Infracted for what, now?

Engine No.9

I received an infraction for providing allegedly illegal advice in the Accommodation and Property forum forum here. I informed the mod that the advice I gave wasn't illegal and indeed asked for clarification as to how it was illegal. I also informed the mod that other mods had weighed in on the subject and had not mentioned any illegality in my post.

I logged in to find that my post had been removed. I continued reading through the thread and found that the mod who infracted me had indeed not only let other posts remain, which gave the same advice but s/he also engaged with said posts and made no reference to them being illegal or gave any warnings about their illegality.

Mod has made no attempt to respond to my PM. So I'm looking for a bit of help here.

Scofflaw

Hi pajopearl,

unfortunately, the advice you offered - to get (and trick) a locksmith to break in for you - is illegal.

Whether anyone else has posted the same advice is irrelevant. If many people had posted the same advice without penalty that would be relevant, but it didn't happen, and therefore isn't.

You're welcome to point out to me any posts you feel are offering the same advice as you, particularly those which have been "retained and commented on by mods". As far as I can see you're referring to one post:

go back in change the locks

its an illegal eviction

This is not quite the same as yours, which is detailed and specific, as well as including tricking the locksmith, thus making the locksmith party to breaking and entering. This is in effect a point of view, while yours was detailed advice as to a course of action.

If there are other examples, please point them out. That won't actually change the infraction, though, because it was issued for urging a course of action which is illegal.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Engine No.9

Under no circumstances did I advise the OP to "trick" the locksmith. Locksmiths have no obligation to not provide their service if a landlord changes locks illegally. The advice I gave was simply a way for the OP to not have to put the locksmith in a compromising position. Their was no attempt to trick the locksmith as the OP (or their friend as the case may be) would have been easily able to prove residency and this is a locksmiths only obligation.

While my post was detailed, I find it a little OTT to remove the post for some alleged illegality, which is dubious at best, and consequently to infract for same. There was another moderator posting on thread who made no reference in the 2 days which passed since my post, to the fact that my post was illegal. Why is there no unanimous consensus here as to what about my post was or wasn't illegal??? Very inconsistent.

Engine No.9

I'd just like to point out that if the OP had followed my advice and gotten the locksmith, and the LL had subsequently pressed charges for breaking and entering, it is my contention that he would be laughed out of court. The judge would tell him to cop on and and get his ducks in a row (i.e. don't evict or lock people out illegally) before bringing ludicrous charges before the court.

Scofflaw

pajopearl wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that if the OP had followed my advice and gotten the locksmith, and the LL had subsequently pressed charges for breaking and entering, it is my contention that he would be laughed out of court. The judge would tell him to cop on and and get his ducks in a row (i.e. don't evict or lock people out illegally) before bringing ludicrous charges before the court.

That doesn't change the fact that you were suggesting a course of action which is not only illegal (breaking and entering), but which involved a third party by deception.

Had the OP followed your advice, I doubt he would have been coming out of court laughing. Courts often frown on people breaking the law.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Engine No.9

But it's not breaking and entering when you have a legal right to be inside the door. The OP's (for the purposes of this example) name is on the lease and no eviction notice had been served. Not B&E.

Scofflaw

pajopearl wrote: »

But it's not breaking and entering when you have a legal right to be inside the door. The OP's (for the purposes of this example) name is on the lease and no eviction notice had been served. Not B&E.

As far as I know, in UK law at least, you have the right to use "reasonable force" to get back in, but you'd be on legally shaky ground if you haven't had a judgement that the eviction is illegal, and involving a locksmith in a legally questionable action through deception remains something it's not possible to countenance.

On the other hand, can you get chapter and verse - that is, some case law or a solid legal link - upholding your view here? If you can I'm happy to take that to the forum mods. It's true that what's often assumed to be illegal isn't, and vice-versa, and I wouldn't be happy to have the forum mods claiming as law something that isn't.

The standard legal advice seems to be summed up as follows:

Illegal eviction

If your landlord locks you out or physically evicts you, you may be able to apply for an injunction to force the landlord to let you back into the property or you may apply to the PRTB to do so on your behalf. Similarly if your landlord cuts off water, gas or electricity, you may be able to take legal action to restore the supply. In either case, this is a big step and you should get legal advice and assistance before you proceed. Your landlord cannot remove your possessions from your flat or house without a court order. If your landlord is going to take you to court, you should get advice about your situation from Threshold, a Citizens Information Centre or a solicitor.

There is no suggestion there that an illegal eviction can be countered by following your advice.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Engine No.9

I just don't have time to be scanning for case law. However, given your own statement above

It's true that what's often assumed to be illegal isn't, and vice-versa.

, can we not just say that what I advised may be illegal, it may not. The post is removed (fine by me) and the infraction rescinded on condition that any perceived dubious advice given by me is clarified before posting in the future??? I've crested the far side of 600 posts and only ever received one infraction for a bit of banter in the rugby forum in the past. Don't like these black marks on my record.

Engine No.9

And by clarified, I mean by PMing a mod first

Scofflaw

pajopearl wrote: »

I just don't have time to be scanning for case law. However, given your own statement above, can we not just say that what I advised may be illegal, it may not. The post is removed (fine by me) and the infraction rescinded on condition that any perceived dubious advice given by me is clarified before posting in the future??? I've crested the far side of 600 posts and only ever received one infraction for a bit of banter in the rugby forum in the past. Don't like these black marks on my record.

Unfortunately, the infraction here is for offering advice the forum mods consider to be illegal. So I'm afraid it really is up to you whether you decide the scan some case law, because I can't really just say "oh well, it might not be illegal, maybe".

Currently the balance of probability is that it's illegal, because that advice is not, as far as I can see, offered by any of the people you would expect to offer it - PRTB, Threshold, Let.ie, etc. I've already put some time in looking for such case law, and if you don't want to put the time in to demonstrate you're correct, I'm not going to overturn the infraction, on the basis that your advice is probably illegal.

However, I will discuss it with the forum mods, and see if they can clarify the matter further. If their case is as shaky as yours, then I'd certainly consider knocking it down to a warning, or possibly clearing it entirely. If they can give case law, though, then I'll let you know that.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Engine No.9

Sounds fair to me. Cheers

Scofflaw

Hi pajopearl,

OK - this is apparently specifically prohibited by Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/print.html

Residential Tenancies Act 2004 wrote:

Obligations of tenants.
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,

Section 16 :interpretation and supplemental.
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
(b) make an addition to, or alteration of, a building or structure (including any building or structure subsidiary or ancillary to the dwelling)

So altering the lock is illegal without the written permission of the landlord, and getting the locksmith to assist would be making them party to it. That the landlord himself has illegally evicted the tenant wouldn't make any difference.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Engine No.9

Grand job. I'll take this one on the chin and chalk it up to experience. Thanks for all your help. You can mark this one resolved.