Interesting article on Rent Receivers

Thanks for the interesting article.

Receivers claiming the right to receive rent from the tenant with none of the obligations that go with it (such as to make repairs) seems unlawful.

One of the purposes of courts is to iron out kinks in the law, because the written laws do not cover everything.

While the Residential Tenencies Act does not make it explicit, it seems to me to be basic application of the principles of justice and contract that when the property that a residential tenant is renting falls under receivership, the tenant's Part 4 rights are preserved.

In fact, it is absurd if this is not the case. Both rights and obligations go with the property, and it seems contrary to justice that the rent receiver is allowed to seize the benefits of the property without the obligations that go with it. To allow such a thing is to destrain an innocent tenant of a right he or she has obtained under law, while still burdening the tenant with related obligations, such as to pay rent. If it is even legal, it is constitutionally questionable.
 
amethyst said:
Receivers claiming the right to receive rent from the tenant with none of the obligations that go with it (such as to make repairs) seems unlawful.

.
Click to expand...

It's not unlawful. It's a mess.

What should have happened is that the Residential Tenancies Act should have a clause stating that where there is a receiver, he takes over the landlords obligations (in relation to deposit and repairs and notice)

My advice to tenants in this situation, before they pay one penny of rent to a receiver:

a) Get the receiver to confirm in writing that he will pay you back the deposit if he decides to evict you
b) Ditto for repairs, that he will carry out the repairs

And if you cannot get that, you then know what you are dealing with, then my advice is as follows:

a) Notify receiver or repairs needing to be done, if not done notify receiver that you will carry out the repair and deduct it from the rent
b) If you get notice, make sure it is valid, and go to Threshold or the PRTB
c) Don't pay the last months rent so you are not out of pocket.
 
Actually here's a thought, why doesn't Threshold lobby banks/receivers to make it a policy that receivers will act as a landlord should. That's the right thing to do after all.
 
Bronte said:
Actually here's a thought, why doesn't Threshold lobby banks/receivers to make it a policy that receivers will act as a landlord should. That's the right thing to do after all.
Click to expand...

Agree. The IBF should get the banks together to do something on this.

Brendan
 
I do agree that the law should be clarified as mentioned. But that does not mean the the current practice is lawful.

Bronte said: >> It's not unlawful. It's a mess.

Bronte, it's definitely a mess, but are you sure its 'not unlawful'?

Has this ever been tested in court?

When a receiver takes over an undertaking in general, does he get to enjoy the benefits of the undertaking in general without the obligations?

Can a receiver take over a shop, continue running running the shop, and have a practice of taking payment for goods, then refusing to give back the change? Can he take orders for delivery, then take payment for the orders, then refuse to deliver? How lawful would that be?

Presuming the above is unlawful then why is it lawful for him to take rent and refuse to do repairs?

I would be totally surprised if it is lawful. This may never have been well-argued against the receivers. Irish people tend to be easily bullied legally. High legal costs may be part of the problem. They don't seem to have a good sense of their rights. Reveivers would not get away with this in the USA.
 
amethyst said:
Bronte, it's definitely a mess, but are you sure its 'not unlawful'?

Has this ever been tested in court?

.
Click to expand...

Nobody is sure yet how lawful it is as as far as I know it's not been tested.

I'm not going down the route of busienss rules versus rentals on here.

I know some cases of rent receivers, it's become more common, very hard to find any actual real facts on it, and I also know of a case where the 'owner' managed to get rid of the receiver by being difficult to deal with, and threatening all sorts 'legally'.
 
Bronte said:
Nobody is sure yet how lawful it is as as far as I know it's not been tested.
.
Click to expand...

If a receiver did this to me I know what I would do. I would flatly refuse to pay the rent until the receiver undertakes to arrange the maintenance. (Of course, the receiver can easily do this by hiring an agent, they just do not want to give the agent his cut.)

I suspect the receiver is unlikely to try to evict. If he did, you get your day in court, and the receiver likely knows he is under thin ice under the law. So a receiver is likely to capitulate and pay the agent as he should.

>> I'm not going down the route of busienss rules versus rentals on here.

The distinction is I believe spurious -- landlording is a business and the commonality holding it all together is the law of contract. The principle on which I base my claim that the reciever is behaving illegaly is a very simple one--a receiver does not get to violate contract.

Taking your payment for goods and refusing to give you change -- violating contract.
Taking your orders and payment and refusing to deliver -- violating contract.
Taking your rent money and refusing to do maintenance -- violating contract.

Until enough tenants stand up to this unlawful and unethical bullying, the bullying will continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top