In reality can letting agents/landlords get rid of you for exercising your rights?

griffincathal

The caretaker of the property I live in likes to be able to do work when he chooses whether the tenant is there or not. I have put my foot down politely by sms and told him I don't like that and I would like to be able to be there to let him in.

I am aware of my right to quiet and peaceful occupancy of the property but and should already correspond in writing email or text in order to have records as I am open to making arrangements that suit us both.

However in reality can they get rid of me because they are viewing me as a nuisance and make up an excuse should you challenge them and then end up homeless? Or make my life helI by refusing to do necessary work/deliveries. I have been in touch with threshold but I think part of their job is to put you at ease and will just tell you how best to exercise your rights. I'm just wondering if the wisest move to keep a roof over my head is to essentially submit to them?

davo10

In reality, yes the LL can boot you out, its whether the eviction is legal or not that would be adjudicated on by the RTB if you disputed the eviction.

GGTrek

In all my leases I have a clause that says I only have to give 48hrs warning by any mean for inspections or repairs and tenant can only refuse on proven health issues (he/she is sick): no other reason is accepted. It is hard enough to get a builder /plumber/.... to come to provide a cost estimate/repair in Dublin and having to deal with a "privacy" conscious tenant. If the tenant refuses or ignores he gets immediately a 14 days warning notice for breach of tenant obligations and definitely goes into the fussy tenant list (which is never good). I only had two tenants who were stupid enough to ignore the warnings and then complain: both are long gone.

My suggestion to the OP: if the repairs are for your benefit definitely ask for some small previous warning but don't be fussy: for example by asking the landlord to perform repairs only when you are inside after 6pm or at weekends since most contractors will only be available 9 to 6 Mon-Fri. Many times you will have to allow the contractors in while you are not inside. Taking a landlord to adjudication for a repair for your benefit because you did not get a warning or because you did not agree on a time that was suitable to the contractors is a sure way to piss your landlord off and go at the top of his/her blacklist: whatever the jobsworths at Threshold are telling you, common sense should prevail!

GarIT

GGTrek wrote: »

In all my leases I have a clause that says I only have to give 48hrs warning by any mean for inspections or repairs and tenant can only refuse on proven health issues (he/she is sick): no other reason is accepted. It is hard enough to get a builder /plumber/.... to come to provide a cost estimate/repair in Dublin and having to deal with a "privacy" conscious tenant. If the tenant refuses or ignores he gets immediately a 14 days warning notice for breach of tenant obligations and definitely goes into the fussy tenant list (which is never good). I only had two tenants who were stupid enough to ignore the warnings and then complain: both are long gone.

My suggestion to the OP: if the repairs are for your benefit definitely ask for some small previous warning but don't be fussy: for example by asking the landlord to perform repairs only when you are inside after 6pm or at weekends since most contractors will only be available 9 to 6 Mon-Fri. Many times you will have to allow the contractors in while you are not inside. Taking a landlord to adjudication for a repair for your benefit because you did not get a warning or because you did not agree on a time that was suitable to the contractors is a sure way to piss your landlord off and go at the top of his/her blacklist: whatever the jobsworths at Threshold are telling you, common sense should prevail!

From a legal perspective nothing you can put in a contract can override a law. Your 48 hour clause would be useless in court if challenged by a tenant. In practical terms it will probably work and the tenant will probably comply to avoid the hassle.

The_Conductor

GarIT wrote: »

From a legal perspective nothing you can put in a contract can override a law. Your 48 hour clause would be useless in court if challenged by a tenant. In practical terms it will probably work and the tenant will probably comply to avoid the hassle.

It depends really- in managed complexes with an OMC- the rule of thumb is there is an obligation to give unimpeded access to a unit for any issues involving gas, water or electricity- and it is spelt out in the owner's lease. If a tenant refuses to grant access- the owner themselves is in breach with the management company- and should any damage accrue to another unit- or if there are costs involved with a callout that the contractor cannot complete- the owner is liable up to the excess on the block lease.

If its an emergency- just let the person do it- if its not an emergency- schedule a mutually agreeable time to get the job done.

GarIT

The_Conductor wrote: »

It depends really- in managed complexes with an OMC- the rule of thumb is there is an obligation to give unimpeded access to a unit for any issues involving gas, water or electricity- and it is spelt out in the owner's lease. If a tenant refuses to grant access- the owner themselves is in breach with the management company- and should any damage accrue to another unit- or if there are costs involved with a callout that the contractor cannot complete- the owner is liable up to the excess on the block lease.

If its an emergency- just let the person do it- if its not an emergency- schedule a mutually agreeable time to get the job done.

Rule of thumbs or anything in a lease doesn’t really matter in this case as it as clearly defined in the law. The landlord or someone appointed by the landlord can enter without notice if they believe there is an immediate danger to human life or the property, gas or water leak, electrical damage, flooding or anything similar, and that is covered in law nothing in the lease is necessary.

If there is not an emergency the landlord can request a time to inspect the property and the tenant should respond with a suitable time within 7 days. No lease can lengthen or shorten that, any lease that tries to isn’t worth the paper it’s written on but as I said in practice you’ll probably get away with telling a tenant that it’s a clause in the lease and the tenant will comply, maybe partially from convenience and partially from not knowing their rights.


To actually answer the OP officially they can’t , but if they don’t want you there they will usually find a clause somewhere to use to essentially manage you out.

robp

Would such a 48 hour clause risk breaking any laws though?

questionmark?

OP you say the caretaker likes to do repairs when he likes? That sounds like a regular occurrence which is unusual as repairs by their very nature are uncommon.
If it's an emergency sure let him as makes sense to do it at it but if its regular occurrence and it's disturbing your peace simply advice they are not allowed enter without your prior agreement even if your lease says otherwise.

GGTrek

robp wrote: »

Would such a 48 hour clause risk breaking any laws though?

Please point me to case law that says 48hrs is not enough time. Suitable is a very subjective and generic term.