Landlord Locks Out Tenant

Kings Inns or bust

Background here. But this is purely hypothetical but for the purposes of the discussion let's assume a measure of practicality might <<Mod deletion>>chime in and perhaps disabuse me of my misconceptions about how this would be handled.

Basically Tenant (T) returns home to find the property they rent has had the locks changed. Landlord (L) has locked the tenant out for no reason other than he has.

Obviously each party may go their separate ways but assuming T refuses and simply calls the guards what steps can and would be taken?

Assuming the tenant breaks in what steps could be taken by either party?

Mod
reference to possible identities of parties deleted

Assuming a locksmith is called and gains entry what steps would be taken?

Edit: Feel free to reframe this if needed, especially 4ensic if he wants to continue this as I may not be framing it properly.

4ensic15

Ask this guy.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece

Kings Inns or bust

4ensic15 wrote: »

Ask this guy.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1165306.ece

Rule 1: No paywalls press sites! :pac:

Also I would say that the for the purposes of this discussion the parties have to be face to face. Now I can't read all that article but I'd assume if the tenant in this case had let themselves in no one would have bothered and the bank would have simply started legal proceedings. Again can;t read the full article so apologies if that's fully covered.

Kings Inns or bust

Mod
reference to possible identities of parties deleted

Not having a good night, tonight. Sorry Nuac.

audi12

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Background here. But this is purely hypothetical but for the purposes of the discussion let's assume a measure of practicality might <<Mod deletion>>chime in and perhaps disabuse me of my misconceptions about how this would be handled.

Basically Tenant (T) returns home to find the property they rent has had the locks changed. Landlord (L) has locked the tenant out for no reason other than he has.

Obviously each party may go their separate ways but assuming T refuses and simply calls the guards what steps can and would be taken?

Assuming the tenant breaks in what steps could be taken by either party?

Mod
reference to possible identities of parties deleted

Assuming a locksmith is called and gains entry what steps would be taken?

Edit: Feel free to reframe this if needed, especially 4ensic if he wants to continue this as I may not be framing it properly.

was the tenant not paying his rent by any chance

Kings Inns or bust

audi12 wrote: »

was the tenant not paying his rent by any chance

I made a comment about the identities of certain members of this forum which was, rightly, deleted. The mods have been kind enough to leave the link to the background thread in place although this thread is a hypothetical.

The assumption is rent and all other matters are in the tenant's favour.

foggy_lad

The Gardai can do nothing if the tenant is out and doors are locked. If the tenant broke in and fixed the window or door they got in through then they are in and the Gardai can not remove them as it is their home which they are renting. If the LL does anything to threaten or harass the tenant the Gardai can take action.

If the tenant wants to they can book into a bed & breakfast or guesthouse and immediately contact the RTB for further instructions. They will contact the LL and let them know the costly consequences of an illegal eviction which would include payment of the guesthouse or B&B bill as well as compensation for the stress and worry and upheaval and other associated costs to the tenant.

The RTB will then at the tenants request open a case for the illegal eviction and that will take its course. The LL would possible lose tens of thousands of Euros.

audi12

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I made a comment about the identities of certain members of this forum which was, rightly, deleted. The mods have been kind enough to leave the link to the background thread in place although this thread is a hypothetical.

The assumption is rent and all other matters are in the tenant's favour.

If the thread is hypothetical what is the point of it

lifeandtimes

audi12 wrote: »

If the thread is hypothetical what is the point of it

The legal discussion i.e. whats this part of boards is for...hypothetically of course 😉

Call me Al

Was there not a case at the weekend where a landlord changed the locks on a property and forcibly removed it's tenants? These tenants called the gardai who told the landlord to give a copy of the key to these tenants.

I don't know what the consequences for not giving the key over would have been though..

cursai

Call me Al wrote: »

Was there not a case at the weekend where a landlord changed the locks on a property and forcibly removed it's tenants? These tenants called the gardai who told the landlord to give a copy of the key to these tenants.

I don't know what the consequences for not giving the key over would have been though..

They have no power or right to.

Call me Al

cursai wrote: »

They have no power or right to.

Who is "they"? The gardai to tell the ll to hand over the keys? Or the ll to lock out tenants?

foggy_lad

Call me Al wrote: »

Was there not a case at the weekend where a landlord changed the locks on a property and forcibly removed it's tenants? These tenants called the gardai who told the landlord to give a copy of the key to these tenants.

I don't know what the consequences for not giving the key over would have been though..

Afaik in that situation the tenants were still in the property and the landlord changed the lock so had to provide a key for their tenants otherwise they could have been charged with criminal damage for changing the lock as the house was under the control of the tenants. The landlord can't lock tenants into the property and the tenants are entitled to a key when locks are changed.

The landlord was probably hoping that turning up with a few lads from the gym would frighten the tenants off.

4ensic15

Call me Al wrote: »

Was there not a case at the weekend where a landlord changed the locks on a property and forcibly removed it's tenants? These tenants called the gardai who told the landlord to give a copy of the key to these tenants.

I don't know what the consequences for not giving the key over would have been though..

The guards were a disgrace on that occasion. They should have arrested the tenants for assault. They have no business telling a landlord to handover a key to anybody. they couldn't have charged the landlord if he did not handover the key.

cursai

Call me Al wrote: »

Who is "they"? The gardai to tell the ll to hand over the keys? Or the ll to lock out tenants?

the people that the post was purposely and intentionally referring to obviously.

degsie

Hypothetical discussions are a mess. Scenario can change at op's will. What's the point.

ganmo

degsie wrote: »

Hypothetical discussions are a mess. Scenario can change at op's will. What's the point.

So talking through the varying possibilities isn't worthwhile?

As these incidents typically happen outside of office hours it can be hard to get advice from official sources

cursai

i think some people just like to discuss the lectures that they received during their law lectures the previous day....

Kings Inns or bust

degsie wrote: »

Hypothetical discussions are a mess. Scenario can change at op's will. What's the point.

Whats the point in commenting on a thread with no point, seems there is no point?

In linking this across I've obviosuly intorduced some new people to the forum, welcome, please stay a while, have a read and reserve judgement until you've had a chance to see how threads work in this forum. It's not to everyone's taste but while you'll find a number of places to discuss things on almost every other aspect on boards this forum is rather unique. As are many of it denizens :pac:

To the others thanks for engaging in the discussion. Now for me to diagree with yous

I don't see why a LL changing the locks is any different from me rocking up and parking my car across your front door. A person, who is not the occupier of the property is preventing access. The occiper and lawful tenant is being prevented from entering their dwelling - one of the most jellously guarded constitutional protections.

I fail to see how the guards could not be compelled to keep the peace while the OP gains entry.

I'm open to being corrected/convinced here.

Kings Inns or bust

cursai wrote: »

i think some people just like to discuss the lectures that they received during their law lectures the previous day....

I admire your aspirational position that law students do anything with lectures or the resulting 'notes' until approximately five minutes before the exam.

Also following up on some of your 'smart' comments in the other thread. They're grand if you are that smart but I suspect you'll fail to enage here for, well lets just say - implied reasons. I'll argue all day long with someone like 4ensic whos backing up his points, it might even get heated, I've no doubt some jibes will be thrown. If all you have though are smart comments that'll become apparent rather quickly I'd imagine.

beauf

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

...I fail to see how the guards could not be compelled to keep the peace while the OP gains entry.

I'm open to being corrected/convinced here.

How do you "compel" a guard.

I would expect they won't do anything or attend unless some else happens.

Kings Inns or bust

beauf wrote: »

How do you "compel" a guard.

I would expect they won't do anything or attend unless some else happens.

Guards are compeled by law to carry out their duties. One might disagree with the law here, especially as asserted by me, but they are compelled to enforce it.

I must go and dig up the source on that...

beauf

What breach of the law has happened to require them to attend.

Kings Inns or bust

beauf wrote: »

What breach of the law has happened to require them to attend.

Please read through OP, feel free to reframe it. If your reframing of it is; there is no crime here they won't attend then thank you for your contribution.

GM228

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Guards are compeled by law to carry out their duties. One might disagree with the law here, especially as asserted by me, but they are compelled to enforce it.

I must go and dig up the source on that...

I'm open to correction, but I'm not sure you'll find a source for that.

I had a similar conversation with my brother about this in the past and he told me nothing compells them to actually use their powers, if so then Garda discretion would be illegal. Statute gives them powers, not obligations.

Kings Inns or bust

GM228 wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I'm not sure you'll find a source for that.

I had a similar conversation with my brother about this in the past and he told me nothing compells them to actually use their powers, if so then Garda discretion would be illegal. Statute gives them powers, not obligations.

As long as it's not too far away from the pretty pictures on the front of the manual I'll find it :P

riffmongous

foggy_lad wrote: »

Afaik in that situation the tenants were still in the property and the landlord changed the lock so had to provide a key for their tenants otherwise they could have been charged with criminal damage for changing the lock as the house was under the control of the tenants. The landlord can't lock tenants into the property and the tenants are entitled to a key when locks are changed.

The landlord was probably hoping that turning up with a few lads from the gym would frighten the tenants off.

Would this not be false imprisonment?

foggy_lad

riffmongous wrote: »

Would this not be false imprisonment?

Only if the LL locked the tenants into the property.

riffmongous

foggy_lad wrote: »

Only if the LL locked the tenants into the property.

Ah, that's how I interpreted your post. I am not familiar with the actual story

GM228

riffmongous wrote: »

Would this not be false imprisonment?

Changing a lock is not the same as locking them in, they could probably exit the property without restriction, but once out could not regain entry.

GM228

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

As long as it's not too far away from the pretty pictures on the front of the manual I'll find it :P

You may be looking for a while

I'm curious is there any Irish case law regarding a duty of care owed compelling Gardaí go act? I don't believe so?

Case law in the US and the UK have shown that is not the case in those jurisdictions, and they were just about an onligation to act in general, they dealth with threats to life.

beauf

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Please read through OP, feel free to reframe it. If your reframing of it is; there is no crime here they won't attend then thank you for your contribution.

In my opinion. The OP doesn't mention a crime. Just a breach in LL and/or Tenant obligations. The Cops will have no interest in that. Perhaps if there was some other history crimes, or violence they may take an interest. But otherwise....

That is the problem, people don't understand LL/Tenant obligations, or how they are (or aren't) enforced.

Pat Mustard

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Basically Tenant (T) returns home to find the property they rent has had the locks changed. Landlord (L) has locked the tenant out for no reason other than he has.

If the tenant is entitled to lawful possession of the property, then he may be considered an "owner" for the purposes of s.19c of the Public Order Act, as inserted by s.24 of the Housing Act 2002.

In such case, perhaps there is some argument to be made that in changing the locks, the landlord has brought an object (the new locks) onto the land and in so doing, has denied the owner (the tenant, being the lawful occupier of the land) access to the property, which denies them use ore amenity of the property, which is a criminal offence under s.19c of the Public Order act (as inserted by s.24 of the Housing Act 2002):

Link:

19C.—(1) A person, without the duly given consent of the owner, shall not—
(a) enter and occupy any land, or
(b) bring onto or place on any land any object,
where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—
(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land, any amenity in respect of the land, the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land.

Going on the assumption Gardai are aware or have been made aware of the above provision, perhaps this legislation would be enough to involve them.

Grolschevik

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If the tenant is entitled to lawful possession of the property, then he may be considered an "owner" for the purposes of s.19c of the Public Order Act, as inserted by s.24 of the Housing Act 2002.

In such case, perhaps there is some argument to be made that in changing the locks, the landlord has brought an object (the new locks) onto the land and in so doing, has denied the owner (the tenant, being the lawful occupier of the land) access to the property, which denies them use ore amenity of the property, which is a criminal offence under s.19c of the Public Order act (as inserted by s.24 of the Housing Act 2002):

Link:

Going on the assumption Gardai are aware or have been made aware of the above provision, perhaps this legislation would be enough to involve them.

Hmm. As an aside, would that provision seem to preclude the occasionally reported practice of owner management companies withdrawing access (by not issuing the appropriate entry mechanism) to unit owners (or their tenants) with whom the OMC is in dispute?

Edit: this provision:

19C.—(1) A person, without the duly given consent of the owner, shall not—
(a) enter and occupy any land, or
(b) bring onto or place on any land any object,
where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—
(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land, any amenity in respect of the land, the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land.

cursai

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I admire your aspirational position that law students do anything with lectures or the resulting 'notes' until approximately five minutes before the exam.

Also following up on some of your 'smart' comments in the other thread. They're grand if you are that smart but I suspect you'll fail to enage here for, well lets just say - implied reasons. I'll argue all day long with someone like 4ensic whos backing up his points, it might even get heated, I've no doubt some jibes will be thrown. If all you have though are smart comments that'll become apparent rather quickly I'd imagine.

I don't understand the first paragraph there. I backed up my points. You didn't. You showed nothing in either thread except your own personal interpretation of the law and added a couple of personal variations of it.

'aspirational'...the irony of that.
"Implied reasons".....Huh??????

cursai

How does a tenant prove he is an occupier of the property and what proof do the Gardai accept. They don't, they have no ability to determine the legitimacy of these proofs or documents. As far as they are concerned. The house is locked. Any damage done is criminal damage following a complaint from the landlord.
Any dispute with regards to right to entry is a CIVIL matter and can be hashed out in front of a judge in a civil court.

The Gardai in their proper place are only there to prevent a breach of the peace not enforce ownership or entry to a property that both parties claim a right to.

GM228

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If the tenant is entitled to lawful possession of the property, then he may be considered an "owner" for the purposes of s.19c of the Public Order Act, as inserted by s.24 of the Housing Act 2002.

In such case, perhaps there is some argument to be made that in changing the locks, the landlord has brought an object (the new locks) onto the land and in so doing, has denied the owner (the tenant, being the lawful occupier of the land) access to the property, which denies them use ore amenity of the property, which is a criminal offence under s.19c of the Public Order act (as inserted by s.24 of the Housing Act 2002):

Link:

Going on the assumption Gardai are aware or have been made aware of the above provision, perhaps this legislation would be enough to involve them.

Would a house/dwelling and it's curtilage satisfy a test to be "land" to qualify under the act I wonder?

Land would seem to suggest parks, recreational areas etc.

cursai

GM228 wrote: »

Would a house/dwelling and it's curtilage satisfy a test to be "land" to qualify under the act I wonder?

Land would seem to suggest parks, recreational areas etc.

It would but how to prove ownership. If but have equal claims Gardai cant decide the matter and no criminal offence has occurred.

GM228

cursai wrote: »

It would but how to prove ownership. If but have equal claims Gardai cant decide the matter and no criminal offence has occurred.

I would agree, ownership would need to be established first (via civil recourse) before Gardaí could consider any criminal action IMO.

cursai

GM228 wrote: »

I would agree, ownership would need to be established first (via civil recourse) before Gardaí could consider any criminal action IMO.

Exactly. In the real world Gardai avoid such situations. Practice and theoretical interpretation of the law are two different things. One is irresponsible when given as advice. This situation is immediately a civil matter unless either party is i.e. aggressive or abusive etc(invoking breach of the peace) and even then there has to be an independent complaint from a member of the public in most situations. AFAIK it is best practice.
If we could interpret read the law so freely the Gardai would be involved in any problem in peoples lives.

foggy_lad

would the landlord removing the old lock when the tenant is still on the premises be seen as theft? with the "peaceful occupation" clause they are effectively removing property they have no legal entitlement to interfere with unless they have permission from the tenant.

cursai

foggy_lad wrote: »

would the landlord removing the old lock when the tenant is still on the premises be seen as theft? with the "peaceful occupation" clause they are effectively removing property they have no legal entitlement to interfere with unless they have permission from the tenant.

Both parties have right to the property. the landlord has a right to alter/secure it. Whether one party has breached the terms of the contract is a civil matter i would have thought.

foggy_lad

cursai wrote: »

Both parties have right to the property. the landlord has a right to alter/secure it. Whether one party has breached the terms of the contract is a civil matter i would have thought.

The LL only has rights to enter the property in an emergency without the permission of the tenant.

4ensic15

foggy_lad wrote: »

The LL only has rights to enter the property in an emergency without the permission of the tenant.

That is a matter of contract, breach of which is a civil matter.

foggy_lad

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of contract, breach of which is a civil matter.

Afaik it is considered trespassing, which is a criminal matter?

The landlord may own the property but gives up most of their rights including access when they rent the property to others.

4ensic15

foggy_lad wrote: »

Afaik it is considered trespassing, which is a criminal matter?

Trespassing, of itself is not criminal.

foggy_lad

4ensic15 wrote: »

Trespassing, of itself is not criminal.

Surely if someone enters without invitation or breaks into your home it is a criminal matter?

Kings Inns or bust

beauf wrote: »

In my opinion. The OP doesn't mention a crime. Just a breach in LL and/or Tenant obligations. The Cops will have no interest in that. Perhaps if there was some other history crimes, or violence they may take an interest. But otherwise....

That is the problem, people don't understand LL/Tenant obligations, or how they are (or aren't) enforced.

I'm a bit confused how you arrive at the conclusion no issues arise if the LL is attempting to prevent a locksmith or if someone has broken in, would you mind explaining that a bit further?

The problem is put very succinctly there and you're correct people don't understand, people seem to be very willing to walk away when they've (to my mind at least) a perfect right to peaceful enjoyment of their dwelling. People also don't understand the ownership of real property is not as absolute as chattels. A lease is a serious legal commitment - there are no formal requirements, if people wish to use verbal or poorly drafted leases they've every right too, the RTA will step in and should step in on the side of the tenant.

GM228 wrote: »

You may be looking for a while

I'm curious is there any Irish case law regarding a duty of care owed compelling Gardaí go act? I don't believe so?

Case law in the US and the UK have shown that is not the case in those jurisdictions, and they were just about an onligation to act in general, they dealth with threats to life.

Leave it with me, I'll dig it up for you. I'll have to go through notes but it's eating at me! I know there's cases where guards did not act on reported crimes. A girl walking into a station claiming sexual assault spring to mind but work was busy and the main thrust of this thread is occupying my down time at the moment!

Grolschevik wrote: »

Hmm. As an aside, would that provision seem to preclude the occasionally reported practice of owner management companies withdrawing access (by not issuing the appropriate entry mechanism) to unit owners (or their tenants) with whom the OMC is in dispute?

Edit: this provision:

19C.—(1) A person, without the duly given consent of the owner, shall not—
(a) enter and occupy any land, or
(b) bring onto or place on any land any object,
where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—
(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land, any amenity in respect of the land, the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land.

A few of us have made the assertion that OMC are on very dodgy ground here. This just seems to add to it.

cursai wrote: »

I don't understand the first paragraph there. I backed up my points. You didn't. You showed nothing in either thread except your own personal interpretation of the law and added a couple of personal variations of it.

'aspirational'...the irony of that.
"Implied reasons".....Huh??????

I'm willing to bury the hatchet if you are. It's not about point scoring but it is about winning or losing the argument, let's make that our focus.

cursai wrote: »

How does a tenant prove he is an occupier of the property and what proof do the Gardai accept. They don't, they have no ability to determine the legitimacy of these proofs or documents. As far as they are concerned. The house is locked. Any damage done is criminal damage following a complaint from the landlord.
Any dispute with regards to right to entry is a CIVIL matter and can be hashed out in front of a judge in a civil court.

The Gardai in their proper place are only there to prevent a breach of the peace not enforce ownership or entry to a property that both parties claim a right to.

The proof in most real world scenarios is pretty easy - it'll go like this:

Tenant: ****er has locked me out guard!
Landlord: You're damn right, ****ing never paid the rent/my son needs the gaffe/I don't like the smell of ye cooking.

QED the person is at least proved to have been a tenant at some point.

Now I'm conscious of the 'OP can change the scenario line so I concede the following scenario:

Tenant:The ****er has locked me out!
LL: I've never seen this person in my life, please remove this crazy person.

I think it's fair to say the latter scenario is less likely - granted it could happen. I'd be fairly sure at that point the guard could ask to get entry as the tenant may point to a bill etc.

cursai wrote: »

Both parties have right to the property. the landlord has a right to alter/secure it. Whether one party has breached the terms of the contract is a civil matter i would have thought.

A salient point. Let's imagine that both parties prove they have a right to the property - again we can argue the other scenarios but let's for the sake of this point imagine that it's proven.

Ultimately you've two competing constitutional rights: the right to private property, the the inviolability of the dwelling. The latter trumps the former and is also one AGS are likely to be most aware of especially if this happens in Crumlin!

The guards have to make a call, one person has to be told that their rights are potentially being breached and they'll need to go to court to enforce those rights. Is it going to be a guy who can go home or the guy who is being asked to wander the streets that night?

I simply don't think we live in a society as perverse as to enforce the latter.

Now, we can argue the mechanism in which the guards become involved but is it not a fair statement that with two parties standing their ground with, most likely, escalating behaviour such as locksmiths being called, doors being kicked in, people being restrained that they are likely to become involved.

***

A point I think that's being missed here is the tenant has the better claim to occupation of the the property. Would anyone like to disabuse me - citing law please - of that position. I'll happily listen and, indeed, take notes! See generally the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

Kings Inns or bust

foggy_lad wrote: »

Surely if someone enters without invitation or breaks into your home it is a criminal matter?

I'd assume so but trespassing itself isn't criminal.

I would have thought a complete prevention of entry would be, no matter of the person concerned did have an interest in the property but it does seem I'm in a minority there!

Kings Inns or bust

@GM228 I fecking knew I'd read something on point recently and I'll continue to dig out something more on point. Please keep challenging me on it as I'll never forget it again or this:

DPP v Bartley Unreported CCC 13th June 1997

As per Carney J

"it is an indictable offence at Common Law if a public officer wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglects to perform a duty imposed on him either by Common Law or Statute."

Now there are a load of issues in the instant case which I'm sure will be pointed out with glee, but as a starting point to your query I just couldn't contain myself until morning. I really am living the dream!

Edit: Turns out this was the case I was looking for all along. A further obiter comment reads.

“where a credible complaint of felony is made to a policeman he has no discretion under the Common Law not to investigate it and apprehend a named offender. A failure to carry out this duty vigorously constitutes an illegality on the policeman’s part and renders him liable to prosecution.”

On the compelling a guard, I'm hanging my hat here. It's of dubious use in minor criminal damage/assault I would concede. I reckon there is something in this and the Dytham case but I'll have to have a hunt tomorrow if it's quiet at work. I might even get some useful info for the hospital security one and your powers of arrest thread GM228!

Thoroughly enjoying this one folks!

cursai

foggy_lad wrote: »

Surely if someone enters without invitation or breaks into your home it is a criminal matter?

It depends on the purpose and intent of their entry.