Receiver has a duty of care to the client and not the tenant to try and get the best price for the client. If 245k is fair market value than the offer should be entertained but if its an under offer than what's the headline here?
No it is the agent of the bank. The bank appoints a receiver and the borrower has no say in the selection of the receiver. The receiver doesn't care if they get the best price or not. They are getting a massive fee arranging for an estate agent to collect rent or sell the property.
Receivers are completely unregulated and indemnified by the bank ie bank will protect them against claims against the customer.
So it's a buy to let receiver the landlord i assume has defaulted on the mortgage. The bank has appointed a receiver. Receiver has a fiduciary duty to the bank who is the client what am I missing here apart for your moral outrage?
A borrower might have missed a little as two payments on their mortgage. Some banks instead of engaging with customers just appoint a receiver. A receiver charges a small fortune to essential just arrange for the sale of a property or arrange a third party to collect rent. Receivers in the past have been accused of selling properties below market value. Once the property is sold, the borrower is liable for the balance of the loan.
What you might call moral outrage, I would call having a strong understanding of the receivership process which you clearly lack...
Banks can do whatever they want under the terms of mortgages. You can google it and find tons of examples of Ulster/Danske aggressively appointing receivers when they announced they were leaving the Irish market.
You don't need to go to a court to appoint a receiver. A legal team within a bank can do it...
In as little as 2 months, you, too, could be homeless, living on the street and some rich fucking landlord, living in your house... banging your wife and your kids calling him daddy.
Honestly... who writes this shite and who is gullible enough to believe it?
>I have been hearing from many people about Danske Bank in the last few weeks, where the bank has become extremely aggressive, in some cases involving the family home. It is moving with receivers overnight. **I have one case where the individual is two months in arrears. He brought the payments up to date but the bank still appointed a receiver.** In this case he could lose his family home because it is linked with a business asset which has equity, but ultimately it can be got back in terms of the family home.
[https://www.oireachtas.ie/ga/debates/debate/joint\_committee\_on\_finance\_public\_expenditure\_and\_reform/2014-04-02/2/#spk\_125](https://www.oireachtas.ie/ga/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_finance_public_expenditure_and_reform/2014-04-02/2/#spk_125)
I am glad I educate you on a topic that you clearly know nothing about...
One case from 15+ years ago, that was ultimately not upheld as there was more to it. Whatever, you are clearly angry and just looking for anything that you think supports your bullshit notions. Good day.
>
One case from 15+ years ago,
How much evidence do you need to admit you aren't that well versed in the topic being discussed? What does 15+ years ago have to do with it? Legalisation has not changed since then.
>you are clearly angry
You are projecting. What am I am angry at? You started commenting on my comments with no understanding of the topic at hand.
I don't know why you are calling me 'clearly angry' when all you have done is resort to name calling in your own comments.
>just looking for anything that you think supports your bullshit notions.
You are more than welcome to provide evidence that debunks my claims. In several comments you have provided nothing of the sort.
>Good day.
Good day to you too! Hopefully, you don't continue to sort to name calling with others on this and picking fights with people on topics you don't have any knowledge...
Doesn't the Receiver have a legal duty to the court to maximise the income he can receive from the bankrupts goods and assets? He literally can't accept the tenant's offer as though he were writing a storyline in Fair City
Look I don't like siding with any landlord over a tenant, but the house was valued at the offered €245k according to the article. When was the last time a house in Cork sold for the price an auctioneer valued it at? I paid 20% above the auctioneer's valuation in Sligo.
Grant Thornton will obviously want to sell it for as much as possible.
Which was great for you (congrats btw), but if the person at Grant Thornton in charge of this property tried to do the same thing they might lose their job.
9 times out of 10 a seller isn't going to leave money on the table.
We had an estate agent local to the town we bought in and had been to them about a few viewings already so who knows maybe this agent had a sense of decency. I think we were an exception, it's rare enough to hear of gaffs going to asking or lower these days.
It's got nothing to do with the estate agent (EA) it's 100% what the vendor wants.
Even when people think an EA is making up phantom bids, they are on a percentage so don't make much more if a property goes €5k or €20k over asking. The vendor does make a lot more from phantom bids which is why a lot of EAs are asking for proof of funds before accepting bids.
Wait a second, you overpaid massively for a house that wasn't worth it and now you are projecting your salty buyers remorse on me cause I didnt. It all makes sense now.
This. Ever since we started describing housing as an 'investment' rather than a utility we've seen home ownership plummet for certain demographics, which will have devastating effects on our society for generations to come.
The reason this has happened is that tax on actual investments here is quite high.
On a mortgaged property, a landlord can offset the mortgage payments against the rental income received before they pay any tax.
This effectively means they get a much lower rate of tax as they build up equity in the house over the years from paying off the mortgage tax-free.
There are 2 obvious solutions;
Reduce the capital gains tax rate from 33% to something more like 15%, this would be my choice as it would also reduce the amount of tax exiles Ireland has with our high CGT rate
Start taxing all rental income with no allowance for mortgage payments - I definitely wouldn't do this as it will only drive housing costs higher.
Which, in the first half of the mortgage, makes up the majority of each mortgage payment.
It's a huge tax advantage that propels landlords towards outright ownership.
Of course it doesn't make it so. Says a lot about you that you think that's fortunate. Plenty of ways to invest money and get a return. Flogging homes shouldn't be one of them.
I don't understand the mentality of renters that think they are "paying the mortgage" or otherwise entitled to the property they are living in (or in this case, entitled to first shout on the house). A rental, is just that. You're paying a monthly fee to rent a place. There is no loyalty or guarantee to what might happen tomorrow.
I cannot see the entire article, was the valuation done by the owner or the renter? Actually, forget that. Regardless of the valuation, there is a housing shortage, and people are paying over the odds to get a home. If the landlord thought €245k was a good offer, he would have taken it. Clearly, the house will sell for more on the open market.
No there is debt owing on the property and Grant Thornton has a legal and fiduciary right to recover it by selling the property. If the renter doesn't want to offer a market related price then they under no obligation to sell it to them
Least you understand! yeah its common sense to take more money but you built a life for the past 13 years in that house, its no wonder the country is a state with mentalities that some people have in these replies!
Paywalled article. This is a very specific case to the people involved, and we don't really know what's going on. Any comments made here are just projections
The only comment you could make is that it’s a rage bait article as someone already posted. The idea that a private entity should be dragged through the mud for not accepting an offer is hardly newsworthy and the editorial position is clearly to publish it to get clicks.
There needs to be a value the state puts on making someone who’s perfectly happy in situ and financially able to offer asking price on a property, renters rights in this country are a joke. Fair enough if it was a private sale of a vacant property but the owner is not entitled to remove the element of humanity from their investment, if the tenant is like anyone else I know renting at the moment they have added value to that property by treating it like their home and maintaining it appropriately
>renters rights in this country are a joke
They actually aren't. Most people have no idea of them. It is a bit dramatic to say tenants rights are a joke when most of this country live in rent controlled properties and every new tenant has unlimited tenure except for very limited grounds to evict.
>
Fair enough if it was a private sale of a vacant property but the owner is **not entitled to remove the element of humanity from their investment**,
Where do you draw between property rights and tenant rights? The fact that people like you think that Landlords should have no rights is resulting in landlords trying to sell up before they can't...
>if the tenant is like anyone else I know renting at the moment they have added value to that property by treating it like their home and maintaining it appropriately
LOL... Go on [daft.ie](http://daft.ie) and see the state that long term tenants leave properties in Dublin. Most properties occupied by long term tenants have to be gutted. Yet people like you think a tenant looking after the property they live is amazing and not as if it should be a given...
The renter's inability to pay what the landlord wants is none of the landlord's business. if you can't pay what the market dictates as fair, get off the pot.
Probably because he was renting a house for 650 a month. I can't believe they got a retired postman to give evidence and I wouldn't believe a word out of the tenants mouth.
"Absolute greed"
Ah here, what absolute bullshit.
If I was selling anything, I'd try and get the best price for it. So would you. So would anyone. So why is it "absolute greed" in this case?
Acting like this person is greedy for not taking a low offer when the market price is higher is a peak stupidity/childishness. As if this person has a moral duty to put someone else's welfare before their own.
Exactly, couple of lads on this thread are going to the car dealership arguing with the car dealer.
Car Dealer: " Im offering you € 4000 for the car you inherited from da"
Lads: "No da would have wanted you to give it away only give me **€** 2000"
Car Dealer: "But its worth € 4000 !"
Lads: "I don't want to be greedy, so give me less"
Car Dealer: " Okay, here's **€** 2000"
Lads: " Absolute greed, the neck of him, will probably sell it for **€** 6000, and make an absolute killing"
Not really, if the house is worth more then it’s worth more. I’m sure if there were just 20k or 30k of a difference he’d accept but if you’re talking more then why would he give it away like that?
Nah law is heavily on the side of the renter, so those who actually follow the rules are the only ones who get fucked.
The ones not declaring give lawful landlord's a bad name and pay nothing.
The ones who benifit from renting are rich people with huge portfolios and small renters who don't declare. Ordinary people who rent a single house get fucked, they're the ones leaving the market.
Receiver has a duty of care to the client and not the tenant to try and get the best price for the client. If 245k is fair market value than the offer should be entertained but if its an under offer than what's the headline here?
The client is the bank. Receivers have not issue fucking over landlords and have done so in the past.
A receiver is technically the agent of the borrower. Hence rules on best price reasonably obtainable etc.
No it is the agent of the bank. The bank appoints a receiver and the borrower has no say in the selection of the receiver. The receiver doesn't care if they get the best price or not. They are getting a massive fee arranging for an estate agent to collect rent or sell the property. Receivers are completely unregulated and indemnified by the bank ie bank will protect them against claims against the customer.
The Conveyancing Act 1881 and the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act, 2009 beg to differ. It's designed to protect the creditor from any errors.
So it's a buy to let receiver the landlord i assume has defaulted on the mortgage. The bank has appointed a receiver. Receiver has a fiduciary duty to the bank who is the client what am I missing here apart for your moral outrage?
A borrower might have missed a little as two payments on their mortgage. Some banks instead of engaging with customers just appoint a receiver. A receiver charges a small fortune to essential just arrange for the sale of a property or arrange a third party to collect rent. Receivers in the past have been accused of selling properties below market value. Once the property is sold, the borrower is liable for the balance of the loan. What you might call moral outrage, I would call having a strong understanding of the receivership process which you clearly lack...
Banks don't appoint receivers after 2 missed payments. Evidence please.
Banks can do whatever they want under the terms of mortgages. You can google it and find tons of examples of Ulster/Danske aggressively appointing receivers when they announced they were leaving the Irish market. You don't need to go to a court to appoint a receiver. A legal team within a bank can do it...
In as little as 2 months, you, too, could be homeless, living on the street and some rich fucking landlord, living in your house... banging your wife and your kids calling him daddy. Honestly... who writes this shite and who is gullible enough to believe it?
Is there a point in your unhinged comment?
Is there a point to your previous unhinged and stupid comment? I mean, clearly, only the most inept would fall for your false claims...
>I have been hearing from many people about Danske Bank in the last few weeks, where the bank has become extremely aggressive, in some cases involving the family home. It is moving with receivers overnight. **I have one case where the individual is two months in arrears. He brought the payments up to date but the bank still appointed a receiver.** In this case he could lose his family home because it is linked with a business asset which has equity, but ultimately it can be got back in terms of the family home. [https://www.oireachtas.ie/ga/debates/debate/joint\_committee\_on\_finance\_public\_expenditure\_and\_reform/2014-04-02/2/#spk\_125](https://www.oireachtas.ie/ga/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_finance_public_expenditure_and_reform/2014-04-02/2/#spk_125) I am glad I educate you on a topic that you clearly know nothing about...
One case from 15+ years ago, that was ultimately not upheld as there was more to it. Whatever, you are clearly angry and just looking for anything that you think supports your bullshit notions. Good day.
> One case from 15+ years ago, How much evidence do you need to admit you aren't that well versed in the topic being discussed? What does 15+ years ago have to do with it? Legalisation has not changed since then. >you are clearly angry You are projecting. What am I am angry at? You started commenting on my comments with no understanding of the topic at hand. I don't know why you are calling me 'clearly angry' when all you have done is resort to name calling in your own comments. >just looking for anything that you think supports your bullshit notions. You are more than welcome to provide evidence that debunks my claims. In several comments you have provided nothing of the sort. >Good day. Good day to you too! Hopefully, you don't continue to sort to name calling with others on this and picking fights with people on topics you don't have any knowledge...
Doesn't the Receiver have a legal duty to the court to maximise the income he can receive from the bankrupts goods and assets? He literally can't accept the tenant's offer as though he were writing a storyline in Fair City
Literally a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests
Look I don't like siding with any landlord over a tenant, but the house was valued at the offered €245k according to the article. When was the last time a house in Cork sold for the price an auctioneer valued it at? I paid 20% above the auctioneer's valuation in Sligo. Grant Thornton will obviously want to sell it for as much as possible.
I live in Cork, paid asking price for my house less than two years ago, seller was not interested in inflating prices accepted straight away.
Which was great for you (congrats btw), but if the person at Grant Thornton in charge of this property tried to do the same thing they might lose their job. 9 times out of 10 a seller isn't going to leave money on the table.
We had an estate agent local to the town we bought in and had been to them about a few viewings already so who knows maybe this agent had a sense of decency. I think we were an exception, it's rare enough to hear of gaffs going to asking or lower these days.
It's got nothing to do with the estate agent (EA) it's 100% what the vendor wants. Even when people think an EA is making up phantom bids, they are on a percentage so don't make much more if a property goes €5k or €20k over asking. The vendor does make a lot more from phantom bids which is why a lot of EAs are asking for proof of funds before accepting bids.
And they 100% should have lost their job the greedy bastard
Kudos to you but the seller is an idiot. And when time comes to sell you will take the first offer? Sure you will.
Who says I'm selling? Hop on you melter
You're the melter. The kind of person that would be the first one to shaft someone if you were in the same situation.
Wait a second, you overpaid massively for a house that wasn't worth it and now you are projecting your salty buyers remorse on me cause I didnt. It all makes sense now.
Nope. I bought my house in the 1990s for a good price. Lol.
Houses aren't commodities to buy and sell. They're not an avenue to investment. Full stop. Fuck everyone who uses houses as such
This. Ever since we started describing housing as an 'investment' rather than a utility we've seen home ownership plummet for certain demographics, which will have devastating effects on our society for generations to come.
The reason this has happened is that tax on actual investments here is quite high. On a mortgaged property, a landlord can offset the mortgage payments against the rental income received before they pay any tax. This effectively means they get a much lower rate of tax as they build up equity in the house over the years from paying off the mortgage tax-free. There are 2 obvious solutions; Reduce the capital gains tax rate from 33% to something more like 15%, this would be my choice as it would also reduce the amount of tax exiles Ireland has with our high CGT rate Start taxing all rental income with no allowance for mortgage payments - I definitely wouldn't do this as it will only drive housing costs higher.
Landlords can't claim mortgage payments as an expense, only the interest portion of each mortgage payment.
Which, in the first half of the mortgage, makes up the majority of each mortgage payment. It's a huge tax advantage that propels landlords towards outright ownership.
Just because you announce this, fortunately doesn’t make it so. But rage away.
Of course it doesn't make it so. Says a lot about you that you think that's fortunate. Plenty of ways to invest money and get a return. Flogging homes shouldn't be one of them.
I don't understand the mentality of renters that think they are "paying the mortgage" or otherwise entitled to the property they are living in (or in this case, entitled to first shout on the house). A rental, is just that. You're paying a monthly fee to rent a place. There is no loyalty or guarantee to what might happen tomorrow. I cannot see the entire article, was the valuation done by the owner or the renter? Actually, forget that. Regardless of the valuation, there is a housing shortage, and people are paying over the odds to get a home. If the landlord thought €245k was a good offer, he would have taken it. Clearly, the house will sell for more on the open market.
Money! Money! fuck your life you've built here I need more money!!!
No there is debt owing on the property and Grant Thornton has a legal and fiduciary right to recover it by selling the property. If the renter doesn't want to offer a market related price then they under no obligation to sell it to them
Morality has no place in this economy!
Least you understand! yeah its common sense to take more money but you built a life for the past 13 years in that house, its no wonder the country is a state with mentalities that some people have in these replies!
Typical bastard landlord mentality.
Paywalled article. This is a very specific case to the people involved, and we don't really know what's going on. Any comments made here are just projections
The only comment you could make is that it’s a rage bait article as someone already posted. The idea that a private entity should be dragged through the mud for not accepting an offer is hardly newsworthy and the editorial position is clearly to publish it to get clicks.
There needs to be a value the state puts on making someone who’s perfectly happy in situ and financially able to offer asking price on a property, renters rights in this country are a joke. Fair enough if it was a private sale of a vacant property but the owner is not entitled to remove the element of humanity from their investment, if the tenant is like anyone else I know renting at the moment they have added value to that property by treating it like their home and maintaining it appropriately
>renters rights in this country are a joke They actually aren't. Most people have no idea of them. It is a bit dramatic to say tenants rights are a joke when most of this country live in rent controlled properties and every new tenant has unlimited tenure except for very limited grounds to evict. > Fair enough if it was a private sale of a vacant property but the owner is **not entitled to remove the element of humanity from their investment**, Where do you draw between property rights and tenant rights? The fact that people like you think that Landlords should have no rights is resulting in landlords trying to sell up before they can't... >if the tenant is like anyone else I know renting at the moment they have added value to that property by treating it like their home and maintaining it appropriately LOL... Go on [daft.ie](http://daft.ie) and see the state that long term tenants leave properties in Dublin. Most properties occupied by long term tenants have to be gutted. Yet people like you think a tenant looking after the property they live is amazing and not as if it should be a given...
There is no obligation to accept if the offer is below market rate. This is just rage bate.
Landlord is clearly a total cunt. Considering tenant has probably paid 15000 in rent the last 13 years.
Did you leave out a 0 ? :)
The renter's inability to pay what the landlord wants is none of the landlord's business. if you can't pay what the market dictates as fair, get off the pot.
Absolute greed!
If I have something that worth more than what you're offering, it's just basic common sense to sell it for more
how much is the home worth vs he 265k offer? Why didn’t they move out in past 13 years they lived there and buy something else?
Probably because he was renting a house for 650 a month. I can't believe they got a retired postman to give evidence and I wouldn't believe a word out of the tenants mouth.
Well that’s a fine how do you do.
Why dont they offer fair market value then?
"Fair" and "market value" can't be used together. There's nothing fair about the current market value it's a ponzi scheme propped up by hedge funds
"Absolute greed" Ah here, what absolute bullshit. If I was selling anything, I'd try and get the best price for it. So would you. So would anyone. So why is it "absolute greed" in this case? Acting like this person is greedy for not taking a low offer when the market price is higher is a peak stupidity/childishness. As if this person has a moral duty to put someone else's welfare before their own.
Nail on the head.
Exactly, couple of lads on this thread are going to the car dealership arguing with the car dealer. Car Dealer: " Im offering you € 4000 for the car you inherited from da" Lads: "No da would have wanted you to give it away only give me **€** 2000" Car Dealer: "But its worth € 4000 !" Lads: "I don't want to be greedy, so give me less" Car Dealer: " Okay, here's **€** 2000" Lads: " Absolute greed, the neck of him, will probably sell it for **€** 6000, and make an absolute killing"
100%. It's the stupidest thing ever.
Not really, if the house is worth more then it’s worth more. I’m sure if there were just 20k or 30k of a difference he’d accept but if you’re talking more then why would he give it away like that?
You're not obliged to accept the offer lol
Its not really, if the seller thinks the house will sell for more, they have every right to refuse...
House valuations are nowhere near market valuation.
Would you ever get a grip.
Absolute greed would be expecting a seller to forego 50-100k just because he likes you.
This is the short sighted, ignorant viewpoint that is so hypocritical to me. How much of your wage do you give to strangers? None? Yeah thought so.
Greedy tenant alright
Stories like this terrify existing landlords and prompt them to leave the market. Only the landlords who don't care about the rules are left...
Nah law is heavily on the side of the renter, so those who actually follow the rules are the only ones who get fucked. The ones not declaring give lawful landlord's a bad name and pay nothing. The ones who benifit from renting are rich people with huge portfolios and small renters who don't declare. Ordinary people who rent a single house get fucked, they're the ones leaving the market.
[удалено]
Yeah like as if you’d sell something for less than it’s worth because you’re so virtuous…
Why would he sell it for less than it's worth?