Should landlords be held financially accountable for tenants’ behaviour?

Doop

Interesting Article.

Normally id say no but id say the residents in this case have been to hell and back, and in a funny kinda way I think it matters if the landlord TRIED to resolve the situation or not. Can be nightmare to get tenants out anyway, so I think it would matter if he cared and tried to sort the situation.


http://www.thejournal.ie

A LANDMARK RULING by the Private Residential Tenancies Board has seen a Cork-based landlord ordered to pay €30,000 to a group of housing estate residents who repeatedly complained about the anti-social behaviour of his tenants.

Residents of the estate described tenants living in two properties owned by the same landlord as “neighbours from hell”, saying they had subjected them to all-night parties, street fights and public defecation.

Legal experts say the decision could set a precedent in the country, meaning landlords could be held liable if they don’t act on complaints about the anti-social behaviour of their tenants, the Irish Independent reports.

djimi

Legally landlords are responsible for their tenants, arent they? My understanding is that this ruling is just upholding a law that already exists.

Proper order too if you ask me. The landlord is the one who has the power to choose tenants and remove them if they are causing trouble. No way should neighbours be subjected to dealing with bad tenants just because their landlord cant be bothered to sort them out. Hopefully this ruling will make landlord take anti-social behavior from their tenants more seriously, rather than just turning a blind eye because they would rather not have the hassle of trying to replace them.

daver123

djimi wrote: »

Legally landlords are responsible for their tenants, arent they? My understanding is that this ruling is just upholding a law that already exists.

Proper order too if you ask me. The landlord is the one who has the power to choose tenants and remove them if they are causing trouble. No way should neighbours be subjected to dealing with bad tenants just because their landlord cant be bothered to sort them out. Hopefully this ruling will make landlord take anti-social behavior from their tenants more seriously, rather than just turning a blind eye because they would rather not have the hassle of trying to replace them.

It is virtually impossible for a landlord to remove tenants once the lease is signed, if the LL tries to remove them physically he would get in a lot more trouble. A neighbour of mine had to pay his tenants 2 months rent to get the m to leave his property this is after they did 5,000 worth of damage and paid him hardly any rent for over a year in the house.

Esoteric_

daver123 wrote: »

It is virtually impossible for a landlord to remove tenants once the lease is signed, if the LL tries to remove them physically he would get in a lot more trouble. A neighbour of mine had to pay his tenants 2 months rent to get the m to leave his property this is after they did 5,000 worth of damage and paid him hardly any rent for over a year in the house.

AFAIK even with a fixed term lease, you can issue eviction proceedings with 7 days of notice in the case of serious anti-social behaviour. If the tenants in the article were as bad as the other residents in the area say, the landlord could have done this.

seamus

I suspect that the landlord in this case had done nothing about it. If the landlord had been able to show that he did everything legally available to him to remove the tenants, there's no way the court could find him liable for damages.

Obviously specific damages aren't the landlord's problem, but if the landlord is aware of ongoing problems and does nothing about it, then why shouldn't he be held to account?

StillWaters

LyndaMcL wrote: »

AFAIK even with a fixed term lease, you can issue eviction proceedings with 7 days of notice in the case of serious anti-social behaviour. If the tenants in the article were as bad as the other residents in the area say, the landlord could have done this.

It's very difficult to remove anti social tenants, there is a high burden of proof needed.

Esoteric_

StillWaters wrote: »

It's very difficult to remove anti social tenants, there is a high burden of proof needed.

Surely complaints from many different residents of loud music every night and witnesses to the tenants defecating in public places constitutes proof, though?

The landlord obviously did SFA to stop these tenants, which is why he's having to pay up.

listermint

StillWaters wrote: »

It's very difficult to remove anti social tenants, there is a high burden of proof needed.

It would appear in this case there was a high burden of proof in fact 30,000 Euro worth of it.

Ignoring the problem as has happened in this case obviously has now cost them. And good enough. Complaints of this nature need to be taken seriously.

Procrastastudy

Well done PRTB! You're stock just went up in my eyes. (Although not from a particularly lofty spot in all honesty!)

murphaph

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Well done PRTB! You're stock just went up in my eyes. (Although not from a particularly lofty spot in all honesty!)

I wonder would the prtb have sought an eviction themselves if the landlord had brought this case to them. Hard to say to be honest, but I wouldn't have banked on it.

Procrastastudy

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder would the prtb have sought an eviction themselves if the landlord had brought this case to them. Hard to say to be honest, but I wouldn't have banked on it.

If he had at least tried I suspect the fine wouldn't have been 30K.

murphaph

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If he had at least tried I suspect the fine wouldn't have been 30K.

If he had tried, the fine should be 0.

To be quite honest, the wrongdoers here are the tenants. Why the constant need to blame someone else in Ireland, The tenants are acting antisocially, so why can't they be removed by the state and made homeless for their carry on. Why do we have to tolerate such antics from anyone?

The LL looks like he made a complete fist of this, but in the wider scheme of things, why should landlords be responsible for their tenants' behaviour at all? The tenants are grown adults FFS, not children.

I'm getting sick of Ireland and its attitude to rental. It wants the private landlord to house the people it is unable or unwilling to house itself, but it wants to "blame" landlords for the ill behaviour of same tenants. The state needs to take its head out of its arse and sort the whole thing out.

Procrastastudy

murphaph wrote: »

If he had tried, the fine should be 0.

To be quite honest, the wrongdoers here are the tenants. Why the constant need to blame someone else in Ireland, The tenants are acting antisocially, so why can't they be removed by the state and made homeless for their carry on. Why do we have to tolerate such antics from anyone?

The LL looks like he made a complete fist of this, but in the wider scheme of things, why should landlords be responsible for their tenants' behaviour at all? The tenants are grown adults FFS, not children.

I'm getting sick of Ireland and its attitude to rental. It wants the private landlord to house the people it is unable or unwilling to house itself, but it wants to "blame" landlords for the ill behaviour of same tenants. The state needs to take its head out of its arse and sort the whole thing out.

The issue is with tenants but it is also with Landlords. People go into renting with the wrong mindset - they don't realise that they have to invest a significant amount of time and money in ensuring that they are running their business properly. Many Landlords do live up to their obligations but many fail to check references properly, sign up with the proper authorities and take the proper action when the complaints start.

The system isn't perfect but when a business gets something wrong and causes people damage they should pay. If Starbucks allowed a contaminant into a muffin and it caused someone to break a tooth they pay for the damage. Its exactly the same principle that should apply to Landlords. If that's too high a standard then at least one of due diligence of a previous accommodation reference and an employer reference. If those aren't available then the LL needs to risk asses what he's doing by conducting interviews or offsetting this to an agent that is of course going to charge a fee.

Why should anyone have to live next door to a bunch of hooligans so the guy next door can get his mortgage paid by someone else?

murphaph

Procrastastudy wrote: »

The issue is with tenants but it is also with Landlords. People go into renting with the wrong mindset - they don't realise that they have to invest a significant amount of time and money in ensuring that they are running their business properly. Many Landlords do live up to their obligations but many fail to check references properly, sign up with the proper authorities and take the proper action when the complaints start.

The system isn't perfect but when a business gets something wrong and causes people damage they should pay. If Starbucks allowed a contaminant into a muffin and it caused someone to break a tooth they pay for the damage. Its exactly the same principle that should apply to Landlords. If that's too high a standard then at least one of due diligence of a previous accommodation reference and an employer reference. If those aren't available then the LL needs to risk asses what he's doing by conducting interviews or offsetting this to an agent that is of course going to charge a fee.

Why should anyone have to live next door to a bunch of hooligans so the guy next door can get his mortgage paid by someone else?

It's not regarded as a business by the state either. If it was, you'd be able to deduct ALL your input costs when calculating your tax liability. The state says you can't deduct all your mortgage interest, or your HHC, or your NPPR charge, so perhaps if the state started treating being a landlord more like a business, more landlords would too!

Nobody should have to live next door to hooligans, but what if the hooligans OWN the house? What then? Nobody to "blame" then!

Procrastastudy

murphaph wrote: »

It's not regarded as a business by the state either. If it was, you'd be able to deduct ALL your input costs when calculating your tax liability. The state says you can't deduct all your mortgage interest, or your HHC, or your NPPR charge, so perhaps if the state started treating being a landlord more like a business, more landlords would too!

Nobody should have to live next door to hooligans, but what if the hooligans OWN the house? What then? Nobody to "blame" then!

Its called a nuisance action. Owner occupiers are much less likely to make an arse of themselves - that said it's not impossible of course. No one gets to vet potential purchasers; landlord on the other hand should be doing exactly that.

Castlehaven

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Its called a nuisance action. Owner occupiers are much less likely to make an arse of themselves - that said it's not impossible of course. No one gets to vet potential purchasers; landlord on the other hand should be doing exactly that.

We have about 200 properties under management with approximately 25 - 30% of those tenants vacating annually for various reasons so say roughly 50 tenants moving on. We have had about 5 reference enquiries in 2012 and those are agents generally. Landlords in Ireland do not check previous landlord references as a rule.

I accept that a reference is not a guarantee of performance but I fail to see why landlords will not carry out this basic check.

the_syco

A LANDMARK RULING by the Private Residential Tenancies Board has seen a Cork-based landlord ordered to pay €30,000 to a group of housing estate residents who repeatedly complained about the anti-social behaviour of his tenants.

The landlord can tell the PTRB to f**k off.

I'd also wonder if they complained to the Gardai about the anti-social tenants, or to the landlord, or both. And if not both, why not?

Billgirlylegs

the_syco wrote: »

The landlord can tell the PTRB to f**k off.

He/She could, but I'd hope he/she would find it difficult to continue as a landlord. I had to deal with similar crap recently, and contacted The Gardai , Local Authority and DoE about it. While the Gardai couldn't get involved, the other pair were useless. Then I contacted PTRB, and they were interested. They came back looking for more information and asked was I really sure that I was prepared for a reaction if they got involved.

They don't take these things lightly, and I would say there was a big issue here, involving more than one or two neighbours

realgirl

murphaph wrote: »

It's not regarded as a business by the state either. If it was, you'd be able to deduct ALL your input costs when calculating your tax liability. The state says you can't deduct all your mortgage interest, or your HHC, or your NPPR charge, so perhaps if the state started treating being a landlord more like a business, more landlords would too!

HHC & NPPR are taxes. Businesses are not allowed to deduct the cost of taxes when calculating their tax liability either.

The_Conductor

realgirl wrote: »

HHC & NPPR are taxes. Businesses are not allowed to deduct the cost of taxes when calculating their tax liability either.

Businesses don't get charged USC on their gross income- which is also a tax, no matter what the government say (I'll qualify this statement with an acknowledgement that commercial rental income also gets hit with the USC, even in loss making situations). Rental income- be it residential or commercial, is seen as low-lying fruit by the government, and they are bleeding it dry. It doesn't matter whether you're making a loss or a profit- you're getting hit.

The_Conductor

Apparently this case is precedent setting- there wasn't legal precedence previously. The 30k fine relates to 2 separate properties the landlord owned in the same estate, and the nuisance with tenants dates from March 2005 to August 2012. The maximum fine the PRTB could levy was 20k per property- in this instance each of the 22 residents who brought the action to the PRTB were awarded a little under 1,400 each. Note- the residents were awarded about 120 each in March of 2012- but appealed, seeking higher damages, the appeal was heard in August.

S.

Luca Brasi

seamus wrote: »

I suspect that the landlord in this case had done nothing about it. If the landlord had been able to show that he did everything legally available to him to remove the tenants, there's no way the court could find him liable for damages.

Obviously specific damages aren't the landlord's problem, but if the landlord is aware of ongoing problems and does nothing about it, then why shouldn't he be held to account?

The landlord wont be responsible if he/she is seen to take the proper procedures to deal with the problem. i.e. have tenancy registered with PRTB, follow the PRTB procedures for dealing with troublesome tenants.
The PRTB procedure is slow but it is the system we have.
The issue is that many landlords are not registering their tenancies, dodging taxes and there does not seem to be any investiagtion by Revenue, Local Authorities to counteract this

murphaph

Luca Brasi wrote: »

The issue is that many landlords are not registering their tenancies, dodging taxes and there does not seem to be any investiagtion by Revenue, Local Authorities to counteract this

How could you possibly know about Revenue investigations? Rental income is not easy to hide tbh. It's much easier for a service provider like a GP to under declare his cash income than it is for a landlord to hide his, which is more or less fixed per tenancy/property. It's hard to hide a house/flat, whereas a doctor can "hide" the number of cash paying patients he sees quite readily (when was the last time you GP gave you a receipt?)

I believe the general public's view of landlords is biased and they want to believe that the majority are on the fiddle somehow. I just don't believe the majority are (some are of course and as a tax compliant landlord, I am heartened when I hear of Revenue catching non-compliant ones!).

murphaph

realgirl wrote: »

HHC & NPPR are taxes. Businesses are not allowed to deduct the cost of taxes when calculating their tax liability either.

The government calls them charges, not taxes. Bin charges are offset-able, why not the HHC which is also supposed to pay for local services??

They are costs associated with owing property, which is required to be a landlord, so they are simply business costs. My father (RIP) was self employed. He could indeed deduct VAT from his Diesel bill when calculating his own VAT returns as the Diesel was required to run his business.

Businesses ARE allowed to deduct their rates payments when calculating their own tax liabilities btw, and rates are the closest thing as makes no difference to the HHC.

Doc Ruby

StillWaters wrote: »

It's very difficult to remove anti social tenants, there is a high burden of proof needed.

The landlords can always put a "no parties, no antisocial behaviour" clause in the lease, that should do it as far as terminating the tenancy goes.

Shelflife

Its all very well putting clauses in contracts, the problem lies pure and simply in getting the problem tenants out.

Its a crazy situation where someone can inhabit your house, refuse to pay rent,damage your property and it can take up to a year to get them out. Thers no point chasing them in the court for rent due or damage to your property as all you are doing is throwing good money after bad as they wont pay any awards anyway.

On the other hand if you throw them out for nonpayment and damage you can be fined, now how is that fair??

Its also crazy being taxed on rental income as opposed to rental profit.

the world wonders

murphaph wrote: »

(when was the last time you GP gave you a receipt?)

um every time?

You need a receipt to claim back on a GP visit from your private health insurance and/or the Revenue so I'd expect that everyone gets a receipt and if they don't they're throwing away money. You probably want to choose a different analogy.

snubbleste

These make for sad readings
PRTB's reports on both dwellings
No.10 http://public.prtb.ie/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR44.2012.DR04.2012/Report.pdf & http://public.prtb.ie/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR44.2012.DR04.2012/Order.pdf
No. 13 http://public.prtb.ie/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR78.2012DR05.2012/Report.pdf & http://public.prtb.ie/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR78.2012DR05.2012/Order.pdf
I'm marking Bishopstown off my list of places to visit.

murphaph

the world wonders wrote: »

um every time?

You need a receipt to claim back on a GP visit from your private health insurance and/or the Revenue so I'd expect that everyone gets a receipt and if they don't they're throwing away money. You probably want to choose a different analogy.

You think every cash paying patient gets issued a receipt?

What about your barber?

Or that plasterer who did the job for cash?

The moral of the story is that landlords are not really in an easy position to hide rental income, not when compared to many other cash based services where the throughput of customers can easily be falsified.