Difference of opinion.

Victor

Seamus and I have a difference of opinion. I contend that a landlord can enter a premises in the event of an emergency - fire, flood, etc. genuine emergencies that risk life and property (not including bathroom emergencies ). Seamus disagrees and says the

seamus wrote: »

The Irish constitution says that "The home is inviolable, save in accordance with the law".

Opinions?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54465795&postcount=24

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a2704.pdf

Residential Tenancies Act 2004, Part 2, Section 16-17

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—

(l) not alter or improve the dwelling without the written consent of the landlord which consent the landlord—
(i) in case the alteration or improvement consists only of repairing, painting and decorating, or any of those things, may not unreasonably withhold,
(ii) in any other case, may, in his or her discretion, withhold,

17.—(1) In section 16—
‘‘alter or improve’’, in relation to a dwelling, includes—
(a) alter a locking system on a door giving entry to the dwelling, and

You may not alter or improve the locks on a door between the property and the outside.

One might be able to fit a separate, additional locking system (you can't improve the existing system though), provided it doesn't do any damage.

At common law (and probably under Occupier Liability Act, 1995) you may not set a trap to catch or injure a trespasser.

seamus wrote: »

The Irish constitution says that "The home is inviolable, save in accordance with the law". The only laws on the books that allow violations deal with the Gardai entering to execute search or arrest warrants and a couple of other fringe items. No civilian is granted any powers by the law to enter another person's home for any reason.

Probably at common law, but also statute law anyone can do anything to save life and property in the event of an emergency. That or Seamus gets to not be rescued from his blazing home.

seamus wrote: »

Of course, the landlord can specify "No Pets", it's his property.

But a lot of people who actually buy apartments to live in seem to think of the management company as some sort of pseudo landlord who can make rules about people not having pets or music or putting up pictures. All of the residents tend to agree to a set of "rules" with the management company, and sign them, but ultimately they are mostly non-binding. You cannot agree with your neighbour that he can't (for example) get a dog and then sue him when he gets one.

There is a contract in place - there is also a matter of equity. One has agreed to not carry out a certain behavious. I contend that agreement is enforceable. What makes you think that the landlord's rules are enforceable and the management's companies one's aren't, what with the management's company being the landlord's landlord?

Tom Young

My own opinion is that Constitutional Article 40.5 Inviolability of Dwelling applies in the circumstances outlined. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1980 and Residential Tenancies Act 2004 covers off permissions and circumstances in some detail in respect of what the requirements are for landlords and agents thereof.


I'd agree with aspects of the supervening event logic outlined above, but not all of it. In addition the pets matter is a contentious one, I can't see a management company enforcing when the reality is somewhat different to a lease for rented accommodation.

johnnyskeleton

1) What type of relationship is it? Lease? Licence? Fee Farm Grant? Generally (although not exclusively) a lease will entitle a person to vacant possession and a licence will not. So, generally speaking, a landlord would not violate a licence by coming onto the premises, but if it's a lease then they might be trespassing.

2) Is there a term in the agreement that allows the landlord to enter the premises to inspect or in case of emergency? If so then the Constitution is unlikely to interfere (unless your landlord is a local authority, in which case it's ears might perk up).

3) Assuming it is a lease, there is no express term that allows a landlord to enter the premises, the landlord is not invited in and has no other lawful authority to enter the premises, he would be trespassing. Otherwise he is not.

4) Leave the constitution alone, it's got enough to do fighting off the last of McDowell's legislation and can't be bothered with private civil disputes where there is an adequate remedy at common law (i.e. sue for damages / injunction).

5) Do you have a link to the full thread rather than just your post?

6) So while in the circumstances of 3) above, the landlord is not, strictly speaking, entitled to enter the premises, it would be a pretty poor tenant that would do something about it in the case of an emergency, and I don't think a judge would give anything more than nominal damages (and a consequential negative costs order) to anyone who tried to sue their landlord for trespass after the landlord saved them from impending doom.

7) Read my signature.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

5) Do you have a link to the full thread rather than just your post?

Linked in that other post, but http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055185735