Friend in a spot of bother.

galwaybabe

Hi. I hope someone can advise on this. My friend recently had a stroke and has recently had to go on disability benefit as a result. He asked his landlord of four years to sign a rent allowance form. The landlord refused. The community welfare officer even rang the landlord to beg him to sign but he still refused. It all got a bit tense as you can imagine.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the landlord (who lives beside them) stopped my friend in the drive and demanded the rent off him. My friend refused and said he would give him the rent when the landlord gave him a receipt. The landlord promptly gave him two weeks to get out of the house.

Rather than put up a fight, my friend decided to move. Now the landlord is refusing to give him his deposit back and has parked a trailer in front of his car so he can't get it out. He says he can't have the car back until he pays the rent.

Any suggestions what he can do?

Johnny Bitte

Gardai to get the car out anyway. I can only imagine this is illiegal.

As for the deposit, I can only guees at what to do here.

Sleipnir

Don't think the gardai will move it as it's a civil matter, not criminal.
Although I would still ask them to show up when the landlord is there. They might ask him to move the car.

galwaybabe

The_Goose135 wrote: »

Gardai to get the car out anyway. I can only imagine this is illiegal.

As for the deposit, I can only guees at what to do here.

That's what I thought re the gardai. I'm not sure if they'll just say it's a civil matter though.

seamus

It all sounds pretty illegal. The landlord is obviously a scumbag who is counting on your mate not having the balls to stand up to him.

For a start, he's better off not living under a landlord who's such a cowboy.

Assuming that he was renting a home and not renting a room in the landlord's house, then his tenancy falls under part 4. If he's been there more than 4 years, he's entitled to 4 months' notice before the landlord can throw him out. If he's there just under 4 years, he's entitled to 3 months notice. This is the case whether or not the rent has been paid.

No ifs or buts here - if the landlord changes the locks, then he should get a locksmith to break them open and bill the landlord for the cost and then contact the Gardai to make a complaint that the landlord illegally entered his home. Bring criminal charges if necessary.

The landlord also has no entitlement to detain the guy's car and the Gardai should be contacted to help him in moving the trailer out of the way.

The best thing to do is to make both of these things clear to the landlord - threaten him with arrest if he attempts to throw your mate out and doesn't release his car. And follow through.

Bogger77

galwaybabe wrote: »

That's what I thought re the gardai. I'm not sure if they'll just say it's a civil matter though.

Local press, even the likes of RTE, would love to hear about this kinda of thing. Disabled person being held "hostage" by tax dodging landlord.
I'd spread the word to all the media outlets in Galway, GBFM, Tribune, Jim Fahy (rte), etc, it's not as if the landlord/ tenant relationship hasn't completly broken down.

bobbysands81

Contact Threshold immediately for advice. www.threshold.ie

Lodge a complaint with the Private Residential Tenancies Board regarding the deposit and lack of notice given to move out (though not sure what will happen here as your pal willingly moved out). If the landlord refused to give a receipt then maybe he/she is not registered with the PRTB so a further complaint in relation to this could be undertaken. www.prtb.ie for more details.

If the landlord is not registered (then they're not paying tax on income from rent) then you might also make a complaint to Revenue that his/her tax affairs are not in order. www.revenue.ie

If the landlord is holding your pals car on his property without your pals permission then surely that is stealing??? I would contact the local Garda station about this immediately.

Bluefoam

Sounds like the landlord is not paying tax on his rental income - hence the fact that he does not want to fill in the rent allowance form - this would force him to go legit...

Your friend could threaten to go to the revenue commisioner and the landlord would be liable for all the back tax & any mortgage allowance he has recieved on the property.

TBH your friend is better off getting out of there - the threat of the revenue should frighten the landlord to let him go & get his deposit back. Then once he is gone he should report the matter to both the revenue & the Gards and screw the landlord over...

galwaybabe

A quick update. He's just got Threshold to phone landlord and they mentioned PRTB. He told them to f*** off. Also it's not a trailer in front of it, it's a van.

eth0_

RING THE GARDAI! Why has this not occured to you?
Yes, they can't help with the landlord demanding rent, but they most certainly can force the landlord to move his van!

I would also suggest your friend gets the PRTB onto this and/or a solicitor.

galwaybabe

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm meeting my mate in a while and I'll show him all the responses.

The_Conductor

galwaybabe wrote: »

A quick update. He's just got Threshold to phone landlord and they mentioned PRTB. He told them to f*** off. Also it's not a trailer in front of it, it's a van.

Next step is to contact the PRTB and escalate a dispute with them.

There is a set manner, prescribed in the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act, detailing how to evict a tenant. If the landlord fails to follow it to the letter of the law- he/she can be found guilty and fined under the act (its a civil rather than a criminal conviction).

The PRTB are only too happy to deal with bolloxes like this landlord- they have a bit of a backlog- but the tenant cannot be evicted prior to a PRTB hearing (if proper eviction procedures were not adhered to before the complaint was brought to their notice- which I very much doubt).

S.

eth0_

smccarrick wrote: »

but the tenant cannot be evicted prior to a PRTB hearing

And who enforces this? I doubt the gardai would be responsible?

The_Conductor

eth0_ wrote: »

And who enforces this? I doubt the gardai would be responsible?

According to the act- its enforced by a District Court on issuance of civil proceedings by the tenant. Aka- the tenant needs legal representation. The PRTB would normally be expected to be represented, and often take over the case. Note: this is *prior* to a hearing- post a hearing- the ball is wholly in the PRTB's court (as it were).

Kipperhell

Both parties are in the wrong. The tenant first refused to pay the rent and then the landlord just escalated from there.

While the landlord is being an ass the tenant also provoked him. You can say what you like about the landlord but it is foolish to be a rude to your landlord.

Nobody here knows the landlords situation and he could easily be in financial trouble due to late payment of rent. In saying that he should have been reasonable but I don't think the tenant has acted reasonably either.

Pay the rent due and don't bother with the legal course as it will just cause frustration even though they would most likely win. Ultimately the OP's friend has not paid rent and has no grounds not to pay it.

Bluefoam

Kipperhell wrote: »

Pay the rent due and don't bother with the legal course

So what about his deposit, which the landlord refuses to pay?

Calina

Kipperhell wrote: »

Both parties are in the wrong. The tenant first refused to pay the rent and then the landlord just escalated from there.

As I read it, the tenant made payment of the rent conditional on receiving a receipt for rent paid. Landlord refused to issue receipt. Landlord is in the wrong.

cocoa

Kipperhell wrote: »

Both parties are in the wrong. The tenant first refused to pay the rent and then the landlord just escalated from there.

While the landlord is being an ass the tenant also provoked him. You can say what you like about the landlord but it is foolish to be a rude to your landlord.

Nobody here knows the landlords situation and he could easily be in financial trouble due to late payment of rent. In saying that he should have been reasonable but I don't think the tenant has acted reasonably either.

Pay the rent due and don't bother with the legal course as it will just cause frustration even though they would most likely win. Ultimately the OP's friend has not paid rent and has no grounds not to pay it.

but surely the tenant would have been able to pay the rent if, at the beginning of the story, the landlord had filled out the rent allowance form, right?

galwaybabe

Update. He rang Gardai who confirmed the landlord is breaking the law. He is going tomorrow to try to retrieve the car.

If anyone from the media is reading this thread, my friend says he is happy to talk to them. PM me for his number.

Thanks again to everyone who has responded.

Kipperhell

Bluefoam wrote: »

So what about his deposit, which the landlord refuses to pay?

The OP has stated there is still rent due I am assuming that means the deposit didn't cover it.

Calina wrote: »

As I read it, the tenant made payment of the rent conditional on receiving a receipt for rent paid. Landlord refused to issue receipt. Landlord is in the wrong.

A tenant can't really make anything conditional on payment for the service provided. Now I can spot this as the smart comment made by the tenant after the landlord decided not to takes HSE payment for rent. It doesn't really matter as the tenant had already been there 4 year and suddenly decides to refuse to pay with out a receipt.

IMHO
Both parties are in the wrong and you can dress it up anyway you like about the obligations of both parties but simply rent not paid and still due. Quickest/easiest solution will be to pay. Considering health is an issue that seems the smartest option.

seamus

Kipperhell wrote: »

IMHO
Both parties are in the wrong and you can dress it up anyway you like about the obligations of both parties but simply rent not paid and still due. Quickest/easiest solution will be to pay. Considering health is an issue that seems the smartest option.

There's a difference between being in the wrong and breaking the law. Also considering that the tenant has a legal right to a rent book, then he would seem to be in the right to refuse to pay rent until that rent book is forthcoming. That it wasn't an issue before is kind of irrelvant.
The landlord has no right to issue 2 weeks notice to leave and no right to retain the car for unpaid rent.
The landlord is breaking the law here, the tenant is not.

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

The OP has stated there is still rent due I am assuming that means the deposit didn't cover it.

A tenant can't really make anything conditional on payment for the service provided. Now I can spot this as the smart comment made by the tenant after the landlord decided not to takes HSE payment for rent. It doesn't really matter as the tenant had already been there 4 year and suddenly decides to refuse to pay with out a receipt.

IMHO
Both parties are in the wrong and you can dress it up anyway you like about the obligations of both parties but simply rent not paid and still due. Quickest/easiest solution will be to pay. Considering health is an issue that seems the smartest option.

Kipperhell, the tenant is well within his rights to ask for a receipt at any time he likes any consumer is. If you go to the same shop every Sunday for your Sunday papers and never get a receipt, then one day you ask for one... they cannot refuse you the receipt. It is your right as a consumer.

This Landlord is either not registered or in some financial difficulty, either way he has got absolutely no excuse for the way he is behaving. The OP clearly stated that his friend would pay if he got a receipt. I've been through the mill before with a dodgy landlord ... unregistered, when I went to him looking for his PRSI no. so I could claim tax relief on my rent I opened a whole can of worms, not only was he not registered but he was claiming that he lived in my flat, was unemployed and was claiming rent relief from the SW for it!

He's registered now, and he wont be trying that again with anyone else:)

luckat

Those magic words "Have you filled in your income tax returns recently?" usually help people to calm down.

Kipperhell

seamus wrote: »

There's a difference between being in the wrong and breaking the law. Also considering that the tenant has a legal right to a rent book, then he would seem to be in the right to refuse to pay rent until that rent book is forthcoming. That it wasn't an issue before is kind of irrelvant.
The landlord has no right to issue 2 weeks notice to leave and no right to retain the car for unpaid rent.
The landlord is breaking the law here, the tenant is not.

People break the law all the time the reality is both party are in the wrong simple as. The tenant NEVER has the right to refuse to pay the rent in law if you want to go the legal route. You see that is the problem with relying on law to sort out something that can be easily done if people discuss things.

I am not saying he wasn't entitled to a rent book I am saying he was being a smart arse for refusing to pay without one. This got the landlords back up and he then acted like an ass himself. Note this started with the landlord not willing to take HSE payments.

I can say that every time a thread like this appears somebody will suggest threaten the landlord with the tax man and that will sort them out. This is only any use as vengeance and pretty ineffective too. The quickest solutions is to pay the rent and generally always will be.

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

I can say that every time a thread like this appears somebody will suggest threaten the landlord with the tax man and that will sort them out. This is only any use as vengeance and pretty ineffective too. The quickest solutions is to pay the rent and generally always will be.

"The quickest solution is to pay the rent and generally always will be"..... for the Landlord.... not for the tenant, he's entitled to a receipt by law. He's also entitled to acccess to his car. Not all Landlords are tax dodgers or scammers, but there are quite a few of them out there... this guy certainly sounds like one.

Kipperhell

jobucks wrote: »

"The quickest solution is to pay the rent and generally always will be"..... for the Landlord.... not for the tenant, he's entitled to a receipt by law. He's also entitled to acccess to his car. Not all Landlords are tax dodgers or scammers, but there are quite a few of them out there... this guy certainly sounds like one.

The point is it is quickest for EVERYONE involved! The tenant would have got their car back if the rent had been paid. I am purposely ignoring the ultimate who is entitled to what, paying the rent solves the problem quickest.
It doesn't matter what the landlord is like in most situations. Both were being petty and it escalated.

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

The point is it is quickest for EVERYONE involved! The tenant would have got their car back if the rent had been paid. I am purposely ignoring the ultimate who is entitled to what, paying the rent solves the problem quickest.
It doesn't matter what the landlord is like in most situations. Both were being petty and it escalated.

Kipperhell, I understand your frustration at this, reading some of your posts on other threads I know that you are a Landlord. You may conduct yourself professionally however there are a lot of other Landlords out there who don't.
You say the tenant would have gotten his car back if the rent had been paid,.... the rent would have been paid if the Landlord had agreed to give the tenant a receipt, which he is legally obliged to do, he is not however legally obliged to obstruct the tenants access to his vehicle.
The tenant was not being petty, he was simply trying to get a point across that if the landlord had no obligation to sign the form for him, then he was going to get something from him that he was obliged to give.He had been a tenant for 4 years, most landlords worth their pinch of salt would have signed the form for rent relief until the tenant was fit to go back to work. The Landlord would not be out of pocket, would still be paid every month, this leads me to believe that he most likely wasn't registered.

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

The point is it is quickest for EVERYONE involved! The tenant would have got their car back if the rent had been paid. I am purposely ignoring the ultimate who is entitled to what, paying the rent solves the problem quickest.
It doesn't matter what the landlord is like in most situations. Both were being petty and it escalated.

Not sure I agree here. The quickest way would have been for landlord to sign rent allowance form. Tenant rented for 4 years and presumably landlord was happy with tenant. Then tenant became disabled and needed rent allowance. He did not pay rent because he was unable to, due to landlord refusing to sign form. This was not being petty. Landlord caused an illegal eviction and then landlord confiscated tenant’s goods (obviously illegal). Landlord will now be looking at a settlement of many thousands of euro, why should tenant not get this.

Kipperhell

jobucks wrote: »

Kipperhell, I understand your frustration at this, reading some of your posts on other threads I know that you are a Landlord. You may conduct yourself professionally however there are a lot of other Landlords out there who don't.
You say the tenant would have gotten his car back if the rent had been paid,.... the rent would have been paid if the Landlord had agreed to give the tenant a receipt, which he is legally obliged to do, he is not however legally obliged to obstruct the tenants access to his vehicle.
The tenant was not being petty, he was simply trying to get a point across that if the landlord had no obligation to sign the form for him, then he was going to get something from him that he was obliged to give.He had been a tenant for 4 years, most landlords worth their pinch of salt would have signed the form for rent relief until the tenant was fit to go back to work. The Landlord would not be out of pocket, would still be paid every month, this leads me to believe that he most likely wasn't registered.

I doubt you understand the frustration as the point I am making is being consistently missed. I have worked for a long time with people from many different disciplines and the question of who is right and who is wrong comes up a lot. 9 times out of 10 it has already escalated to the point where both parties are at fault.

I have tried several times to point out that going on about entitlements of one party or the other is pointless. Boil the whole thing down and take the simple approach. In this case that means pay the rent. Used a service pay for it simple as.

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

Bluefoam

Kipperhell wrote: »

I doubt you understand the frustration as the point I am making is being consistently missed. I have worked for a long time with people from many different disciplines and the question of who is right and who is wrong comes up a lot. 9 times out of 10 it has already escalated to the point where both parties are at fault.

I have tried several times to point out that going on about entitlements of one party or the other is pointless. Boil the whole thing down and take the simple approach. In this case that means pay the rent. Used a service pay for it simple as.

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

What a load of my arse

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

I doubt you understand the frustration as the point I am making is being consistently missed. I have worked for a long time with people from many different disciplines and the question of who is right and who is wrong comes up a lot. 9 times out of 10 it has already escalated to the point where both parties are at fault.

I have tried several times to point out that going on about entitlements of one party or the other is pointless. Boil the whole thing down and take the simple approach. In this case that means pay the rent. Used a service pay for it simple as.

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

Its becoming increasingly obvious that as a Landlord yourself you refuse to see the side of the tenant, Again I will reiterate that the Tenant is willing to pay , it is because the Landlord is refusing to give him a receipt that he hasn't. It was the Landlords pettiness that started this dispute, THE easiest way and quickest way to sort this out is for the landlord to sign the forms.... everyone's happy then.

banshee_bones

Bluefoam wrote: »

Sounds like the landlord is not paying tax on his rental income - hence the fact that he does not want to fill in the rent allowance form - this would force him to go legit...

Your friend could threaten to go to the revenue commisioner and the landlord would be liable for all the back tax & any mortgage allowance he has recieved on the property.

TBH your friend is better off getting out of there - the threat of the revenue should frighten the landlord to let him go & get his deposit back. Then once he is gone he should report the matter to both the revenue & the Gards and screw the landlord over...

Those were my thoughts aswell. I would say get on to Threshold AND the gardai...

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

But tenant was not being petty. He was independantly assessed by a third party (the community welfare officer) who said he was unable to pay rent without state aid. This is not pettyness. It is being unable to pay.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

I hope they told you where to stick it unless they had no contract.

Kipperhell wrote: »

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

But not in this case

seamus

Kipperhell wrote: »

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

The tenant is justified because he doesn't have the money to pay for it. The tenant attempted to offer a means of paying the rent, which the landlord turned down without good cause (he'd been a tenant for 4 years, so you can assume he's not a scrounger), therefore the landlord has to accept that a formerly good tenant is now unable to pay his rent, but by law is entitled to remain there for a period of four months from the date of notice, effectively rent-free unless the landlord wants to take the tenant to court.

They're the facts here, which the landlord is trying to alter. The tenant can't afford to pay his rent, so he's in the process of moving. But the landlord isn't happy with this and has resorted to breaking the law.

It's a moral wrong on the part of the landlord. The tenant's circumstances changed, as they do. The tenant would be unable to pay his rent without state assistance, but the landlord refused to accept the state's money, thereby accepting the fact that he will receive no more rent from the tenant because there is no rent to give. Yet he's insisting on getting his rent, and breaking the law. Twice.

In short, if the landlord wanted his rent, he should have signed the document. By refusing to sign the document, he was agreeing that he would not get his rent and terminating the tenancy.

Kipperhell

ZYX wrote: »

But tenant was not being petty. He was independantly assessed by a third party (the community welfare officer) who said he was unable to pay rent without state aid. This is not pettyness. It is being unable to pay.

The HSE had not agreed to pay his rent as they didn't have the landlords agreement. The request for the receipt was not for payment and would not have done him any good. The tenant was being petty by requesting the receipt as he was doing it to be awkward and smart as per the OPs description. It doesn't matter if he was legally entitled or not. I finished on this point and just sticking with him being petty.

ZYX wrote: »

I hope they told you where to stick it unless they had no contract.

No they have all apologised bar one who left afterwards and regardless of the contracts they have rights. I can still tell somebody to leave my property regardless of the law what happens after that will always be easier on the landlord. I have always stuck to the law where as tenants haven't

ZYX wrote: »

But not in this case

How do you know? I stated this as a reason why many landlords never take HSE payments. For all intense purposes the tenant did exactly that, as the HSE couldn't pay his rent he didn't pay it himself.

You can believe what you like about me and all landlords I have only stated the reality of the situation. You may think I am blinkered but at no point have I defended either parties actions I have always stated both are at fault. I am also familiar enough with the system to tell you the quickest/easiest option is to pay the rent. For landlords the quickest/easiest option is to let the tenant go.

All legal advise will always stated keep paying your rent and never withhold it.

The justification that the landlord should provide free accommodation because the tenant can't afford to pay is ridiculous. The landlord can decide how and who pays him. The tenant chose not to pay because the landlord for a service he got which simply is theft. The landlord asked him to leave in two weeks this is not illegal unless stated in writing . The landlord then blocked in a car on his property which is probably illegal but I don't think it is.

In the real world paying the rent would be quicker and easier that is really my only point if somebody can show an easier solution I'm all ears.

The_Conductor

Bluefoam wrote: »

What a load of my arse

Bluefoam- warning.
If you disagree with what someone posts- refute the points in the post, do not attack the poster.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

professore

Firstly I agree with you about the tenant paying the rent for legal reasons - however I doubt I would be cool headed either after having a stroke.

Kipperhell wrote: »

The HSE had not agreed to pay his rent as they didn't have the landlords agreement. The request for the receipt was not for payment and would not have done him any good. The tenant was being petty by requesting the receipt as he was doing it to be awkward and smart as per the OPs description. It doesn't matter if he was legally entitled or not. I finished on this point and just sticking with him being petty.

So you're saying that a good tenant of 4 years standing who's had a stroke who needs a reciept to get state aid is being petty to demand one? My 2c here is that the landlord is an asshole and an idiot. The tenant should get a good solicitor and sue him for harassment.

Kipperhell wrote: »

No they have all apologised bar one who left afterwards and regardless of the contracts they have rights. I can still tell somebody to leave my property regardless of the law what happens after that will always be easier on the landlord. I have always stuck to the law where as tenants haven't

The law is an ass when it comes to renting in this country. It's heavily biased in favour of the landlords, unlike on the Continent. That's why people are so obsessed with owning as opposed to renting.

Kipperhell wrote: »

You can believe what you like about me and all landlords I have only stated the reality of the situation. You may think I am blinkered but at no point have I defended either parties actions I have always stated both are at fault. I am also familiar enough with the system to tell you the quickest/easiest option is to pay the rent. For landlords the quickest/easiest option is to let the tenant go.

All legal advise will always stated keep paying your rent and never withhold it.

The justification that the landlord should provide free accommodation because the tenant can't afford to pay is ridiculous. The landlord can decide how and who pays him. The tenant chose not to pay because the landlord for a service he got which simply is theft. The landlord asked him to leave in two weeks this is not illegal unless stated in writing . The landlord then blocked in a car on his property which is probably illegal but I don't think it is.

Yes it is illegal ... its called THEFT. Otherwise I can steal what I like and as long as it's on my property it's legal ???

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

The HSE had not agreed to pay his rent as they didn't have the landlords agreement. The request for the receipt was not for payment and would not have done him any good. The tenant was being petty by requesting the receipt as he was doing it to be awkward and smart as per the OPs description. It doesn't matter if he was legally entitled or not. I finished on this point and just sticking with him being petty.

You are totally missing the point. He was unable to pay his rent due to illness. This is not being petty. He needed receipt to claim rent allowance (you need this to prove how much rent you are paying) this was not petty. The tenant was not being petty.

Kipperhell wrote: »

The landlord asked him to leave in two weeks this is not illegal unless stated in writing . The landlord then blocked in a car on his property which is probably illegal but I don't think it is.
.

Of course confiscating a car is illegal. Landlord told tenant to leave house with 2 weeks notice, which is an illegal eviction on many levels. One of which, as you pointed out is that he never put it in writting.

Kipperhell

ZYX wrote: »

You are totally missing the point. He was unable to pay his rent due to illness. This is not being petty. He needed receipt to claim rent allowance (you need this to prove how much rent you are paying) this was not petty. The tenant was not being petty.

Actually you are missing the point he can't claim rent allowance with a receipt he needs the landlords permission which was refused. At no point has OP stated the tenant unable to pay the rent. In which case if he could not afford the rent then he wasn't holding it back due to a receipt. In fact if he had a rent book he wouldn't get a rent allowance without the landlords agreement. Why do you think he want the receipt taking that it wouldn't help with rent payment?

ZYX wrote: »

Of course confiscating a car is illegal. Landlord told tenant to leave house with 2 weeks notice, which is an illegal eviction on many levels. One of which, as you pointed out is that he never put it in writing.

He didn't confiscate his car he prevent him moving it off the property which isn't the same. The tenant chose to leave after the landlord asked him to leave, no illegal eviction. As I pointed out the law isn't the point the quickest solution was to pay the due rent.
What are you saying was the quickest easiest solution?

professore
I have to say you just don't seem to know the way things are in this country. The receipt would not give him state aided rent payments. The laws in this country heavily favour the tenants. He didn't steal the car he just moved some of his property on his land. The same way if somebody leaves something in your house they don't have the right to break in and take it. The landlord can simply say he didn't realise he was coming back for it. I am not defending either side just stating the futility of fighting over it. Somebody lives like scumbag rat don't stoop to their level and do what you know is right.

What is your quick and easy solution?

Calina

Kipperhell,

leaving aside the arguments over whether state aid was forthcoming for the rent, do you understand that if rent is paid to a landlord, the tenant is entitled to some record of that rent, ie, a receipt or a rent book. If the landlord will not issue that then I don't think anyone should pay over any sum in rent.

This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion on rent allowance. With respect to tenancy protection legislation in Ireland, it sucks pure and simple. The grievance procedures are slow and inefficient, and I have had two landlords try to break fixed term leases on me (ones that didn't have break clauses) for reason of property sale. As a tenant I will say this, there are some good tenants, and there are some bad tenants. But equally, there are bad and good landlords and one who refuses to issue a receipt for rent received is definitely one of the bad ones, one who isssues 2 weeks notice after 4 years of tenancy is clearly one of the bad ones.

There is no justification for that.

The_Conductor

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legally- under the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act- the tenant does not have the right to withold the rent from the landlord. Under the same legislation- the landlord has to provide a rentbook to the tenant, and if evicting the tenant must do so in a prescribed manner.

Both parties are in the wrong. Just because someone breaks the law, does not entitle someone else to break the law in a different manner.......

Kipperhell

smccarrick wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legally- under the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act- the tenant does not have the right to withold the rent from the landlord. Under the same legislation- the landlord has to provide a rentbook to the tenant, and if evicting the tenant must do so in a prescribed manner.

Both parties are in the wrong. Just because someone breaks the law, does not entitle someone else to break the law in a different manner.......

My point exactly.

Calina
I doesn't matter how I feel about either party or the law the quickest solution is to pay the rent and be done with it.

From the description of the incident it sounds like the tenant was annoyed with the landlord. Then said something smart the landlord lost the head wanted him out. The tenant then tried to short change the landlord and the landlord blocked the car in.

Now you might not believe he said anything smart by asking for the receipt but I believe the landlord took it that way and I can see why. If you can't see why then you are only looking at this from one point of view. You should at least consider the possibility that he did take it that way. There no indication within the 4 years as the landlord that he ever tried to ask for any additional rent because he had no record.

galwaybabe

Just to clarify a couple of things. Never once in the four years that my friend was in the house did he get a rent receipt. He never got a lease and nothing was signed. This landlord was scamming from the start. My friend and his wife did nothing but improve the property. They painted it up, they did up a room that was previously unusable and they made the garden absolutely gorgeous. They were planning to be there for the long haul.

The landlord never let them put the electricity in their own names; the bill came to the landlord's house which he dropped down to them. It was a similar situation with their post. As far as any official was concerned this house simply didn't exist. The landlord even took their rubbish which they found out later he was burning illegally.

What was my friend supposed to do, he needed to access to rent allowance beause he can't work at the moment. He and his wife are very hardworking people who would definitely not have wanted to be in a position of getting handouts had they had a choice.

They had given up their deposit for dust so they could avoid confrontation. The balance due was a miserable €75 which I am sure you would all agree is not enough to warrant blocking his car in. My mate is totally prepared to pay this on getting a receipt. He is not out to scam anyone, he's just not like that. He simply thinks that on principle he shouldn't have to hand this money over to someone who callously kicks them out illegally without notice and without a receipt.

This landlord is a tax-evading bully who is definitely not short of a few bob, you would agree if you saw his house. My friend and his wife are very very stressed about this. He told me yesterday that his wife has literally been vomiting with the stress of it all and I can see it is having a detrimental effect on his already fragile health too. In my opinion the landlord deserves every bit of karma due to him and I hope that the PRTB and Revenue hammer him.

The_Conductor

galwaybabe wrote: »

Just to clarify a couple of things. Never once in the four years that my friend was in the house did he get a rent receipt. He never got a lease and nothing was signed.

He is not automatically entitled to a lease- but he has accrued rights under the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act. Not having a lease and not signing anything means precisely nothing. His rights are spelt out in black and white in the act.

He is entitled to a Rent-book, and should have pushed for it. He is not automatically entitled to other receipts.

galwaybabe wrote: »

This landlord was scamming from the start. My friend and his wife did nothing but improve the property. They painted it up, they did up a room that was previously unusable and they made the garden absolutely gorgeous. They were planning to be there for the long haul.

You may assume the landlord was/is scamming. Its not automatically the case though- and its not for the tenant to assume or accuse the landlord of. The tenant is entitled to claim rent-relief. Claim it. If the Revenue Commissioners determine the landlord to be 'scamming' tough luck on the landlord- it was always going to catch up on him sooner or later.

Taking good care of a property- while admirable behaviour on the part of the tenants- does not give them any more entitlements than anyone else, other than those rights accrued under the 2006 Act, to tenancy rights in the property. Irrespective of whether they planned to be for the long haul or not- providing the landlord follows prescribed procedures- he can evict them at will.

galwaybabe wrote: »

The landlord never let them put the electricity in their own names; the bill came to the landlord's house which he dropped down to them.

Nothing too unusual here. It also saved your friend from the ESBs deposit they demand from non-owners.

galwaybabe wrote: »

It was a similar situation with their post. As far as any official was concerned this house simply didn't exist. The landlord even took their rubbish which they found out later he was burning illegally.

The house does exist. There will be a record of it in Dublin Castle, along with all property in the country. You would not have any services in the property (electricity, water etc) if it did not officially exist.

If your friend discovered the illegal burning of refuse- he/she should have reported it to the local environmental health officer. The generator of the waste would normally be considered liable- irrespective of who lit the match- they were not exercising good judgement here.

galwaybabe wrote: »

What was my friend supposed to do, he needed to access to rent allowance beause he can't work at the moment. He and his wife are very hardworking people who would definitely not have wanted to be in a position of getting handouts had they had a choice.

Landlords are not obliged to accept Rent-Allowance. This means absolutely nothing. Many many landlords do not want the perceived hassle, bureaucracy and paperwork of dealing with Social Welfare (in practise there is none- but many landlords do not understand this). Rent-allowance tenants have a very bad name with landlords- a few bad apples have given the entire scheme a very bad name. This is no reflection on your friend and his wife- just a sad reflection of a lack of trust in the modern world.

galwaybabe wrote: »

They had given up their deposit for dust so they could avoid confrontation. The balance due was a miserable €75 which I am sure you would all agree is not enough to warrant blocking his car in. My mate is totally prepared to pay this on getting a receipt. He is not out to scam anyone, he's just not like that. He simply thinks that on principle he shouldn't have to hand this money over to someone who callously kicks them out illegally without notice and without a receipt.

They appear to have a cut and dry case for illegal eviction- totally aside from all other issues in the case. This should be pursued as such.

galwaybabe wrote: »

This landlord is a tax-evading bully who is definitely not short of a few bob, you would agree if you saw his house. My friend and his wife are very very stressed about this. He told me yesterday that his wife has literally been vomiting with the stress of it all and I can see it is having a detrimental effect on his already fragile health too. In my opinion the landlord deserves every bit of karma due to him and I hope that the PRTB and Revenue hammer him.

The tax status of the landlord, regardless of what people's beliefs may be, is pure innuendo. If he is not tax compliant- the Revenue Commissioners will get him, sooner or later- and the penalties and interest, will likely be far higher than any tax demand he would ever have incurred under normal circumstances. That however is a matter for the relevant authorities.

Its out of your friends hands now- he needs to emotionally distance himself from the situation- get new accommodation and sort himself and his wife.

Its hard- but what he has to do is look at the facts in an emotionally unattached manner- and chase them on that basis.

The PRTB do bring legally binding court cases all the time- they are just a little snowed under at the moment- give them a chance though.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

galwaybabe

While I take all your points as valid ones, SMcCarrick, I think you are being a little naive about how landlords function in rural areas. My friend loved the house he was in and didn't want to rock the boat. It is well known that rocking the boat can lead to eviction.

The landlord's house and my friend's house are one and the same address. There is absolutely no way of an official differentiating between the two by address alone. My friend's house is an old cottage on the land while the landlord's is a modern one so the services were already there in the cottage.
My point about the post and ESB is that my friend doesn't even have proof he ever lived there. I believe this is done on purpose by the landlord so the property does not show up on any records.

With regards to tax compliancy, the dogs on the street know that many landlords are on the dodge, particularly in rural areas where it is a lot easier to do so.

With regards to the rubbish, they are going to report him for burning it. They have only just discovered that he has been doing this and they feel awful that they may have contributed to his obvious disregard for the environment. Again, they were in a very tenuous position prior to the eviction.

Its out of your friends hands now- he needs to emotionally distance himself from the situation- get new accommodation and sort himself and his wife.

Its hard- but what he has to do is look at the facts in an emotionally unattached manner- and chase them on that basis.

That is exactly what he is planning to do once he gets his car back.

Kipperhell

Galwaybabe

You/your friend seem to be caught up in a revenge plan now rather than moving on. The level of stress for €75 is a really a waste of time. You have listed a load of issues that really aren't anything to do with the situation.

No matter what the landlord's situation with tax or any other regulations to do with renting it is none of you or your friend's business. The situation was obviously fine for the 4 years and to be going on about them now is pretty pointless. They are better off without the landlord and should move on.

If anybody is being naive it is you for thinking that any of the information about the landlord is definitive proof of tax fraud or anything else. The problem with dogs on the streets knowing anything is they lick it off the ground. I seriously wonder how you think the house "not existing" makes any difference to your friend getting his car back.

I understand the stress of this but it has come down people acting childish. It doesn't really matter who is being the most childish the best solution is to get away. Pride is worth nothing if you are twisted and bitter

galwaybabe

You/your friend seem to be caught up in a revenge plan now rather than moving on. The level of stress for €75 is a really a waste of time. You have listed a load of issues that really aren't anything to do with the situation.

The stress is getting his car back. What revenge plan by the way?
I have simply try to outline the nature of the beast that my friend is dealing with.

Kipperhell

galwaybabe wrote: »

The stress is getting his car back. What revenge plan by the way?

Pay the €75 and the problem is solved. I assumed you wanted to get the landlord for being a problem. If not then no point in any of the rest of the information don't concern yourself with it. Your friend doesn't need the receipt

Jack Bauer999

Kipperhell wrote: »

Pay the €75 and the problem is solved. I assumed you wanted to get the landlord for being a problem. If not then no point in any of the rest of the information don't concern yourself with it. Your friend doesn't need the receipt

im sure the landlord would be absolutely delighted if the tenant would pay in the 75 euro and just feck off leaving him in peace.

In the real world no one if going to get treated like that and let it go, Hammer the landlord in the pocket with the PRTB and they will think
Twice about ilegally evicting anyone ever again. If he's caught for tax dodging also that would be a extra bonus.

Kipperhell

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

im sure the landlord would be absolutely delighted if the tenant would pay in the 75 euro and just feck off leaving him in peace.

In the real world no one if going to get treated like that and let it go, Hammer the landlord in the pocket with the PRTB and they will think
Twice about ilegally evicting anyone ever again. If he's caught for tax dodging also that would be a extra bonus.

Petty revenge with out any idea of the reality of such a waste of time. You won't hammer anybody and the PRTB most likely not take your case because of non payment of rent. Next to impossible to show an illegal eviction. It will take forever all the time in stress without a car. The guy had a stroke for gods sake he should be avoiding stress. I am sure the landlord is an angry person and most likely pretty bitter not much delight there.

Jack Bauer999

Kipperhell wrote: »

Petty revenge with out any idea of the reality of such a waste of time. You won't hammer anybody and the PRTB most likely not take your case because of non payment of rent. Next to impossible to show an illegal eviction. It will take forever all the time in stress without a car. The guy had a stroke for gods sake he should be avoiding stress. I am sure the landlord is an angry person and most likely pretty bitter not much delight there.

being petty (and stupid) is illegally evicting someone, blocking thier property
and leaving themselves wide open to be sued for the sake of 75 euro.

the tenant has rights for a reason, if every landlord was allowed to get away
with this then whats stopping them doing what they want.

the prtb will not refuse to take the case becuase of non payment of rent,
they will rule there is an illegal eviction and also rule that the tenant pays the rent due. this could cost the landlord thousands and all the tentant will
pay is 75 euro. example below, and this is were the tenant owed over 6,000
euro in rent!!!

galwaybabe i hope your friend does follow this through and im sure when
the landlord get what he deserves it will give you friend something to pick his
spirits up.




Ref: DR947/2007
In the matter of Inna Ladchenko (Applicant Tenant) and Aideen Hall (Respondent Landlord) the Private Residential Tenancies Board, in accordance with section 121 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and pursuant to a declaration under section 97(4)(b) of that Act relating to a decision reached by the parties themselves, determines that:

1.The Applicant Tenant and her family was illegally evicted from the dwelling at 24 The Drive, Woodbrook Glen, Bray, Co. Wicklow on 4 August 2007.

2.The Respondent Landlord shall return all the Applicant Tenant’s personal property and possessions not later than 16 October 2007.

3.The Respondent Landlord shall pay the sum of €12,000 to the Applicant Tenant as compensation for the illegal eviction. A payment of €6,000 to be made not later than 12 November 2007 and the second payment paid not later than 12 December 2007.

4.The Applicant Tenant, if successful in her appeal to recover rent subsidy in the sum of €6,300 (approximately) from the Department of Family and Social Affairs, shall pay this sum to the Respondent Landlord, within 5 days of receipt of the subsidy.

This Order was made by the Private Residential Tenancies Board on 13 February 2008.