Tenant Using Drugs in Rental Accommodation

randomer

This is a theoretical question, and I am not seeking any legal advice.

If a tenant is found to be smoking cannabis in a rented bed sit, can they be evicted because of this?

I was reading the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and it makes mention of anti social behaviour as a reason for eviction. Does this come under that heading? If they were in a communal area I would say this could be classified as anti social behaviour, but in their own private area?

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Thanks,
Randomer

grumpytrousers

randomer wrote:

This is a theoretical question, and I am not seeking any legal advice.

If a tenant is found to be smoking cannabis in a rented bed sit, can they be evicted because of this?

I was reading the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and it makes mention of anti social behaviour as a reason for eviction. Does this come under that heading? If they were in a communal area I would say this could be classified as anti social behaviour, but in their own private area?

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Thanks,
Randomer

well, since you don't ask for legal advice, i'll just make a few observations.

a) i'd be awfully surprised if a tenant allowed a landlord - i.e. opened the door to him, while he had a joint lit up. I'd also be very surprised if the landlord just let himself in for a nose around (whether tenant in or not) without the prior consent of the tenant. Tenants would tend to be entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the premises without a landlord turning up out of the blue every so often.
b) one would tend to think that there needs to be more than one person present for behaviour to be anti-social. Behaviour might well be distasteful or something, and you may not approve on a 'moral' level, but the smoking of a joint on ones own isn't really anti-social. No more than scratching your balls is rude if you're on your own. If you get my drift. If a tenant was found to be having a party where there was wholesale cannibis consumption going on, that might be seen to be anti-social taken to its most extreme...

have a think...

Stark

No more so than pirating MP3s being a grounds for eviction I'd imagine

RaiseTheBlinds

gosh,.... Rathmines/ Ranelagh would be like a ghost town if all the pot smokers had to leave their flats !!

sounds like you have a troublesome neighbour that you like rid of ?????

Our man in Havana

I reckon that the eviction would be lawful as the tenant is engaged in illegal activity. If I was a landlord I would not want a drug user as a tenant.

seamus

grumpytrousers wrote:

a) i'd be awfully surprised if a tenant allowed a landlord - i.e. opened the door to him, while he had a joint lit up. I'd also be very surprised if the landlord just let himself in for a nose around (whether tenant in or not) without the prior consent of the tenant. Tenants would tend to be entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the premises without a landlord turning up out of the blue every so often.

Landlords are actually not permitted to enter without the consent of the tenant.

b) one would tend to think that there needs to be more than one person present for behaviour to be anti-social. Behaviour might well be distasteful or something, and you may not approve on a 'moral' level, but the smoking of a joint on ones own isn't really anti-social. No more than scratching your balls is rude if you're on your own. If you get my drift. If a tenant was found to be having a party where there was wholesale cannibis consumption going on, that might be seen to be anti-social taken to its most extreme...

Well, anti-social is beautifully vague. "Contrary to the norms of society" I guess would be the closest. So playing loud music, drilling holes at 4am, dropping cigarette butts on your neighbour's balcony, etc, could all be seen as anti-social behaviour. Taking illegal drugs is generally considered to be "anti-social", but as Bond points out you could easily evict someone on the basis of them conducting illegal activities on your property.

randomer

seamus wrote:

Landlords are actually not permitted to enter without the consent of the tenant.
Well, anti-social is beautifully vague. "Contrary to the norms of society" I guess would be the closest. So playing loud music, drilling holes at 4am, dropping cigarette butts on your neighbour's balcony, etc, could all be seen as anti-social behaviour. Taking illegal drugs is generally considered to be "anti-social", but as Bond points out you could easily evict someone on the basis of them conducting illegal activities on your property.

Could you really evict someone because they are breaking the law? Under what circumstances, and what law?

Using illegal drugs would in my opinion constitute anti-social behaviour, but not according to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

According to the act, anti-social behaviour is defined as:

‘‘behave in a way that is anti-social’’ means—
(a) engage in behaviour that constitutes the commission of an offence, being an offence the commission of which is reasonably likely to affect directly the well-being or welfare of others,
(b) engage in behaviour that causes or could cause fear, danger, injury, damage or loss to any person living, working or otherwise lawfully in the dwelling concerned or its vicinity and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes violence, intimidation, coercion, harassment or obstruction of, or threats to, any such person, or
(c) engage, persistently, in behaviour that prevents or interferes with the peaceful occupation—
(i) by any other person residing in the dwelling concerned, of that dwelling,
(ii) by any person residing in any other dwelling contained in the property containing the dwelling concerned, of that other dwelling, or
(iii) by any person residing in a dwelling (‘‘neighbourhood dwelling’’) in the vicinity of the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling concerned, of that neighbourhood dwelling.

randomer

RaiseTheBlinds wrote:

sounds like you have a troublesome neighbour that you like rid of ?????

No, this is really a theoretical/educational question.

cast_iron

A little story:
I know of a landlord who knew a tenant of his was smoking illegal drugs. He went in himself when she was out (illegal, i know), took some evidence of her breaking the law, then confronted her and and told her move out or he would go to the Gardai.
She moved. Problem solved.

seamus

randomer wrote:

Could you really evict someone because they are breaking the law? Under what circumstances, and what law?

Well, landlords have pretty much the right to evict tenants whenever they want, save where a fixed-term lease agreement has been signed. The landlord can give one months' notice without reason. If it's believed that the tenant threatens the safety of the landlord's property, he can evict with little or no notice.

A lot of it would depend on the lease agreement. If a landlord discovered that his property was being used to sell drugs, handle stolen property, hack bank accounts, etc etc, then I can't see why he couldn't evict the tenant. At best, the tenant could sue for breach of contract. However, the landlord would have very valid grounds to say that the tenant was in breach of the contract. Again, depending on the nature of the lease.

The law doesn't give you an entitlement to stay in a property, and doesn't require reasonable grounds for eviction, except in certain specific circumstances.

randomer

seamus wrote:

Well, landlords have pretty much the right to evict tenants whenever they want, save where a fixed-term lease agreement has been signed. The landlord can give one months' notice without reason. If it's believed that the tenant threatens the safety of the landlord's property, he can evict with little or no notice.

What happens if a fixed term lease agreement is signed? Is there any way to terminate the lease early?

seamus

randomer wrote:

What happens if a fixed term lease agreement is signed? Is there any way to terminate the lease early?

Yes. If the terms of the lease have been breached by the tenant or landlord, or if there is a specific part of the lease agreement, providing conditions for termination of the lease. It would all depend on what the lease says.

It would appear that a lot was changed in 2004, so a lot of what I've said above isn't technically correct. For clarification:

Unfixed Tenancies run in four-year cycles. When a person rents a property, they have a six-month probationary period, during which the landlord may terminate the tenancy with a month's notice, and without reason. After this six months, the landlord and tenant are "locked" into what is essentially a 3.5 year lease agreement. The tenant can only be evicted under specific circumstances in this 3.5 year period, and the required notice increases throughout the time. After 3.5 years, the tenant can be evicted, or another 4-year cycle starts again.

gonk

seamus wrote:

It would appear that a lot was changed in 2004, so a lot of what I've said above isn't technically correct. For clarification:

Unfixed Tenancies run in four-year cycles.

All tenancies run in four year cycles. No matter what a lease says about a fixed term, the provisions of the 2004 law cannot be contracted out of.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Could it be argued that by knowingly renting a premesis to a person engaged in illegal activity that the landlord themselves are complicit and failing in their civic duty?

seamus

sean_keevey wrote:

Could it be argued that by knowingly renting a premesis to a person engaged in illegal activity that the landlord themselves are complicit and failing in their civid duty?

I'd agree with that. Theoretically, a landlord who chose to "turn a blind eye" could have charges brought against him/her.

gonk you're 100% right. I think I need to go off and read through the 2004 act

Does anyone know if a landlord has any liability where illegal activity is taking place on his property without his knowledge? If, for example, someone is dealing out of the flat, but the landlord is totally in the dark about it, can charges be brought against the landlord when the dealer is arrested?

randomer

seamus wrote:

I'd agree with that. Theoretically, a landlord who chose to "turn a blind eye" could have charges brought against him/her.

gonk you're 100% right. I think I need to go off and read through the 2004 act

Does anyone know if a landlord has any liability where illegal activity is taking place on his property without his knowledge? If, for example, someone is dealing out of the flat, but the landlord is totally in the dark about it, can charges be brought against the landlord when the dealer is arrested?

What about the privacy of the person renting the accomodation? They are in a self contained unit. If the landlord found out through illegitimate means, is the evidence admisable? (I may have been watching too many american legal shows!!!)

seamus

randomer wrote:

What about the privacy of the person renting the accomodation? They are in a self contained unit. If the landlord found out through illegitimate means, is the evidence admisable? (I may have been watching too many american legal shows!!!)

Did you start the thread a few months back about this?

It has been brought up before (the example sited was "What if a security camera was inadvertantly looking into my apartment").

If it's an actual issue, you'd need to speak to a solicitor. In theory, the evidence would only be inadmissable if it was unlawfully obtained (e.g. entering the premises without consent). If it was incidental - take a far out example of a TV show surprising you at your door, you let them in, and your paraphenalia is everywhere, and clearly visible on the TV - then you're pretty much screwed.

randomer

seamus wrote:

Did you start the thread a few months back about this?

No, this really is theoretical. I am doing a legal studies course and I wrote a paper on this a few weeks ago. I wanted to try to see if I was accurate or not.

I was a bit off on the four year cycle. I thought that could be over turned by a fixed term contract.

Thanks for all the help by the way!

grumpytrousers

seamus wrote:

I'd agree with that. Theoretically, a landlord who chose to "turn a blind eye" could have charges brought against him/her.

gonk you're 100% right. I think I need to go off and read through the 2004 act

Does anyone know if a landlord has any liability where illegal activity is taking place on his property without his knowledge? If, for example, someone is dealing out of the flat, but the landlord is totally in the dark about it, can charges be brought against the landlord when the dealer is arrested?

Fundamental principle of criminal law is that there tends to be a need for an actual act (or ommission of an act) AND a mental element, that you know what you're doing, for there to be an offence committed. Obviously there are exceptions...

It's not feasable in a lot of situations for a person who provides a service (or in this case accomodation) to find out before they engage in the transaction whether the person will use the effect of the transaction for nefarious purposes.

i mean, if i flag down a taxi and i've got a holdall, has the driver the right to ask me to open the bag, just in case it contains valuable loot and he doesn't want to be an accessory to the crime?

On the other hand, if i get into his cab, my phone rings, i answer it and say 'yeah mickser, I've got the stolen jewels you can release the family now', then the taxi driver - if he doesnt' turn me in - could find himself in a world of trouble!

similarly with the Landlord; if the tenant in Seamus' situation tends to keep a tidy house and there seems to be no reason for suspicion, then that's it. Now, the interesting kinda thing would be, say, the landlord just happened to be driving past the house he was renting out and noticed a load of undesirables hanging around what looks like an opium den, then he might be tipped off accidentally, and at *that* point, if he says nothing, he might be in trouble. In other words, regarding the neighbours and the opium den, they have merely a 'civic' duty to report the comings and goings; the landlord might be in a different position entirely. At that point he should attempt to seek entry and take matters from there!

Overheal

What if your lease specifies:

a) No smoking inside the apartment

b) No illegal activity, possession, profit-making etc.

c) The landlord has the right to enter the premesis without prior consent

is these valid terms of lease then???

seamus

Overheal wrote:

What if your lease specifies:

a) No smoking inside the apartment

b) No illegal activity, possession, profit-making etc.

c) The landlord has the right to enter the premesis without prior consent

is these valid terms of lease then???

You can't sign away your legal rights in a lease. So (c) wouldn't apply, because a landlord can never enter without prior permission.
(a) may also not apply - seeing as it's your private home, then IMO you have the right to carry out such legal activities. Maybe not though.

gonk

seamus wrote:

(a) [smoking] may also not apply - seeing as it's your private home, then IMO you have the right to carry out such legal activities. Maybe not though.

Many leases exclude activities which are legal, e.g. keeping pets, hanging washing from windows, etc. If these can be valid terms in a lease I don't see why a smoking ban couldn't also be. After all, smoking can cause damage through staining, smells etc. and definitely creates a much increased fire risk.

How a landlord could enforce the ban is, of course, another matter.

Overheal

Thanks for the input Seamus and Gonk

Thomas_S_Hunterson

seamus wrote:

You can't sign away your legal rights in a lease. So (c) wouldn't apply, because a landlord can never enter without prior permission.
(a) may also not apply - seeing as it's your private home, then IMO you have the right to carry out such legal activities. Maybe not though.

As far as i know you can sign away your legal rights, but you can not sign away your rights relating to criminal matters as they are not yours to give away and are owned exclusively by the state;)

So therefore, you can sign away your rights to keep pets.

Jocksy

I know of a landlord who knew a tenant of his was smoking illegal drugs. He went in himself when she was out (illegal, i know), took some evidence of her breaking the law, then confronted her and and told her move out or he would go to the Gardai.
She moved. Problem solved.

What a scumbag.
So not only is he breaking the terms of the lease but he is also blackmailing a tenant. I'd love if some landlord tried to pull that one on me as I for one wouldnt be moving out.

Overheal

Aye: but would getting compensation for blackmail and breach of privacy outweigh a conviction of possession??

HelterSkelter

Bond-007 wrote:

I reckon that the eviction would be lawful as the tenant is engaged in illegal activity. If I was a landlord I would not want a drug user as a tenant.

Does that include the most abused drugs in this country, alcohol?

seamus

sean_keevey wrote:

As far as i know you can sign away your legal rights, but you can not sign away your rights relating to criminal matters as they are not yours to give away and are owned exclusively by the state;)

So therefore, you can sign away your rights to keep pets.

Nope, where the law sets out legal rights, minimum or otherwise, you cannot sign any contract which allows your employer to violate these rights.

So for example, you have the right to a safe working environment. You therefore cannot sign a contract saying, "I will work in a rat-infested sewage pit, fed from the toilets of a leprosy colony.". Well, you can sign it, but your employer cannot enforce it.

You do not have any specific right to keep pets, therefore you may indeed sign a contract prohibiting you from keeping pets.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

seamus wrote:

Nope, where the law sets out legal rights, minimum or otherwise, you cannot sign any contract which allows your employer to violate these rights.

So for example, you have the right to a safe working environment. You therefore cannot sign a contract saying, "I will work in a rat-infested sewage pit, fed from the toilets of a leprosy colony.". Well, you can sign it, but your employer cannot enforce it.

You do not have any specific right to keep pets, therefore you may indeed sign a contract prohibiting you from keeping pets.

Gotcha

randomer

What if it stated in the rental agreement that illegal drugs cannot be used on the premises, or smoking is not permitted in the apartment? Would the owner be entitled to evict the tenant, and if so what kind of notice would they have to give?

Under the act it mentions anti-social behaviour, but it doesn't mention illegal drugs.

seamus

randomer wrote:

What if it stated in the rental agreement that illegal drugs cannot be used on the premises, or smoking is not permitted in the apartment? Would the owner be entitled to evict the tenant, and if so what kind of notice would they have to give?

All depends on the contract. They can indeed put those clauses in the rental agreement, because you don't have a specific legal right to smoke or indeed to take illegal drugs.

The notice will generally be the minimum notice as set out by that 2004 act, unless the landlord can prove that you're a danger to his property.

Our man in Havana

But to a reasonable person using illegal drugs would be considered anti social behaviour.

Overheal

Or rather Anti-Private behavior? This is your home, not O'Connel street.

randomer

Bond-007 wrote:

But to a reasonable person using illegal drugs would be considered anti social behaviour.

Not as defined in the act though.

HelterSkelter

Bond-007 wrote:

But to a reasonable person using illegal drugs would be considered anti social behaviour.

If you are using them in the privacy of your own accommodation and you are not having a negative effect on anyone else then I don't see what the problem is. If I was a landlord I'd rather my tennant to quietly smoke a few joints rather than get pissed drunk, play loud music and píss all the neighbours off.

ronanp

Bond-007 wrote:

But to a reasonable person using illegal drugs would be considered anti social behaviour.

To a reasonable person that doesn't understand the meaning of anti social behaviour maybe. Do you mean anti social behaviour as in disturbing or interfering with the ability of other people to go about their daily business? Or anti social as in "its a sunny day, why cant you get off the couch and go play with your friends.."?

HelterSkelter

Accoring to Wikipedia:

"Anti-social behaviour is that lacking in judgement and consideration for others, ranging from careless negligence to deliberately damaging activity, vandalism and graffiti for example"

www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news_info/planning/police-plan-04/g.htm says:
"Anti-social behaviour covers a wide range of activities, from boundary disputes and verbal harassment through to vandalism and intimidation. It is any kind of repeated behaviour which is likely to cause you alarm or distress and is often carried out by individuals who live in close proximity to you. Broadly, it is a quality of life issue"

Smoking a joint in the privacy of one's own home doesn't exactly fit the bill does it?

seamus

I think there's always a tenuous line drawn between drugs and anti-social behaviour on two fronts;

1. That taking drugs causes one to engage in anti-social behaviour, much like getting hammered could cause you to engage in anti-social behaviour
2. That the act of taking certain drugs, can at times be anti-social, e.g. imagine a group of junkies shooting up in an alley. They're going to be intimidating to anyone wanting to walk down the alley, and will leave used needles and drops of blood everywhere. Clearly anti-social behaviour.

HelterSkelter

seamus wrote:

I think there's always a tenuous line drawn between drugs and anti-social behaviour on two fronts;

1. That taking drugs causes one to engage in anti-social behaviour, much like getting hammered could cause you to engage in anti-social behaviour
2. That the act of taking certain drugs, can at times be anti-social, e.g. imagine a group of junkies shooting up in an alley. They're going to be intimidating to anyone wanting to walk down the alley, and will leave used needles and drops of blood everywhere. Clearly anti-social behaviour.

Oh come on, the OP is taking about smoking cannabis. The above behaviour is not associated with this drug. Most likely the user of this drug will become sleepy/dopey, eat excessive amounts of junk food and get the giggles.

seamus

HelterSkelter wrote:

Oh come on, the OP is taking about smoking cannabis. The above behaviour is not associated with this drug. Most likely the user of this drug will become sleepy/dopey, eat excessive amounts of junk food and get the giggles.

Absolutely. I was just commenting in general, why people would immediately say drug using == anti-social. It doesn't take into consideration the type of drugs being used.

HelterSkelter

aah, ok :-)