will struggle to prove that a tenancy ever existed! They would likely need the oral evidence of the former landlord, but this doesn't seem likely to be forthcoming.




Squatters' rights don't come into play until 12 years, and they are nowhere near that from what you say.


As @cremeegg writes you are engaged in a high-risk, high-reward activity. You may have to contemplate cash up front at some point to get them to move on. But this would wipe the slate totally clean.

coyottee , having to offer cash to them is not something i have any issue with at all but what ive read and been told in the past few hours today shocked me

if the previous landlord ( now bankrupt ) has attempted to poison the well by drawing up a lease which is toxic to any future owner of the property , i would be bound to those conditions infinitely , the tenant told me the other night that he was paying 500 euro per month ( until the original landlord lost the place ) but that the landlord was paying for the electricity and the gas , were i bound to those conditions indefinately , then this would be an unmitigated disaster

the property was sold as having a tenancy under conditions unknown , it never occurred to me or my solicitor that it could have something like that landmine hidden , now i dont know if this is the case at all but i was told in no uncertain terms by someone today that a " no fixed term agreement " can give extrordinary protections to tenants if drawn up accordingly , that theoretically , i would be bound to any sort of onerous conditions permanently and with no recourse to change them , the tenant would effectively have ownership of the place

 

[Leo]

Squatters' rights don't come into play until 12 years, and they are nowhere near that from what you say.

True, plus they'd also have to prove they were there without the permission of the owner.

 

[Leo]

but i was told in no uncertain terms by someone today that a " no fixed term agreement " can give extrordinary protections to tenants if drawn up accordingly , that theoretically , i would be bound to any sort of onerous conditions permanently and with no recourse to change them , the tenant would effectively have ownership of the place

I think that person got it the wrong way round, it's fixed term leases that can't normally be ended during the duration of the term. In domestic tenancy terms, the vast majority of leases aren't fixed term leases and the RTB guidance on termination applies.

 

[galway_blow_in]

I think that person got it the wrong way round, it's fixed term leases that can't normally be ended during the duration of the term. In domestic tenancy terms, the vast majority of leases aren't fixed term leases and the RTB guidance on termination applies.

were i not to elect to terminate the lease , would a " no fixed term " lease arrangement as entered into by the previous landlord , prevent me from doing a rent review if i chose to stick with the current occupants ?

i dont know if the tenant has a lease of any kind in writing but say he does possess a " no fixed term " lease and the previous landlord ( aware he was about to loose his place to the bank ) sought to poison the well for any future investors , could any extremely negative conditions carry over to a new owner and thus tie them indefinately to a bad deal ?

i was told that its conceivable that a bitter landlord faced with repossession , could draw up a toxic lease that to any future owner of their property would be utterly disastrous and impossible to escape from ?

 

[Leo]

were i not to elect to terminate the lease , would a " no fixed term " lease arrangement as entered into by the previous landlord , prevent me from doing a rent review if i chose to stick with the current occupants ?

No, so long as you follow the guidelines set by the RTB around notice, etc.

...but say he does possess a " no fixed term " lease and the previous landlord ( aware he was about to loose his place to the bank ) sought to poison the well for any future investors , could any extremely negative conditions carry over to a new owner and thus tie them indefinately to a bad deal ?

I think the worst thing a departing landlord could do would be to offer them a very long fixed-term lease at low rent. Even then, it may be possible to challenge that via the RTB/ courts.

Sitting tenants are entitled to a continuation of the lease terms, but if they are not voluntarily providing you with a copy of those terms now, it'd be difficult for them to later try to enforce those terms. As others have said, a solicitor expert in this area will advise best, but might be good to get the tenants to confirm in writing that no such lease exists.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

You're afraid of some hypothetical poisonous lease:

i was told that its conceivable that a bitter landlord faced with repossession , could draw up a toxic lease that to any future owner of their property would be utterly disastrous and impossible to escape from ?

But last week you said you spoke to the tenant and you made no mention of any written lease agreement even existing.

Two Polish guys living in the apartment since 2013. Terrible English but fine otherwise, they were paying the previous landlord cash in hand and then stopped paying for a year when receiver moved in.

Is there something you are not telling us? Or are you just being paranoid?

 

[galway_blow_in]

You're afraid of some hypothetical poisonous lease:



But last week you said you spoke to the tenant and you made no mention of any written lease agreement even existing.




Is there something you are not telling us? Or are you just being paranoid?

You're afraid of some hypothetical poisonous lease:



But last week you said you spoke to the tenant and you made no mention of any written lease agreement even existing.




Is there something you are not telling us? Or are you just being paranoid?

Speculation is not healthy for the mind, I'll stop doing so until i know more, the tenant didn't say they had a lease at all but the terms ( landlord paying for utilities) they claimed they had with old landlord were unattractive, doesn't prevent a rent review but i might have to cover utilities for the remainder of their tenancy. Would need to raise rent enough to offset

I didn't really think that unfavourable conditions like those would be agreed upon by any landlord but times were bad in 2013 and perhaps the LL needed to do it

I'm not going to post on the subject again for a while as it's taken it's toll on me, i know I'm viewed as eccentric at best round here but I want to wish everyone a happy Christmas, this forum is full of sharp minds.

I really should listen to their philosophies of life and business more

Happy New year