tenant is child of landlord - receivership - rights of tenant?

P

peemac

Registered User
Messages
1,714
Long story short -

Landlord has had his loan bought by a fund. Fund has placed the property in receivership.

Landlord's adult child has been living in the property for over 8 years but paying a less than market rent (€500/month) and no official lease exists.


I'm assuming that even with no official lease, the tenant still has rights to same notice as any other tenant and as its in a rent pressure zone, rent cannot be increased more than 4% over the current €500?

There's a lot more to the loan, and LL is communicating with the receiver, but just wants to know rights of his "tenant" to take immediate pressure off.

On a separate but connected issue - rate in document is Prime One + 1.5% - is Prime One the Euribor rate?
 
peemac said:
On a separate but connected issue - rate in document is Prime One + 1.5% - is Prime One the Euribor rate?
Click to expand...

As I understand it. Prime is simply a rate the bank declares on which various interest rates the bank charges on its loans are based.

So for example prime might be set at 2%, then customers on Prime One would be paying Prime plus, for example, 0.5%, customers on Prime Two might be paying Prime plus 3%.

A banker will tell you that Prime is connected to the banks cost of funds, but I do not think that you can hold the bank to that. They can in effect declare prime at any rate they like.
 
Is the tenancy registered and the income fully declared / tax up to date?

Some of the guidance in this recent thread may apply.
 
T McGibney said:
The RTB material quoted here suggests that there's no need to register.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I get the sense the landlord in question here is hoping that the protections of tenancy and RPZ rent increase limit rules apply so as the thwart the efforts of the receiver.

My uneducated assumption is they cannot rely on these protections where the tenancy is unregistered and the unit is occupied by a direct family member.
 
Leo said:
Agreed, I get the sense the landlord in question here is hoping that the protections of tenancy and RPZ rent increase limit rules apply so as the thwart the efforts of the receiver.

My uneducated assumption is they cannot rely on these protections where the tenancy is unregistered and the unit is occupied by a direct family member.
Click to expand...
There was a court case in the last month or so. The ex wife purged her contempt, and was allowed get out of jail as she agreed to vacate the property (one she had moved into as they owned a few). But the receiver/bank were worried that her children, in the house, would hten have some rights. But the court said the order against her applied to the children. That's the gist of the case I read.
 
Thanks for the replies.

There's no thwarting involved, just they want to know if they have 8 months to plan a move or 2-3 months.

They are communicating with receiver, but knowing that they possibly have an entitlement to normal notice would take some stress away
 
Bronte said:
There was a court case in the last month or so. The ex wife purged her contempt, and was allowed get out of jail as she agreed to vacate the property (one she had moved into as they owned a few). But the receiver/bank were worried that her children, in the house, would hten have some rights. But the court said the order against her applied to the children. That's the gist of the case I read.
Click to expand...
I remember that case, but the court had already granted possession and I think she tried to claim it was a family home and had not previously lived in it.
 
Thank you Leo that's the one:

Lawyers for the receiver had expressed their concerns about the undertakings as they did not refer to the woman's two teenage children.

The court heard the children remained in the property while she was in prison where they are being looked after by a friend of their father, the woman's estranged husband.

Mr Justice Quinn said he was satisfied the woman had purged her contempt and she was released from custody. The Judge accepted the undertakings meant the woman and her children must vacate the property.
 
peemac said:
I remember that case, but the court had already granted possession and I think she tried to claim it was a family home and had not previously lived in it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem directly comparable. But in this case you mention is the child really a tenant or a licensee. That would be decided I guess based on whether one can prove it's a real tenancy. Registration with the RTB would be of relevance I would have thought. Plus declaration of rent to revenue. Plus rent near market rent, not at a vastly lower rate. Leaving a child in a property with low or zero rent with no declaration of rent ot revenue would not strike me as a tenancy.

If the child has resided there for 8 years it's certainly the adult child's home. But maybe not a tenancy with all the rights that flow from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top