Management Company and disruptive tenants

andekwarhola

Hi all. A question to any resident management company directors ( I am one) that use the forum.

Note: Will be seeking actual legal advice if necessary but really wanting to know anecdotally if other directors have experienced a similar situation. Please also PM me if you wish.

Hypothetical situation: quiet, managed estate in a quiet area. Zero social issues since built. Housing association buys property. Tenants involved in persistent antisocial behaviour.

We're not nimbys (nor do any of the directors care if it's a housing association property, hence signing off the sale) by any means but we're talking dumping rubbish(caught on CCTV), their kids terrorizing other kids/adults on the only green area in the development; serious intimidation of a neighbour by the adult resident (who does not want to report it to the Gardai, unfortunately but understandably); repairing various motor vehicles on paths/road and the property rapidly becoming an external eyesore etc.

Everything above is obviously prohibited in the MC articles/rules.

Landlord (a housing association) is outwardly helpful and engages with us but appears to be not really moving past issuing countless airy-fairy and completely fruitless warnings to the tenant.

Do we as a management company have grounds for some kind of legal action to compel the landlord to enforce the rules of the management company and evict the tenants if necessary?

Thanks!

GGTrek

andekwarhola wrote: »

A question to any resident management compnay directors that use the forum.

Note: Will be seeking actual legal advice if necessary but really wanting to know anecdotally if other directors have experienced a similar situation. Please also PM me if you wish.

Hypothetical situation: quiet, managed estate in a quiet area. Zero social issues since built. Housing association buys property. Tenants involved in persistent antisocial behaviour.

We're not nimbys (nor does any of the MC care if it's a housing association property, hence signing off the sale) by any means but we're talking dumping rubbish(caught on CCTV), their kids terrorizing other kids/adults on the only green area in the development; serious intimidation of a neighbour by the adult resident (who does not want to report it to the Gardai, unfortunately but understandably); repairing various motor vehicles on paths/road and the property rapidly becoming an external eyesore etc.

Everything above is obviously prohibited in the MC articles/rules.

Landlord (a housing association) is outwardly helpful and engages with us but appears to be not really moving past issuing countless airy-fairy and completely fruitless warnings to the tenant.

Do we as a management company have grounds for some kind of legal action to compel the landlord to enforce the rules of the mangement company?

Thanks!

You can apply for a third party application to the RTB (prepare a lot of evidence and witnesses). What will happen is that the landlord will get a big penalty and the anti-social tenant will still be there. If you really want thr tenant out. Call the landlord say that you are tired of his/her tenant, offer support to him for evidence and witnesses against the tenant. Tell him to give the tenant a 14 days warning for anti social behaviour and then you start to collect evidence after the warning. Follow strictly the process outlined here:
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-termination-for-anti-social-behaviour.pdf?sfvrsn=2

After you collected the evidence the landlord should give a 28 days termination notice (make it 30) gor breach of the peace section 17(c). Don't bother with the 7 days notice. The level of proof RTB will require is like a criminal case for the 7 days notice and you would most likely not succeed without garda giving evidence.

At the expiry of the 28 days landlord raises RTB adjudication request, wait another 40-60 days for the hearing. Everyone that can present evidence goes as a witness for landlord. Very high chance that RTB will confirm eviction for breach of the peace. However if tenants went to threshold the will be advised to overhold and appeal, try to reach an agreement with tenant at the first hearing for him/her to quit on his own terms. Prepare for another longer wait (3-6 months) for a longer appeal hearing otherwise. Then in all likelihood given the criminal nature of the tenant the landlord will have to take him to circuit court at his own expense to enforce the order. You guys go again to the circuit court hearing (after 3-4months) to support the landlord, should a do gooder judge believe some sob story of the poor tenant, finally depending on location sheriff and police will be involved depending on their agenda (6 to 12 weeks) and really kick the tenants out by force (doubt anyone with some brain would wait until sheriff with garda assistance knocking on the door).
You are looking at 1 year minimum plus 3 hearings. This is the protection that the Irish law gives to scumbag tenants: you wonder why landlords get out of market or want more deposit!
The socialist posters here will tell you to screw the landlord (it is much easier believe me), you will get some money but you will continue to live with the antisocial tenant next door who is so well protected by the law.

The_Conductor

+1 you *need* to document everything- and continue to do so.
Contact the landlord immediately- and advise they have a set amount of time (I'd give them 7 days) to resolve the issues- thereafter you will have no option but to lodge a 3rd party complaint with the RTB against the landlord.
From the RTB's report- almost 1 in 20 of all cases lodged with them in the last year they have reported on (2015 thus far)- are 3rd party complaints- the vast majority of them are upheld.

The fact that the other residents aren't willing to go to the Gardaí unfortunately- makes your case that bit harder- so you need to document it three ways to kingdom come.

No more nice guy with the landlord- you *need* to lodge a case with the RTB- they don't give a crap at the moment- because you've proven you're a soft touch.

andekwarhola

Thanks so much for that.

The bit about a judge buying a sob story is a bit worrying as the tenants are part of a particular Irish 'nomadic' group that are often subject to discrimination.

*I should state here I'm just saying this as a point of information and not wanting to turn the discussion that way. For the record, we as a board couldn't care less who lives in the development as long as they abide by the rules.*

Presumably it will give our case more substance if it's taken by an entire board of directors on behalf of the development as the number of residents who have experienced issues numbers about a dozen (and riding) and the housing association (landlord) have all the complaints on record and have supposedly issued warnings to the tenants.

spaceHopper

Can you lean on the housing association to make them act basically make it clear to them that you will go to other management associations and tell them of the problems you have experiences and make it much harder for them to buy properties. If you stick to the truth there is very little they could do to you and anyway the last thing they would want the negative publicity.

TooObvious

Good advice from The_Conductor and GGTrek.

Document everything - ultimately for a Housing Association to evict someone on the grounds of Anti Social Behaviour, the Gardai will need to have been involved, ideally the tenant will have been convicted. That sounds extreme, but having gone through the process this is what is needed for a definite eviction on the grounds of ASB.

Get a copy of the ASB Protocol from the Housing Association. This will give you some idea as to how the housing officer deals with ASB.

Forget about leaning on Housing Associations, even though you are a Director on a Management Company there is little you can do to stop them from purchasing a house in your estate or anywhere else.

RGDATA!

andekwarhola wrote: »

The bit about a judge buying a sob story is a bit worrying as the tenants are part of a particular Irish 'nomadic' group that are often subject to discrimination.

Apologies for jumping in without an answer to your question, but I'm genuinely curious why you'd go out of your way to use this euphemistic(?) construction..
Why not just say they're Travellers when it's obvious that's what you mean?

andekwarhola

RGDATA! wrote: »

Apologies for jumping in without an answer to your question, but I'm genuinely curious why you'd go out of your way to use this euphemistic(?) construction..
Why not just say they're Travellers when it's obvious that's what you mean?

Fair enough, should have just said it out straight.

Boards can be a bit of a disaster area about topics like that but I just added it as qualifying information as I'm worried about anything that could influence a decision.

As said, our only concern is immediately stopping the antisocial issues as opposed to who is causing them.

It's also an unfortunate factor that some of the affected residents are reluctant to go to the Gardai or identify themselves in a third party RTB case as a result.

Thanks for all the information folks. It's really helpful and certainly food for thought. We'll be getting information together and approaching the HA in the coming weeks.

andekwarhola

andekwarhola wrote: »

Fair enough, should have just said it out straight.

Boards can be a bit of a disaster area about topics like that but I just added it as qualifying information as I'm worried about anything that could influence a decision.

As said, our only concern is immediately stopping the antisocial issues as opposed to who is causing them.

It's also an unfortunate factor that some of the affected residents are reluctant to go to the Gardai or identify themselves in a third party RTB case as a result.

Thanks for all the information folks. It's really helpful and certainly food for thought. We'll be getting information together and approaching the HA in the coming weeks.

I would have though it was unusual that a housing association purchased one house in a development particularly one already build has any one else come across a housing association purchasing a one off property like that, not talking about purchasing and converting for a disabled person.

andekwarhola

mariaalice wrote: »

I would have though it was unusual that a housing association purchased one house in a development particularly one already build has any one else come across a housing association purchasing a one off property like that, not talking about purchasing and converting for a disabled person.

They actually purchased a few, albeit a small number, scattered throughout the development. The development was about 10 years old when they purchased them.

The amount purchased isn't really relevant to the topic at hand as I'm seeking advice on the single household that's causing issues.

The_Conductor

mariaalice wrote: »

I would have though it was unusual that a housing association purchased one house in a development particularly one already build has any one else come across a housing association purchasing a one off property like that, not talking about purchasing and converting for a disabled person.

Its quite common- I can think of 4 or 5 developments within a mile of where I'm currently sitting- where they've bought a few units scattered and sprinkled around the developments, like fairy dust.

The whole theory is that this helps the tenants integrate into the community in a better manner- however, the flipside of the coin- is whether, or not, the tenant wants to integrate into the community- in some cases, they quite simply don't- contrary to what most sane people would imagine.

TooObvious

The homelessness crisis being what it is means that Housing Associations are picking up properties EVERYWHERE. These are purchased sometimes through their own balance sheets, and a lot of time through various off balance sheet, government funded loans, and in some cases also through private lending with banks such as AIB.

A lot of the purchases are off-market, and many at the moment were previously subject to distressed mortgages.

This by no means a bad thing, integration is important and many of those looking for housing may be working in a locality but priced out of housing there. To be fair someone working minimum wage at the till in your local Centra (or wherever) should not have to be commuting an hour to get there.

The_Conductor

TooObvious wrote: »

This by no means a bad thing, integration is important and many of those looking for housing may be working in a locality but priced out of housing there. To be fair someone working minimum wage at the till in your local Centra (or wherever) should not have to be commuting an hour to get there.

However- integration is a two-way street- a tenant has to acknowledge their neighbours and live in socially acceptable manner for any given neighbourhood.

In this instance- it sounds like the kids are ferral, the parents don't give a shít and the entire estate is being used as an opportunity to run a car-repair/mechanic business (in one hell of a sloppy manner).

You can have do-gooders march outside the estate- saying its the father's right to run a mechanics trade from his home- but actually, no, its not. Its a residential area. Acting the bollox like this- has to have consequences. It is not acceptable for a housing association to buy a house in the middle of a residential area- and let the tenants get away with everything short of murder.

Integration is all well and good- however, if you have a tenant who doesn't want to be integrated- it is stupid to plonk them in the middle of a neighbourhood and expect a fairy tale ending to your story...........

Help!!!!

Go to your local politicians they can give the housing association a kick up the you know what

andekwarhola

If my post is being interpreted as a nimby protest about housing association tenants or low income earners, that's way off the beam.

Ironically we have a long term tenant (in another property) that receives rent allowance and we couldn't be happier with them.

I should point out here for balance that there has been zero issues in the last two years with the HA tenants in the other handful of properties, just this particular household.

I was brought up on a council estate and personally I'm fine with the concept of integrated housing but we've learning a hard lesson that it needs to be balanced with some meaningful (and speedy) recourse to other residents if tenants take the piss to egregious levels.

Mrs OBumble

I can guarantee that the HA is as keen for the ASB to stop as you are. But there is very little that they can do except slap wrists with a wet bus-ticket, especially if the tenant knows that the possibility of eviction is low.

Social housing is a zero-sum game: for a tenant to be evicted from one place, they have to be moved to another. It's just not an option to leave them to sleep on the street, and Australia / Canada / New Zealand are now closed to anyone except kids on WHVs and skilled people.

The_Conductor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I can guarantee that the HA is as keen for the ASB to stop as you are. But there is very little that they can do except slap wrists with a wet bus-ticket, especially if the tenant knows that the possibility of eviction is low.

Social housing is a zero-sum game: for a tenant to be evicted from one place, they have to be moved to another. It's just not an option to leave them to sleep on the street, and Australia / Canada / New Zealand are now closed to anyone except kids on WHVs and skilled people.

Fine- in which case the OP- and his/her neighbours- takes a third party dispute to the RTB- who can rule against the HA- and make financial awards to each and every person inconvenienced by the landlord.

The fact that the landlord has to rehome the tenant elsewhere- is neither here nor there- they have a duty of care to the tenant's neighbours- which can be enforced.