Difficult Tenant

bobby lingen

I am a landlord, and I have a tenant ( Mary) there since mid 2014, first 6 months were honky dorey, then it started where Mary was late in paying rent (typically 1 month behind and paying in installmets), then in Jan of this year Mary stopped paying, she would not answer her phone when I called her. Called to the house a few times but she would not answer the door. I procedded with the warning letters as outined in the PTRB website and the upshot of all this is I issued Mary with a final evicition notice for mid April.
So my question is what happens if Mary is still there after the evicition date?, can I freely enter the house and remove her? Also she had two chrildren which may complicate things.

athtrasna

Unfortunately you can't. You will have to get a prtb judgment against her and enforcing that is difficult. Under no circumstances should you enter the property or change the locks unless you have very deep pockets. Because believe it or not that would view classed as an illegal eviction. Consult a solicitor in the event that she overholds.

bobby lingen

if the ptrb judge againt her, then is it the ptrb who carry out the evicition?

salamanca22

bobby lingen wrote: »

if the ptrb judge againt her, then is it the ptrb who carry out the evicition?

No,

The PRTB will basically give your permission to sue for eviction in a court. It can take up to a year to get an overholding tenant out of a property.

Good luck.

Eric Cartman

being a landlord in this country is a sham. non paying tenants should be able to be turfed out after 60 days by force. OP i feel for you, this is going to be a difficult process.

the_syco

Talk to a solicitor on the costing of all eviction methods, tbh.

The_Conductor

Are you sure she is still there?
You say you went to the property a number of times- but the door was never answered, and the tenant isn't answering her phone.
Are you sure she is still there?
Independently of any other action- I would approach the local Garda community officer- advice him of your lack of any contact with the tenant and your failure to gain admission to the property- and request that he/she independently make sure all is in order. Where there is no contact whatsoever, and you can't gain access to the property- it is worrying- there could be something seriously wrong.

Thereafter- lodge a case with the PRTB- they're a lot faster with cases now (they've a weekly meeting)- and allow the process to follow its course.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

being a landlord in this country is a sham. non paying tenants should be able to be turfed out after 60 days by force. OP i feel for you, this is going to be a difficult process.

Its absolute madness how tenants were ever given so much power when it comes to not paying etc. 60 days is even too much, after the 14 days notice of arrears and 28 days termination notice is up you should be able to land a tenant out on their ear along with all their stuff. Absolute madness the way things are at the moment with LLs getting into trouble with their mortgages etc because of terrible tenants.

Lux23

I agree. I think the system would be easier for decent tenants if ones who don't pay could be turfed out legally in 60 days.

Tar.Aldarion

Eric Cartman wrote: »

being a landlord in this country is a sham. non paying tenants should be able to be turfed out after 60 days by force. OP i feel for you, this is going to be a difficult process.

It sucks on both sides, for instance my estate agent doesn't answer emails, take calls and so on ( if you ring the main office you are told to contact the guy there that won't talk to you - who happens to own the estate agents). So we have a huge list of problems and literally nothing we can do about it. And you can say "just move", our last estate agent wasn't any better and everywhere sucks atm. Oh to have an actual landlord again :P

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

Talk to a solicitor on the costing of all eviction methods, tbh.

This.

After the garda liaison (to confirm that the tenant isn't lying dead inside the property, or been sent to prison), then consider your options.

Some professional LL's choose to minimise their loses by providing a good reference and paying the tenant to leave. I know you don't what to do this, but it may be the best way to get the rental income flowing again.

mel123

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

This.

After the garda liaison (to confirm that the tenant isn't lying dead inside the property, or been sent to prison), then consider your options.

Some professional LL's choose to minimise their loses by providing a good reference and paying the tenant to leave. I know you don't what to do this, but it may be the best way to get the rental income flowing again.

Are you serious, they would pay a tenant to leave?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

mel123 wrote: »

Are you serious, they would pay a tenant to leave?

Yes. Makes sense in some situations. Assume rent of €1500/month, tenant can't/won't pay. With legal evictions taking approximately a year to happen, loss = €18000. You'll never see it. Offer tenant €4000 to get out, it's a months rent, deposit and €1000 cash. They'll probably take it, and you can cut your losses and get the property back sooner.

Quandary

mel123 wrote: »

Are you serious, they would pay a tenant to leave?

As disgusting as this sounds and is, it is sometimes the cheapest option to take. Short term pain for long term gain. Often times, a difficult tenant will dig in even deeper if the landlord decides to play hardball with them. This can result in over a years loss of rental income, along with expensive repairs to the property.

It is rare for a landlord to recoup anywhere close to all of this money from the exiting tenant in a timely fashion. Sometimes a landlord has to write off the majority of this as a loss.

bobby lingen

Thank you all for your responses, to answer a few: our solicitor suggested the same thing, pay her off. In respect to ‘is Mary still there’, yes I believe she is as there was light on a few nights ago. Solicitor warned us to not enter unless prior agreement as this can cause problems.

I just hate dealing with any of our state agencies, the stories you hear. This is the first time I had to deal with one and it beggers belief that it is the landlords who pay into the ptrb but yet can loose upto 1 years rent from a non paying tenant before the can be evicted.

tuisginideach

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

This.

After the garda liaison (to confirm that the tenant isn't lying dead inside the property, or been sent to prison), then consider your options.

Some professional LL's choose to minimise their loses by providing a good reference and paying the tenant to leave. I know you don't what to do this, but it may be the best way to get the rental income flowing again.

It is a terrible situation and completely unfair to the landlord but I'd really hate to think that any landlord that has been abused financially like that would provide a 'good reference' allowing Mary to do the same thing to others. I always look for what's unsaid in a reference rather than what's said so I would hope any landlord in such a situation would be really really careful with the wording.l

Elemonator

This country is ridiculous. She should be evicted after 60 days or 2 months rent, by force if necessary. That nonsense should be deemed as trespassing, it is your property after all. The majority of landlords are good people and many give leeway if there is financial difficulties but she is taking advantage. Landlords are the source of the rental market, respect them.

MarkAnthony

Elemonator wrote: »

This country is ridiculous. She should be evicted after 60 days or 2 months rent, by force if necessary. That nonsense should be deemed as trespassing, it is your property after all. The majority of landlords are good people and many give leeway if there is financial difficulties but she is taking advantage. Landlords are the source of the rental market, respect them.

It's the tenant's dwelling. Rightly or wrongly very strong protections exist.

DoozerT6

Elemonator wrote: »

This country is ridiculous. She should be evicted after 60 days or 2 months rent, by force if necessary. That nonsense should be deemed as trespassing, it is your property after all. The majority of landlords are good people and many give leeway if there is financial difficulties but she is taking advantage. Landlords are the source of the rental market, respect them.

I'd agree. If a tenant genuinely falls on hard times and has trouble making the rent (and can prove this), I think the landlord should be legally obliged to arrange some sort of reduced payment plan with the tenant for a finite period, say six months. After this time, the landlord has the legal right to serve notice if they want to.

If a tenant WON'T pay their rent for no good reason other than they just refuse to or can't be arsed, the landlord should have the legal right to turf them out after (for instance) three months, following a warning process after the first month of non-payment. I'm talking just turning up at the door on a specified date with the police or bailiff/sheriff, walking in changing the locks and literally turn the occupants out on the street by whatever means necessary. If they don't have anywhere to go, tough. If they wreck the house before being evicted, they should be arrested and fined for damages, and this fine enforced by taking it from their wages or social welfare payments until the damage is paid off.

Wishful thinking I guess though.

If she doesn't answer the phone, doesn't answer the door, pays no rent, surely you must fear for her well being. If you think she may have suffered an emergency you must certainly be justified in entering the property to check all is OK

Labarbapostiza

Adrian Shaggy Painkiller wrote: »

Its absolute madness how tenants were ever given so much power when it comes to not paying etc. 60 days is even too much, after the 14 days notice of arrears and 28 days termination notice is up you should be able to land a tenant out on their ear along with all their stuff. Absolute madness the way things are at the moment with LLs getting into trouble with their mortgages etc because of terrible tenants.

You sound like my father. He's a landlord. He bought his properties with inherited money, didn't borrow from a bank. Still feels very hard done by all the same.

His opinion is tenants should be turfed out on the street at the landlords behest and with no process. But he's also of the opinion that respectable people with mortgages they can't pay should left alone by the bank (respectable people have homes and deserve protection, tenants are mud people who respectable landlords need protection from). He also believes farmers who get in debt should be allowed to keep their farms. To sum up what he is; he's an entitled snob. He has some chip on his shoulder, be the jaysus.

PokeHerKing

Myself and wife were thinking of renting our house out for a year while we travel the world.

Ideally we will try and rent to a friend but failing that the general public.

So we would be looking for a 1 year lease and then we'd be moving back in when we get back. Does this scenario differ from the OP's legally?

If Joe blogs decided he didn't want to leave when we get back? Could he sue me after I drag him out of my house?

salamanca22

PokeHerKing wrote: »

If Joe blogs decided he didn't want to leave when we get back? Could he sue me after I drag him out of my house?

Yes and would be successful.

punisher5112

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Myself and wife were thinking of renting our house out for a year while we travel the world.

Ideally we will try and rent to a friend but failing that the general public.

So we would be looking for a 1 year lease and then we'd be moving back in when we get back. Does this scenario differ from the OP's legally?

If Joe blogs decided he didn't want to leave when we get back? Could he sue me after I drag him out of my house?

Only way round that would be to rent a room and still have a room in property which would mean very little rights for the renter.


Renting property works very well for some and it seems a lot of the time the LL you would dream to have are the ones that get burnt.

I am very surprised with the laws as a lot of politicians and the likes have many properties commercial and domestic.

bobby lingen

I’m no expert here, but initial procedure is 14 days notice and then 28 days eviction notice, you have the bones of 2 months there. If after the 2 months the tenant is still there then I assume you need to go through the legal process and you are into the lap of the gods at that stage.

slowjoe17

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's the tenant's dwelling. Rightly or wrongly very strong protections exist.

In the case of bad behaviour by the tenant, the protections are clearly too strong.

The cost is bourne by landlords first, but other tenants also, where potential landlords are discouraged from renting, or existing landlords sell up.

There should be public register of delinquent tenants. The state should have no responsibility to house previously delinquent tenants.

Mrs OBumble

slowjoe17 wrote: »

There should be public register of delinquent tenants. The state should have no responsibility to house previously delinquent tenants.

Fine fighting words.

But where do you seriously expect people whose behaviour gets them onto the list to go?

Are you happy to have them sleeping on the street - because that is pretty much the only option you have left for them, unless they can get themselves into prison.

MarkAnthony

slowjoe17 wrote: »

In the case of bad behaviour by the tenant, the protections are clearly too strong.

The cost is bourne by landlords first, but other tenants also, where potential landlords are discouraged from renting, or existing landlords sell up.

There should be public register of delinquent tenants. The state should have no responsibility to house previously delinquent tenants.

It's an historic issue with routes in British rule etc. etc. That said there is absolutely no reason why the government can't legislate.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Fine fighting words.

But where do you seriously expect people whose behaviour gets them onto the list to go?

Are you happy to have them sleeping on the street - because that is pretty much the only option you have left for them, unless they can get themselves into prison.

They can do what happens in the states, get family/sugar daddies/idiot friends to stand guarantor and ruin their credit too. Once they're in the worst part of Dublin renting a room in a house with two drunks and someone on the sex offender register perhaps it'll sink in that what goes around comes around.

While I don't agree the state should abandon them, sticking a few tents in Phoenix park until the situation can be resolved through building and recommissioning derelict council property shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.

Personal responsibility is sadly lacking in Ireland.

Obviously I'm going to a ridiculous extreme here but it's about time proper measures were taken such as a proper credit referencing and a proper eviction system.

Esel

^ If all that happened, the state would have to step up big-time. Never going to happen.

Landlords might be better served by accepting rent-supplement tenants. Half a loaf and all that.

The above may show how little I know about the residential rental market, but it's my 2c anyway.

Mrs cockett

Is the tenant in question getting rent allowance

the_syco

Esel wrote: »

Landlords might be better served by accepting rent-supplement tenants. Half a loaf and all that.

If the rent-supplemented tenant stops paying the rent, they keep getting money from the state, and the landlord gets nothing.

Mrs cockett wrote: »

Is the tenant in question getting rent allowance

Even she is, due to data laws, the state can't talk to the landlord, and I doubt the landlord will be able to stop her from getting her rent supplement.

Esel

the_syco wrote: »

If the rent-supplemented tenant stops paying the rent, they keep getting money from the state, and the landlord gets nothing.


Even she is, due to data laws, the state can't talk to the landlord, and I doubt the landlord will be able to stop her from getting her rent supplement.

That's mad, Ted!

Why does the State not pay the supplement/allowance directly to the landlord?

Or would we need another €500m computer system for that?

[Vincent Browne]Joined-up government? Wha'?[/VB]

Cuddlesworth

If she has a source of income outside of social welfare, you can recover the money.

FishOnABike

Esel wrote: »

That's mad, Ted!

Why does the State not pay the supplement/allowance directly to the landlord?

Or would we need another €500m computer system for that?

[Vincent Browne]Joined-up government? Wha'?[/VB]

Why don't employers pay mortgage / rent directly to the bank / landlord on behalf of their employees and pay their employees salary net of mortgage / rent payments ?

Graham

FishOnABike wrote: »

Why don't employers pay mortgage / rent directly to the bank / landlord on behalf of their employees and pay their employees salary net of mortgage / rent payments ?

Because that would be plain silly.

Rent allowance on the other hand has but a sole purpose. To pay the rent, to the landlord.

It would actually be in rent allowance recipients interests for the rent to be paid directly to the landlord. It would give a level of security to the landlords that may incentivise the provision of rent allowance accommodations.

salamanca22

FishOnABike wrote: »

Why don't employers pay mortgage / rent directly to the bank / landlord on behalf of their employees and pay their employees salary net of mortgage / rent payments ?

Hardly the same, rent supplement is meant to be earmarked for a single purpose, rent. Your wages are not.

Rent supplement can be paid directly to the landlord if the tenant is not paying it to the landlord, all the landlord has to do is request it.

tuisginideach

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/rent_faq.aspx#q2

15.Can the Rent Supplement be paid to Landlord directly?

In most cases payment is made to you, the tenant. However payment of your Rent Supplement can be made to the landlord if you request it and if the officer dealing with your claims agrees to it. Even if your Rent Supplement is paid direct to your landlord, you will still have to pay your landlord a minimum of €30 (for single people) or €40 (for couples) per week.


That sounds to me like the tenant has to request it, not the landlord!

Sleepy

And surely any sane landlord would insist on this request being made before signing the lease?

The_Conductor

Sleepy wrote: »

And surely any sane landlord would insist on this request being made before signing the lease?

Surprisingly few are even aware that it is an option- married to that- you have a cohort of tenants who only pull rent supplement out of the hat at the very last hurdle (normally by presenting the landlord with a sheaf of papers to sign for DSP).

Its a lack of knowledge- that some (but not all RS recipients) leverage to their advantages.......

Boater123

salamanca22 wrote: »

Hardly the same, rent supplement is meant to be earmarked for a single purpose, rent. Your wages are not.

Rent supplement can be paid directly to the landlord if the tenant is not paying it to the landlord, all the landlord has to do is request it.

I wish that were so, but the tenant is the client of SW not the LL.

And even if the tenant keeps the rent allowance and doesn't pass it on despite it be paid by the SW specifically for rent, the SW will not get it back of the tenant and pay the LL what he/she is owed.

The LL can inform the Social if they're not receiving the payment from the tenant, and the social might stop the payment to the tenant, but that gets the LL no where.

I would class it as fraud, but no authority seems to be interested when it happens.

Sleepy

The_Conductor wrote: »

Surprisingly few are even aware that it is an option- married to that- you have a cohort of tenants who only pull rent supplement out of the hat at the very last hurdle (normally by presenting the landlord with a sheaf of papers to sign for DSP).

Its a lack of knowledge- that some (but not all RS recipients) leverage to their advantages.......

Once armed with the knowledge that it's an option though, surely you'd insist on it?

It's mind-boggling that there could be that many accidental / amateur landlords out there renting to social welfare tenants that haven't done the first bit of research into their situation!

Boater123

Sleepy wrote: »

Once armed with the knowledge that it's an option though, surely you'd insist on it?

It's mind-boggling that there could be that many accidental / amateur landlords out there renting to social welfare tenants that haven't done the first bit of research into their situation!

Imagine the scenario, the LL insists, the tenant complies, a week or month into the tenancy the tenant rings up the social and stops the payment to the LL, and collects it for themselves.

Nothing the LL can really do, except try have it stopped being paid altogether.

Sleepy

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

The_Conductor

Sleepy wrote: »

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

Only in the first 6 months- once the tenant has acquired Part IV rights- the terms in the lease cannot be less favourable than those of the RTA- so you can't use a clause in that manner.

Boater123

Sleepy wrote: »

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

Not sure what way the PRTB would adjudicate on a clause like this, maybe it would stand up, maybe not, I don't know.

It would just be "easier", if that's the right word, just to start proceedings for non payment of rent.

4ensic15

Sleepy wrote: »

Make it a term of the lease? Evict tenant for breach?

The tenant has to be notified of the breach and given an opportunity to rectify. Only after that can the landlord issue notice for breach of condition. After that they have might have to go to the PRTB if the tenant does not vacate. Eviction will only happen after there is a determination order from the PRTB and a court order.

MarkR

Yep. Tennant goes and you can rent again. Vs no money coming in. Stinks

pc7

Sleepy wrote: »

And surely any sane landlord would insist on this request being made before signing the lease?

I tried to do this with a RA tenant (also said I wanted a deposit, tenant was told this would be given). SW took so long to process paper work back and forth, for about a month. I said no as couldn't lose any more rent waiting (they said they'd back date it to the agreed date, but I couldn't risk it). Put an ad up and had a tenant with a deposit that night. this was a few years back when the market was cold. Also before I decided no RA ever again (not taring all with same brush etc etc but my business my choice)

FishOnABike

pc7 wrote: »

I tried to do this with a RA tenant (also said I wanted a deposit, tenant was told this would be given). SW took so long to process paper work back and forth, for about a month. I said no as couldn't lose any more rent waiting (they said they'd back date it to the agreed date, but I couldn't risk it). Put an ad up and had a tenant with a deposit that night. this was a few years back when the market was cold. Also before I decided no RA ever again (not taring all with same brush etc etc but my business my choice)

RA tenant or not, the same letting conditions should prevail, deposit (nowdays often the equivalent of two or more months rent) plus one month rent in advance payable at the time the lease is signed and monthly thereafter. It's a business. If you can get someone who is willing to abide by these conditions (and there's plenty) why would any business person increase their risk by settling for less?

punisher5112

FishOnABike wrote: »

RA tenant or not, the same letting conditions should prevail, deposit (nowdays often the equivalent of two or more months rent) plus one month rent in advance payable at the time the lease is signed and monthly thereafter. It's a business. If you can get someone who is willing to abide by these conditions (and there's plenty) why would any business person increase their risk by settling for less?

Who in the renter pool can afford over two months rent upfront and a deposit.

The system should be in place where prtb holds deposit and treats both sides the same.

If someone is renting house out and has a mortgage especially the LL that never wanted to be but the recession and all that.

Stricter rules on both sides and run all letting through prtb or similar.

athtrasna

Can we get back on topic please? Mod