Badly Advised by Threshold

AllForIt

Has anyone ever been badly advised by Threshold?

Personally I was advised by Threshold to take a case against my Landlord and I lost. I was advised by Threshold to appeal and I lost that as well.

I can't go into the particulars of the case because it's irrelevant to my point and I wouldn't' feel comfortable going into the details of my personal case on a public website anyway.

As a result of loosing both a dispute and an appeal , I'm seriously screwed.

I'm now thinking of taking a dispute against Threshold because they advised me so badly that they made the situation worse that it was.

I can't give you the whole details but I've got one month now to find a new place to live otherwise my rent will increase by 65% in the next instalment.

If I didn't take advice by Threshold I would have had 3 months to find a new place to live within my means which would have given me a fair bit of time, but now after much expense and worry I've only got one month.

Again, has anyone been badly advised by Threshold?

Rackstar

Threshold are a charity who give advice. What you do with that advice is your responsibility.

jimmycrackcorm

It's been alleged here a few times that threshold have been advising tenants to illegally overhold, so the OPs post isn't surprising.

AllForIt

Rackstar wrote: »

Threshold are a charity who give advice. What you do with that advice is your responsibility.

Threshold is a charity ?

Edit: Well that explains it then.

Rackstar

AllForIt wrote: »

Threshold is a charity ?

Yes they are. They actively look for donations, people to fundraise and volunteer.

https://www.threshold.ie/about/

AllForIt

Rackstar wrote: »

Yes they are. They actively look for donations, people to fundraise and volunteer.

https://www.threshold.ie/about/

I would have thought they were an NGO.

Jeff2

Go to the PRTB now called the RTB I think and fast if you have a case.

I could name a load of charitys that are useless for people that might become homeless.

If they did help as much as the could the numbers would go down and they are needed less.

beauf

AllForIt wrote: »

...I'm now thinking of taking a dispute against Threshold ...

Who will you take it to?

Mrs OBumble

AllForIt wrote: »

I would have thought they were an NGO.

They're that too.

Many NGOs are charities.

antoinolachtnai

It is a charitable NGO I suppose. It is 67 percent state funded according to the annual report.

gizmo81

So you've had both the adjudication and the tribunal?

They have a complaints procedure.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/complaints.html

Sorry, It's difficult to advice you without any details.

Just a query for other posters, does Threshold come under the remit of The Ombudsman now? The RTB in the 'performance of administrative functions' do now. Maybe Threshold comes under 'Agencies, Charities,. . . delivering social services . . .'. I'm not sure.

https://www.ombudsman.ie/en/Make-a-Complaint/

The_Conductor

Gizmo- unfortunately, Threshold, while they do receive the bulk of their funding from public sources, are a charity and are not an agency on a statutory footing. Accordingly- they do not come under the remit of the Commissioner.

OP- Threshold offer advice and support- however, this should not be construed as definitive advice- and it would be foolhardy to suggest that it is. They are on record several times- including in a 'Primetime Investigates' episode- offering advice to tenants to behave in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

If you have taken a case, and lost, and appealed, and also lost- unfortunately- you have exhausted your options with the RTB- who have determined your landlord does not have a case to answer, and the complaint you have lodged with them is not upheld under the Act.

Accordingly- you must seek alternate accommodation.

Please do not presume Threshold are definitive in the advice they offer- they are an advocacy group, staffed by, among others, volunteers, who advocate on behalf of tenants. Just because they assisted you in bringing a case (and they assisted you- its you who brought the case)- does not mean they are liable of anything- other than perhaps bad judgement in allocating resources to a case which was ultimately lost.

You can lodge a complaint with Threshold if you like- and indeed, I'd encourage you to do so- however, I'm not entirely sure what you hope to achieve? You've lost your case against your landlord- and you've lost the appeal. You need to be focusing your energies on finding new accommodation.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

Gizmo- unfortunately, Threshold, while they do receive the bulk of their funding from public sources, are a charity and are not an agency on a statutory footing. Accordingly- they do not come under the remit of the Commissioner.

.

Thanks Conductor, I knew a lot had been foisted onto the Ombudsman's Remit thanks for clarifying.

One a slight off topic, It annoys me that the only appeal after the Tribunal is a Judicial Review, at a huge expense to whoever takes the case.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Thanks Conductor, I knew a lot had been foisted onto the Ombudsman's Remit thanks for clarifying.

One a slight off topic, It annoys me that the only appeal after the Tribunal is a Judicial Review, at a huge expense to whoever takes the case.

The whole point of the RTB was to keep these cases out of the court system.
Its not unheard of for an RTB adjudication and appeal to be overturned- if someone feels strongly enough and has the will (and finances) to afford a case.

Normally it would be overturned on a point of law- however, we don't have any information on the OP's case- so its not fair or reasonable to speculate whether this would even be a reasonable course of action (if they had the means to pursue it).

Its not a perfect system- hell, its dysfunctional in the extreme- however, from the little the OP has told us- it sounds like they should never have bothered pursuing a case in the first instance. Threshold is needlessly antagonistic towards some landlords- and assists in fighting cases that really shouldn't have resources assigned to them- but they fight them in the expectation that landlords will cave in when they hear that Threshold are involved (or a threat that the tenant will go to the media etc etc).

These sort of shenanigans do a disservice to both tenants and landlords- and distract from valid cases that could and should be fought.

Not every case- is a good case to fight- one should choose their fights carefully.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

The whole point of the RTB was to keep these cases out of the court system.
Its not unheard of for an RTB adjudication and appeal to be overturned- if someone feels strongly enough and has the will (and finances) to afford a case.

.

As you say I don't know the details of the case but in the current crisis, it seems crazy that the RTB would approve a 65% increase.

wordofwarning

I have zero respect for Threshold. I called them to ask them something. They asked was I a tenant. I said no, it was for a family friend who is a landlord. The person on the phone immediately got defensive and told me they don't deal with landlords. I asked her would she rather give me advice or me making an assumption and possibly unfairly evicting a tenant? She just kept on repeating that they don't advise landlords.

When you have an organisation that plays this wholesome card of trying to prevent homelessness. But when they would rather allow a landlord to possibly unfairly evict a tenant rather give a landlord advice. It is kinda messed up.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

As you say I don't know the details of the case but in the current crisis, it seems crazy that the RTB would approve a 65% increase.

They're working with the appalling legislation Minister Coveney dumped on them.
For a signficant cohort of older workers- investing in rental property- is their pension plan- they don't have a Plan B. Government policy- is to drive these people (keeping in mind just over 70% of all rental property is owned by landlords who have two or fewer properties) out of the market- and drive tenants into the arms of the property REITs etc.

The REITS have increased asking prices for new properties by over 100% in the last 12 months- in order to get ahead of 4% rent increase limits- i.e. get in at the top- and then they don't have to fight to get more than their 4% down the road...........

The people in the corner laughing at all of this- are the Revenue Commissioners- who conversely, the media seem to be keeping very schmum about.

Its a mess- an evolving mess- one which doesn't have a roadmap- and one in which the only thing you can be sure of- is the government will point its finger at the landlords and play the blame game- no matter what happens.

The bigger issue than anything else- is that lack of supply is distorting the residential property market from every which direction. Until this is resolved- in a sustainable manner- we are only going to continue to get increases- perhaps from the REITs rather than private landlords- but its just going to continue............

The government has deliberately reinflated the property market- to cleanse banks of their bad debts- however, in turn this is inflating household debt.

We really learnt very little from the last time round- and the public have very short memories........

The_Conductor

wordofwarning wrote: »

I have zero respect for Threshold. I called them to ask them something. They asked was I a tenant. I said no, it was for a family friend who is a landlord. The person on the phone immediately got defensive and told me they don't deal with landlords. I asked her would she rather give me advice or me making an assumption and possibly unfairly evicting a tenant? She just kept on repeating that they don't advise landlords.

When you have an organisation that plays this wholesome card of trying to prevent homelessness. But when they would rather allow a landlord to possibly unfairly evict a tenant rather give a landlord advice. It is kinda messed up.

I'd go as far as suggesting if you want advice that actually means anything at all- go to a solicitor who is uptodate with property legislation- and pay for proper advice. Threshold are a danger to anyone who relies on them.

Tombo2001

AllForIt wrote: »

I would have thought they were an NGO.

NGO means

Non Government Organization.

Wiki definition:

A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a nonprofit organization that is independent of governments and international governmental organizations.

wordofwarning

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd go as far as suggesting if you want advice that actually means anything at all- go to a solicitor who is uptodate with property legislation- and pay for proper advice. Threshold are a danger to anyone who relies on them.

I was 99.9% certain that what I was going to do was right. I just wanted to do double check. I had a glance of their website before the call and realised their advice was questionable to say the least.

4ensic15

Jeff2 wrote: »

Go to the PRTB now called the RTB I think and fast if you have a case.

I could name a load of charitys that are useless for people that might become homeless.

If they did help as much as the could the numbers would go down and they are needed less.

The RTB only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants or former landlords and former tenants as the case may be. they have nothing to with disputes between any other individuals or groups. The o/p could sue threshold for negligent misstatement in the courts. It will cost him a lot more than he has now lost. It appears the o/p got a notice of rent increase and tried to appeal that it was in excess of market rate. It should have been obvious whether or not it was the case that the rent was market rent or not.

godtabh

Tombo2001 wrote: »

NGO means

Non Government Organization.

Wiki definition:

A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a nonprofit organization that is independent of governments and international governmental organizations.

but very often receive government money

handlemaster

I would think the OP must be clearly in the wrong as a tenant to lose a case against a landlord. Very querious to know how naughty they were

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

The REITS have increased asking prices for new properties by over 100% in the last 12 months- in order to get ahead of 4% rent increase limits- i.e. get in at the top- and then they don't have to fight to get more than their 4% down the road...........

Why pick REITS? Same applies to any landlord that has come into the market in the same period.

The_Conductor wrote:

The government has deliberately reinflated the property market- to cleanse banks of their bad debts- however, in turn this is inflating household debt.

This is bordering on conspiracy theory when the core issue is a lack of supply. The government could do more to increase supply but they're not deliberately trying to hold it back either.

If anything it is the councils and nimbyism doing that.

beauf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

... . The government could do more to increase supply.. .

We have probably the worse housing crisis and shortage in the history of the state.

Has the govt done anything to increase supply. Have their actions had the effect of decrease supply, or inflate the cost?

I struggle to see how they could do less...

gizmo81

Immediate ban/fine for non-owner listed rooms/properties on Air BnB.

Massive fines on Air BnB (for not verifying) and anyone not adhering to the rule that you must own the property to let it.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Immediate ban/fine for non-owner listed rooms/properties on Air BnB.

Massive fines on Air BnB (for not verifying) and anyone not adhering to the rule that you must own the property to let it.

Unless LLs are given more control over their property during a tenancy then the above will be a waste of time as the many of the properties will either be left vacant so as not to take the risk of a long term tenant or it Will be let for less than 6 months at which time a new tenant will be found for another period of less than 6 months etc so no part4 is attained.

gizmo81

Linda Wooden Body wrote: »

Unless LLs are given more control over their property during a tenancy then the above will be a waste of time as the many of the properties will either be left vacant so as not to take the risk of a long term tenant or it Will be let for less than 6 months at which time a new tenant will be found for another period of less than 6 months etc so no part4 is attained.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Why would it be a risk for the landlord? Maybe i wasn't clear, if a tenant puts a room or whole property on Air BnB they don't own.

Lots of listings on Air BnB are very secretive ref location, has a host to verify the address with Air BnB, I know it won't be in Air BnB's interest to ban hosts but if they had to verify address then it could be checked against RTB database.

I was watching a Landlord tenant programme on 3e at 8 and a landlord was really upset at finding her property was let on Air BnB as it voided her insurance.

Owner occupiers shouldn't be affected.

4ensic15

gizmo81 wrote: »

As you say I don't know the details of the case but in the current crisis, it seems crazy that the RTB would approve a 65% increase.

Unless it is an RPZ case the percentage increase is irrelevant. the only function of the RTB in a level of rent dispute is to decide if the new rent is at or below market value at the time the increase was notified. In some cases market rents have doubled fronm five years ago. Unless the RP|Z rules apply the RTB would be obliged to sanction a 100% increase if the rent was set 5 years ago at the then market rent and increased to the current market rent.

gizmo81

4ensic15 wrote: »

Unless it is an RPZ case the percentage increase is irrelevant. the only function of the RTB in a level of rent dispute is to decide if the new rent is at or below market value at the time the increase was notified. In some cases market rents have doubled fronm five years ago. Unless the RP|Z rules apply the RTB would be obliged to sanction a 100% increase if the rent was set 5 years ago at the then market rent and increased to the current market rent.

Having been in this situation two years ago just before the RPZ came in in Dublin I got a 50% increase. I just couldn't afford/justify that increase and had to move.

I think it's a good thing now that can't happen in RPZ areas.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Why would it be a risk for the landlord? Maybe i wasn't clear, if a tenant puts a room or whole property on Air BnB they don't own.

I meant that you are expecting the Airbnb LLs to move to long term tenancies and I'm saying that's a risk that many will not take due to the power tenants have once they get part4 rights.

gizmo81

Linda Wooden Body wrote: »

I meant that you are expecting the Airbnb LLs to move to long term tenancies and I'm saying that's a risk that many will not take due to the power tenants have once they get part4 rights.

Sorry I mustn't of been clear. From my experience landlords are in the dark for the most part that the tenants are listing rooms or whole properties on Air BnB.

People aren't sharing, they are putting the spare room on Air BnB.

Sorry to repeat my experience, but in my last property two girls took a two bed property at a viewing. A week later the whole 2 bed was on Air BnB including the kitchen/living area.

The girls didn't live three they listed the 2 bed as three individual units on Air BnB.

This is what I'm against.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Sorry I mustn't of been clear. From my experience landlords are in the dark for the most part that the tenants are listing rooms or whole properties on Air BnB.

People aren't sharing, they are putting the spare room on Air BnB.

Sorry to repeat my experience, but in my last property two girls took a two bed property at a viewing. A week later the whole 2 bed was on Air BnB including the kitchen/living area.

The girls didn't live three they listed the 2 bed as three individual units on Air BnB.

This is what I'm against.

Ok I get you now.

I was referring to actual owners letting their properties on Airbnb while you are talking about long term tenants letting properties on Airbnb.

Overall I'd expect the latter to be a small percentage with most properties on Airbnb being let by their actual owners.

gizmo81

Linda Wooden Body wrote: »

Ok I get you now.

I was referring to actual owners letting their properties on Airbnb while you are talking about long term tenants letting properties on Airbnb.

Overall I'd expect the latter to be a small percentage with most properties on Airbnb being let by their actual owners.

I don't think so, if you view the properties on Air BnB they are all young 20 somethings. Not to stereotype but they don't own the properties.

I'm specifically talking about Dublin City Centre. Once you move outside it will be more owner occupied.

AllForIt

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not a perfect system- hell, its dysfunctional in the extreme- however, from the little the OP has told us- it sounds like they should never have bothered pursuing a case in the first instance.

That's it. In retrospect I should have know that eventually I couldn't afford to continue the tenancy indefinitely given spiraling market rent increases no matter what case I brought against them. To be fair to my Landlord (agency) they gave me even more than the 90 days notice.

Threshold is needlessly antagonistic towards some landlords- and assists in fighting cases that really shouldn't have resources assigned to them- but they fight them in the expectation that landlords will cave in when they hear that Threshold are involved (or a threat that the tenant will go to the media etc etc).

That's what I feel too. If I was advised to talk to the agency to come to a compromise I would have done that too. But I was advised go to the RTB.

Having said that to be fair to Threshold in the first instance they advised me well because I had a rent review inside the 24 month restriction. In fact they agency did it twice. So its no wonder I followed Thresholds instructions to the end.

Not every case- is a good case to fight- one should choose their fights carefully.

Yes in retrospect I should have cut my losses and moved on when I seen the way the wind was blowing.

gizmo81 wrote: »

As you say I don't know the details of the case but in the current crisis, it seems crazy that the RTB would approve a 65% increase.

The reason for this is that the apartment I rented was initially priced at a rate well below market rates at the time due to the fact that the apt block was taken over by nama. It was subsequently bought by a private enterprise. So not only was the rent increased to what it should be at the time I began tenancy it was increased further because of rapidly rising market rents.

I was only mouthing off then I said in my OP that I would sue Threshold. I have no intention of doing any such thing. I've had enough of that kind of thing.

carolmon

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is bordering on conspiracy theory when the core issue is a lack of supply. The government could do more to increase supply but they're not deliberately trying to hold it back either.

I disagree........when you look at government policies like 0% capital gains tax for keeping properties vacant for five years it's not really a conspiracy theory just fact.

"If the funds purchase and hold property for a five-year period they are exempt from capital gains tax"



https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0622/884647-five-year-capital-gains-tax-exemption/

Really Interested

beauf wrote: »

Who will you take it to?

The District or Circuit Court maybe? If the OP has suffered a loss because of the advice of somebody then he may be able to Sue! The OP would be advised to go to a solicitor.

The_Conductor

Really Interested wrote: »

The District or Circuit Court maybe? If the OP has suffered a loss because of the advice of somebody then he may be able to Sue! The OP would be advised to go to a solicitor.

They are a voluntary advocacy group, founded by a Catholic priest under the auspices of the Pax Christi international organisation- who are registered as a charity, and with the exception of a handful of posts which are publicly funded (I think by Pobal)- they are staffed by volunteers.

The OP might have been advised to go to a solicitor in the first instance- however, who is to say whether the solicitor were to tell him whether, or not, he had a case at all.........

As it stands- the OP has exhausted his/her RTB dispute and appeal options. The only reason to refer this further- is on a point of law- and without having any knowledge of the case- there is no indication that this approach would achieve any different result than has the process thus far.

The OP- by their own admission, was letting off steam in their first post.
There is no merit in flogging a dead horse.

Really Interested

The_Conductor wrote: »

They are a voluntary advocacy group, founded by a Catholic priest under the auspices of the Pax Christi international organisation- who are registered as a charity, and with the exception of a handful of posts which are publicly funded (I think by Pobal)- they are staffed by volunteers.

The OP might have been advised to go to a solicitor in the first instance- however, who is to say whether the solicitor were to tell him whether, or not, he had a case at all.........

As it stands- the OP has exhausted his/her RTB dispute and appeal options. The only reason to refer this further- is on a point of law- and without having any knowledge of the case- there is no indication that this approach would achieve any different result than has the process thus far.

The OP- by their own admission, was letting off steam in their first post.
There is no merit in flogging a dead horse.

If a charity gives incorrect advice they are open to a civil case been brought against them.

Example St Johns Ambulance are at a even a person is injured and during the treatment the make a mess of it then they may be on the hook for a negligence claim. Charity status is not a defence if a orgainisation holds itself out as a expert in a area and any advice causes the person who receives it a loss.

While a solicitor may say there is or is no case to put the OP's mind at rest. It must also be remembered that both Threshold and any Solicitor will have insurance to cover negligence.

Tombo2001

beauf wrote: »

We have probably the worse housing crisis and shortage in the history of the state.

Has the govt done anything to increase supply. Have their actions had the effect of decrease supply, or inflate the cost?

I struggle to see how they could do less...

The government responds to the electorate (otherwise they get voted out).

The government is getting mixed signals from the electorate in this respect.

One part of the electorate is saying
- we want more housing supply.

On the other hand the electorate is saying - landlords are d*cks; rich people cant be seen to get soft treatment.

If you want more housing supply - the obvious way to do it is to encourage landlords to rent out their properties, as opposed to for example AirBnB, or indeed as opposed to leaving them empty as a lot of Landlords do.

However Landlords are not encouraged to do this; they are discouraged to do it by the massive taxes on rent, and the red tape/ bureaucracy and potential liability associated with Housing Assistance tenants.

But that's not what the electorate encourages.

As ever, Government - easy target. Landlords - easy scapegoat.

The_Conductor

Really Interested wrote: »

If a charity gives incorrect advice they are open to a civil case been brought against them.

Example St Johns Ambulance are at a even a person is injured and during the treatment the make a mess of it then they may be on the hook for a negligence claim. Charity status is not a defence if a orgainisation holds itself out as a expert in a area and any advice causes the person who receives it a loss.

While a solicitor may say there is or is no case to put the OP's mind at rest. It must also be remembered that both Threshold and any Solicitor will have insurance to cover negligence.

Threshold aren't held by anyone to be an expert in Property Law.
Indeed- it is widely known that they offer advice which is contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act- to tenants.
They are a tenant advocacy group- while they will offer advice if it is sought- they are 100% definitely not experts.

If anyone wants an expert legal opinion- they go to a solicitor.

Really Interested

The_Conductor wrote: »

Threshold aren't held by anyone to be an expert in Property Law.
Indeed- it is widely known that they offer advice which is contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act- to tenants.
They are a tenant advocacy group- while they will offer advice if it is sought- they are 100% definitely not experts.

If anyone wants an expert legal opinion- they go to a solicitor.

If threshold hold themselves out to offer advice and a persons acts on that advice and the advice was incorrect then if the person suffers a loss they may have a case. As I said if they want to know they would be advised to seek proper legal advice.