Non payment of rent

jimwallace197

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-would-not-follow-the-law-the-next-time-landlord-who-lost-25k-in-ordeal-with-rentdodging-tenants-37317965.html

Something I feel quite strongly about myself as I'm a landlord. Makes a change from the usual media bashing of landlords.

Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident across the country, aswell as the government continually giving better protections to tenants maybe they should look at protecting landlords better in cases like this also and we avoid the mass exodus of landlords from the property currently.

18 months of a legal process, ridiculous

Eric Cartman

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

amcalester

Eric Cartman wrote: »

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

Can you imagine the outrage if the government passed legislation to expedite evictions?

Eric Cartman

amcalester wrote: »

Can you imagine the outrage if the government passed legislation to expedite evictions?

which would free up properties for people who can afford to pay...

Its just Irish people resting on this stupid famine / English landlord thing of the past, we have very short memories with a lot of things, but for some reason we still think evictions are a bad thing.

11214

Eric Cartman wrote: »

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

If we were ever lucky enough to have the system changed I think 60 days is still to long to wait to evict.

dudara

If there were quicker evictions (and I do agree with introducing a more efficient process), the government and local authorities would be put under even more pressure to house people as they get evicted. I’d imagine that they will try to defer this as long as possible

Eric Cartman

dudara wrote: »

If there were quicker evictions (and I do agree with introducing a more efficient process), the government and local authorities would be put under even more pressure to house people as they get evicted. I’d imagine that they will try to defer this as long as possible

funnily enough though, being able to evict people faster probably wouldn't change that. If you think about it, a tenant facing current eviction is still likely engaged with homeless services to find them somewhere new, so that workload doesn't change , it just has more time pressure on it, however on the other side, more places become available as people are forcibly removed.

You would also probably minimise turnaround time on properties as often over holders have electricity and gas cut off for unpaid bills and the house is getting damp and damaged.

Eric Cartman

11214 wrote: »

If we were ever lucky enough to have the system changed I think 60 days is still to long to wait to evict.

In an ideal world, I think most people would agree to 60 days, personally I'd be round with a pistol and new locks at 6am on day 7 were it legal but its hard to get people over to my utopian vision of the world sometimes :pac:

jimwallace197

dudara wrote: »

If there were quicker evictions (and I do agree with introducing a more efficient process), the government and local authorities would be put under even more pressure to house people as they get evicted. I’d imagine that they will try to defer this as long as possible

The whole system is fundamentally flawed. Why should someone who is not working or willing to pay rent out of their own pocket have a say where they can or cannot live. There are plenty of empty properties down the country that these people should have no choice but to take or face homelessness.

I understand we are a socialist society and increasingly a more liberal one day by the day but this is all taking the p**s.

A line needs to be drawn in the sand that if you want to live in your ideal location then you need to be prepared to pay your own way.

KevinCavan

It seems to be the same in the u.k. based on reality t.v. shows about the issue.

CPTM

I think they're trying to discourage property investors from entering the market, to free up property for genuine primary home owners. I'm in the position to buy another house but I don't want to because of the lack of support for landlords and high tax on income. So that's one less person who's joining the queues of people buying houses. Conversely, it encourages landlords to sell and get out of the game, which increases the supply.

The angle this backfires though, is all the empty houses that are lying around which are not getting rented out because landlords don't want the hassle anymore. They see where the buying market is going and they'll sell up once it hits the high point. 3 empty houses around me here in south Dublin for the past 2 years, and one of which has been empty for nearly 5 years.

Eric Cartman

KevinCavan wrote: »

It seems to be the same in the u.k. based on reality t.v. shows about the issue.

watching all those scumbags have an hour to remove their possessions is my favourite thing, love shows like that.

johnnyskeleton

amcalester wrote: »

Can you imagine the outrage if the government passed legislation to expedite evictions?

There would be only a small amount. The amount of people who stand up for private renatl tenants is almost nil.

Now if they were to evict a local authority tenant due to anti social behaviour there would be protests, or if they were to evict a mortgagor because they stopped paying their mortgage there would be outrage and letters to TDs.

But no one cares about the plight of ordinary tenants. They are neither to be pitied and cared for like social tenants, noe are they considered to be part of the majority of the voters who either own or aspire to own property.

The only people that society cares less about than tenants is landlords

dudara

Eric Cartman wrote: »

watching all those scumbags have an hour to remove their possessions is my favourite thing, love shows like that.

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

jimwallace197

CPTM wrote: »

I think they're trying to discourage property investors from entering the market, to free up property for genuine primary home owners. I'm in the position to buy another house but I don't want to because of the lack of support for landlords and high tax on income. So that's one less person who's joining the queues of people buying houses. Conversely, it encourages landlords to sell and get out of the game, which increases the supply.

The angle this backfires though, is all the empty houses that are lying around which are not getting rented out because landlords don't want the hassle anymore. They see where the buying market is going and they'll sell up once it hits the high point. 3 empty houses around me here in south Dublin for the past 2 years, and one of which has been empty for nearly 5 years.

It only makes sense for a landlord to enter this market if they have a large portfolio of properties mainly run and managed by a good agent. Anything else & its a nightmare.

The gross yield on rental properties in Dublin (8/9%) is much higher than in other cities (London 4/5%) but the risk is much higher as it extremely difficult to remove a bad tenant.

If the legislation was strengthened in favour of the landlord, I have no doubt there would be significant investment by buy to let landlords which would provide ample accommodation for those who are productive in society & in most need of accommodation without the ability to buy. (Students and young professionals).

Eric Cartman

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

that was just in reference to a particular uk show and I think the word is appropriate, the 'guests' of the show usually look like something off Jeremy Kyle.

dudara

I’m talking about the same show also. What’s clear from the show is how considerate the agents are when it comes to eviction. They often take good care of the people being evicted, helping them as much as possible. Many of the people being evicted are not “scumbags”.

jimwallace197

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

If anyone is mentally unwell or suffers from a disability then every support should be given, absolutely and I think the majority of people would be an agreement with that but what we have is the exploitation of a market by certain people with a huge sense of entitlement and an unwillingness to contribute anything meaningful in society.

Eric Cartman

dudara wrote: »

I’m talking about the same show also. What’s clear from the show is how considerate the agents are when it comes to eviction. They often take good care of the people being evicted, helping them as much as possible. Many of the people being evicted are not “scumbags”.

some are , some aren't , there are episodes where people kick off or have done damage to a property, in which case the word is very appropriate, those are my personal favourite ones to see turfed out. But the reality of it is, you are seeing literally the last stand a landlord or bank has over somebody , if they're on that show then there is debts of atleast a few thousand that are never going to be paid and as nice as unemployed Chantelle from slough might be, at the other end of it there could be a landlord who hasn't been paid in months who has a bank chasing him for a situation that could adversely affect his credit and through no fault of his own.

utmbuilder

it is sad when it destroys a landlord and their credit

you need deep deep pockets and be extremely flexible to enter the property market now

jimwallace197

utmbuilder wrote: »

it is sad when it destroys a landlord and their credit

you need deep deep pockets and be extremely flexible to enter the property market now

We have to ask ourselves why that it is though. Imo its down to an ineffective government more interested in soundbites that actually doing anything effective about the problem.

Of course, they dont want to lose the single mother/social welfare vote though.

The easier it is for landlords to enter the market with better protections for them, the quicker the housing crisis will be resolved. The difficulty a lot of first time buyers have in achieving a mortgage in Dublin is pricing them out of the market which is exacerbating the situation.

The government is following the german example of strong rental protections for tenants but instead without any of the attractions a investor would see in the market such as a more efficient eviction process of non payment of rent.

Eoghan Murphy is completely out of his depth

Samuel T. Cogley

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

I agree with you on the scumbag front but if it were me I'd be engaing with the LL and paying what I could even if it was only a tenner a week. Refering back to 'the UK show' most of the tenants have wrecked the place, completely disengaged and have a nicer car than I do sitting in the drive.

quadrifoglio verde

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In an ideal world, I think most people would agree to 60 days, personally I'd be round with a pistol and new locks at 6am on day 7 were it legal but its hard to get people over to my utopian vision of the world sometimes :pac:

When you add up the costs and the lost rent, the fine for an illegal eviction is much cheaper in the long run!

the_syco

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I agree with you on the scumbag front but if it were me I'd be engaing with the LL and paying what I could even if it was only a tenner a week. Refering back to 'the UK show' most of the tenants have wrecked the place, completely disengaged and have a nicer car than I do sitting in the drive.

Binge watching one show at the moment; Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!

The High Court writ has either collection of rent or eviction, or both.

If both, the agents can evict there and then, and either get payment on the day, or they can confiscate goods, such as the tenants car.

I notice a lot of them have their bags packed, and are just waiting on the bailiffs, as the council needs the bailiff letter to give the family emergency accommodation. I assume this process is so that the tenant can't rent out the house to someone else whilst the original tenant pays no rent and are housed by the council.

the_syco

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

When you add up the costs and the lost rent, the fine for an illegal eviction is much cheaper in the long run!

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a marked increase in them, tbh, due to tenants stopping to pay rent.

Eric Cartman

the_syco wrote: »

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a marked increase in them, tbh, due to tenants stopping to pay rent.

in Dublin PRTB land landlords are scared, coming home to all your stuff in the garden and new locks would still fly in a lot of rural villages with cash landlords, proper order too.

c montgomery

I have friends living in the estate that happened in.

Tenants were trouble from the 1st weekend, guards down regularly, dodgy people calling at all hours.

4ensic15

c montgomery wrote: »

I have friends living in the estate that happened in.

Tenants were trouble from the 1st weekend, guards down regularly, dodgy people calling at all hours.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-family-whose-home-of-six-years-was-rented-out-in-their-absence-are-back-in-property-court-hears-841586.html

c montgomery

4ensic15 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-family-whose-home-of-six-years-was-rented-out-in-their-absence-are-back-in-property-court-hears-841586.html

Fail to see the relevance to my post!?

the_syco

c montgomery wrote: »

Fail to see the relevance to my post!?

I think they quoted the wrong post.

utmbuilder

the_syco wrote: »

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a marked increase in them, tbh, due to tenants stopping to pay rent.

it has a lot to do with dublin , its a dangerous kip we live in now, not knowing whos who. the value of life is at a alltime low
with thugs.

the_syco

utmbuilder wrote: »

it has a lot to do with dublin , its a dangerous kip we live in now, not knowing whos who. the value of life is at a alltime low
with thugs.

We'll be seeing a lot more masked men evict people, in that case.

dennyk

In terms of notice, I think the current 14-days-to-correct notice followed by a 28-day termination notice is fair enough, really (remember that if the tenant doesn't pay all arrears within the 14-day notice term, the 28-day termination notice is binding regardless of whether they pay the rest of their arrears after it's issued). It's the ridiculous delays to actually have a non-compliant tenant removed at the end of the notice period that are the problem. The whole RTB hearing process on terminations (both for rent arrears and otherwise) should be streamlined to take no more than a month or so, and if a removal order is issued, it should be binding and the landlord ought to be able to bring it straight to the sheriff and have the delinquent tenant out on their ass within a few days. If the tenant wants to fight it in court afterwards, that's on them (and of course if they do go to court and win in the end because the landlord did something wrong, the landlord ought to be held responsible for all the costs the tenant incurred as well; that's fair enough, I'd say...).

gaius c

Did anyone query why the new landlords didn't notice that rent hadn't been paid for the first four months of the tenancy?

Or that in a strong rental market that they managed to select the worst possible tenants they could have chosen?

c montgomery

gaius c wrote: »

Did anyone query why the new landlords didn't notice that rent hadn't been paid for the first four months of the tenancy?

Or that in a strong rental market that they managed to select the worst possible tenants they could have chosen?

Think the guy who lived there was not on the lease.
Single mother on the application but first weekend it's all his family round for a party

4ensic15

dennyk wrote: »

In terms of notice, I think the current 14-days-to-correct notice followed by a 28-day termination notice is fair enough, really (remember that if the tenant doesn't pay all arrears within the 14-day notice term, the 28-day termination notice is binding regardless of whether they pay the rest of their arrears after it's issued). It's the ridiculous delays to actually have a non-compliant tenant removed at the end of the notice period that are the problem. The whole RTB hearing process on terminations (both for rent arrears and otherwise) should be streamlined to take no more than a month or so, and if a removal order is issued, it should be binding and the landlord ought to be able to bring it straight to the sheriff and have the delinquent tenant out on their ass within a few days. If the tenant wants to fight it in court afterwards, that's on them (and of course if they do go to court and win in the end because the landlord did something wrong, the landlord ought to be held responsible for all the costs the tenant incurred as well; that's fair enough, I'd say...).

The simple way to deal with it is this, once the landlord makes the complaint of non payment the tenant has to pay the rent reserved under the lease to the RTB or he is straight out on his ear.

Mongfinder General

c montgomery wrote: »

Think the guy who lived there was not on the lease.
Single mother on the application but first weekend it's all his family round for a party

No wonder there’s nowhere to rent for working families. Filth like this scam their way in. Why any property owner would rent out long term is beyond me. Air bnb is much less risky

gaius c

c montgomery wrote: »

Think the guy who lived there was not on the lease.
Single mother on the application but first weekend it's all his family round for a party

Where are you getting that from? Article only mentions mother and two sons.

And not noticing that rent hadn't been paid?
For the first four months of a new lease?
That's plain careless.

GGTrek

gaius c wrote: »

c montgomery wrote: »

Think the guy who lived there was not on the lease.
Single mother on the application but first weekend it's all his family round for a party

Where are you getting that from? Article only mentions mother and two sons.

And not noticing that rent hadn't been paid?
For the first four months of a new lease?
That's plain careless.

She was a very careless non professional landlord that lost four months before serving notices and I must say that she was lucky that her losses were not higher for two reasons:
a) the tenant did not appeal the first RTB adjudication (probably were so stupid and with little knowledge of the broken irish judicial system not to spend even 100 Eur on an appeal)
b) the sheriff managed to talk the tenant out

I shall tell you what a motivated non paying smart tenant with nothing to loose could do in the irish (notice the lower case is not an error) socialist state even with a professional landlord (of course after such process the tenant would not be able to rent privately anywhere in Ireland since his/her name would be all over the place in RTB and courts databases):
1) non payment waste a min of 6 weeks for the warning + termination notice periods to expire
2) Overhold, 3 weeks for hearing + another 1 month for determination order to be published + min 2 weeks given from adjudicator
3) Wait 3 weeks (maximum allowed) and spend 100 eur, tenant appeals with absolutely no grounds and no further expense
4) Wait 4-5 months for appeal hearing
5) another 1 month for determination order to be published + min 2 weeks given from tribunal again!!!
6) wait up to 30 days and pay 200-300 eur and appeal to High Court as litigant in person with absolutely BS reason to appeal
7) wait another 4-5 months for High Court judge to throw out the case
8) the landlord will then go to District Court to execute, wait another 4 months to get a hearing
9) appeal again the order of possesion decision of the District Court as litigant in person at the Circuit Court (again spend less than 200 eur to do this) and waste another 3 months
10) Circuit Court throws out case, landlord goes to sheriff to finally execute the order
11) Finally after 6-12 weeks the delinquent tenant is physically thrown out

How long does it take to finally kick the non paying tenant out: between 23-25 months. Even assuming the tenant is paying a low rent of 1k x month (for Dublin that would be a low rent). We are talking a minimum of 23k loss only on rent + a minimum of around 6k of legal costs for the landlord (and this is assuming that the landlord only hires solicitor for District and Circuit court), while the tenant just spent around 1k on meritless automatic appeals (extremely low) costs without depositing any of the money owed in order to appeal (like it is done in more serious jurisdictions after the first sentence).

Now if the landlord of the case had locked out the tenant after the first RTB adjudication became final, she would have received a maximum of 3k eur fine compensated by the massive rent arrears of the tenant (tenant would have received nothing at all), there is clear case law in this sense since the RTB adjudicators do not like tenants that do not follow determination orders and then go back to the RTB for "justice", in addition the only way the tenant had to get back in was to do like the owners of 34 Frederick Street, pay a barrister big money in advance (we are talking thousands here) and request a High Court injuction to get back in and on the other had the injuction can be contested since the tenant should have been out already.
The residential tenancy law is so broken in Ireland that after a certain point it is more economically beneficial for a landlord that has a non paying tenant to break the law than to respect it. This is the brutal truth that you will never find in any irish sold-out media outlet and the system was designed this way and only worsened over the years by your very own irish govvie which this autumn will continue in its meddling to make it even worse!:'(:angry:

TheChizler

I mean, if you base your whole risk outlook and opinion of the law on the worst case outcome all the time then of course it's going to look bad. How often does that actually happen?

4ensic15

GGTrek wrote: »

3) Wait 3 weeks (maximum allowed) and spend 100 eur, tenant appeals with absolutely no grounds and no further expense

It is 10 days maximun for the appeal.

GGTrek wrote: »

7) wait another 4-5 months for High Court judge to throw out the case.

It can take a year to get a hearing in the High Court.

1874

GGTrek wrote: »

She was a very careless non professional landlord that lost four months before serving notices and I must say that she was lucky that her losses were not higher for two reasons:
a) the tenant did not appeal the first RTB adjudication (probably were so stupid and with little knowledge of the broken irish judicial system not to spend even 100 Eur on an appeal)
b) the sheriff managed to talk the tenant out


How long does it take to finally kick the non paying tenant out: between 23-25 months. Even assuming the tenant is paying a low rent of 1k x month (for Dublin that would be a low rent). We are talking a minimum of 23k loss only on rent + a minimum of around 6k of legal costs for the landlord (and this is assuming that the landlord only hires solicitor for District and Circuit court), while the tenant just spent around 1k on meritless automatic appeals (extremely low) costs without depositing any of the money owed in order to appeal (like it is done in more serious jurisdictions after the first sentence).

Now if the landlord of the case had locked out the tenant after the first RTB adjudication became final, she would have received a maximum of 3k eur fine compensated by the massive rent arrears of the tenant (tenant would have received nothing at all), there is clear case law in this sense since the RTB adjudicators do not like tenants that do not follow determination orders and then go back to the RTB for "justice", in addition the only way the tenant had to get back in was to do like the owners of 34 Frederick Street, pay a barrister big money in advance (we are talking thousands here) and request a High Court injuction to get back in and on the other had the injuction can be contested since the tenant should have been out already.
The residential tenancy law is so broken in Ireland that after a certain point it is more economically beneficial for a landlord that has a non paying tenant to break the law than to respect it. This is the brutal truth that you will never find in any irish sold-out media outlet and the system was designed this way and only worsened over the years by your very own irish govvie which this autumn will continue in its meddling to make it even worse!:'(:angry:

Is this really the case? and who is the fine paid to? the RTB? Id nearly be ok with that over giving it to a tenant. Ive read of massive fines for landlords, Ive heard of fines from 16-22k and up to 55k, granted the latter was something to do with non registration. If this is really the case, then a landlord with a delinquent tenant really only needs to change the locks or drill out any replacements after a determination asap! This may seem like small comfort but I think it is a bit of light in the tunnel, because the alternatives are ridiculous. I had tenants in the past (no longer involved in it now, I got out), who voluntarily left after non payment, I was fortunate I was able to encourage to leave by talking about it (but it could have gone anyway), in both occasions there was non payment, becoming difficult to contact or uncontactable and a threat of violence in the end, first was when removing their last personal items, the other brought friends around to check they got everything, tried to re-enter the property and threatened violence, in the latter instance I suspected the friends brought along were going to try and occupy what was to become my home. I suspect it happens more than is reported but at that point I decided to get out of renting as I knew if a tenant got nasty, refused to pay or answer contact, I could have gotten into a very difficult financial situation to recover from.

CeilingFly

Eric Cartman wrote: »

should be

5 days late - notice of arrears
30 days - notice of eviction
60 days - evicted with the help of gardai by force and locks changes.

this current system is complete madness.

Probably a little extreme

14 days - notice of arrears
30 Days - final notice with 30 days recourse to mediation
60 days - 30 days notice of eviction with no recourse to mediation
90 days - automatic eviction

1874

CeilingFly wrote: »

Probably a little extreme

14 days - notice of arrears
30 Days - final notice with 30 days recourse to mediation
60 days - 30 days notice of eviction with no recourse to mediation
90 days - automatic eviction

I think there was a 24hour notification on the old PRTB site, but I believe it was there as a suggestion for part 4 tenancy's but I dont think it was connected with the fixed term, not sure whats up on their website now, but if rent was late I used to wait 24hours and start making a call then, if I didn't get through Id send a text, I know it means nothing legally or officially but its an informal way to get the tenants attention, If I still got no reply, Id write it up as a letter and post it, I always had an email as a means of communication.
I'd tell the tenants not to be concerned about it but that I was obligated to keep it official and make note of the dates for my own records.

I think this helped me by staying on top of late payments early, but it could be very hard work and I always knew I was one month away from the next problem and either excuse or no reply.
Looking back now I was lucky, the tenants probably didnt want the hassle, some were continually late with rent or paid less in the end, one stopped paying and became uncontactable.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

3) Wait 3 weeks (maximum allowed) and spend 100 eur, tenant appeals with absolutely no grounds and no further expense

It is 10 days maximun for the appeal.

GGTrek wrote: »

7) wait another 4-5 months for High Court judge to throw out the case.

It can take a year to get a hearing in the High Court.

It used to be 21 days, it is 10 calendar days is when a mediation or agreement is reached (introduced by RTA 2015), if there is no agreement (i.e. a determination order after adjudication) then the following applies:
" Amendment of section 100 (appeal to Tribunal against adjudicator’s determination) of Act of 2004 "43. Section 100 of the Act of 2004 is amended in subsection (2) by substituting “ 10 working days ” for “21 days”.", so it is actually 14 to 16 calendar days.

Check High Court, search for appeals with RTB as defendant, thankfully very few cases presented by tenants as litigant in person are allowed to reach a full hearing at the High Court (which yes would require around a year of waiting time!) they usually end up like this after 4-5 months: "NON JURY INTERIM DISMISS APPLICATION" or "Judicial Review Ex Parte refused" or "NON JURY INTERIM", which usually means they are thrown out without a full hearing granted. Last year there were 20 appeals at the High Court (19 of which from tenants: many dismissed without full hearing and judgement issued), I would say this is a massive number given the fact that they cost a fortune to the taxpayer since RTB has to pay legal fees to their barristers with no hope of recovering such fees from the tenants alleging penury: not a single appeal to the High Court has been successful for plaintiffs tenants in 2017 or 2018! So these people are just wasting massive taxpayers resources without risking any of their own money. The cost of appeals should be massively increased both for RTB Tribunal (in my opinion lodging 20-30% of the damages granted on first instance adjudication) and even more for High Court (lodging 100% of damages granted by RTB Tribunal). This will immediately remove people playing the system, problem are the sold out media and the sold out govvie that will never want to speed up evictions and remove the obvious distortion.

c montgomery

gaius c wrote: »

Where are you getting that from? Article only mentions mother and two sons.

And not noticing that rent hadn't been paid?
For the first four months of a new lease?
That's plain careless.

Friend lives in the estate in question.

GGTrek

1874 wrote: »

Is this really the case? and who is the fine paid to? the RTB? Id nearly be ok with that over giving it to a tenant. Ive read of massive fines for landlords, Ive heard of fines from 16-22k and up to 55k, granted the latter was something to do with non registration. If this is really the case, then a landlord with a delinquent tenant really only needs to change the locks or drill out any replacements after a determination asap! This may seem like small comfort but I think it is a bit of light in the tunnel, because the alternatives are ridiculous. I had tenants in the past (no longer involved in it now, I got out), who voluntarily left after non payment, I was fortunate I was able to encourage to leave by talking about it (but it could have gone anyway), in both occasions there was non payment, becoming difficult to contact or uncontactable and a threat of violence in the end, first was when removing their last personal items, the other brought friends around to check they got everything, tried to re-enter the property and threatened violence, in the latter instance I suspected the friends brought along were going to try and occupy what was to become my home. I suspect it happens more than is reported but at that point I decided to get out of renting as I knew if a tenant got nasty, refused to pay or answer contact, I could have gotten into a very difficult financial situation to recover from.

The fine is paid to no one. Assume the tenant has rent arrears of around 5-7k by the time the determination order becomes final (this is a realistic scenario), he/she does not vacate and landlord locks him/her out, tenant goes back to RTB for unlawful eviction, RTB verifies that tenant was supposed to leave and grants a 3k fine in favour of tenant subject to the payment of the 5-7k of rent arrears, the tenants gets nothing, the RTB gets nothing except the 15-25 eur of the adjudication fee. RTB only receives fines in case of non registration which are administrative-(sometimes)criminal matters, receives almost nothing (except a taxpayer subsidised fee for the service) for landlord-tenant disputes which are civil matters.
If I have some time, I shall dig up some case law on the matter.

1874

GGTrek wrote: »

The fine is paid to no one. Assume the tenant has rent arrears of around 5-7k by the time the determination order becomes final (this is a realistic scenario), he/she does not vacate and landlord locks him/her out, tenant goes back to RTB for unlawful eviction, RTB verifies that tenant was supposed to leave and grants a 3k fine in favour of tenant subject to the payment of the 5-7k of rent arrears, the tenants gets nothing, the RTB gets nothing except the 15-25 eur of the adjudication fee. RTB only receives fines in case of non registration which are administrative-(sometimes)criminal matters, receives almost nothing (except a taxpayer subsidised fee for the service) for landlord-tenant disputes which are civil matters.
If I have some time, I shall dig up some case law on the matter.

Well thats even better, Id have thought the landlord could get in trouble for changing the locks and effectively throwing the tenant and their stuff on the side of the road and be liable for severe penalties or fines even with a determination order on their side.
I wonder could a landlord still do that if a token pittance of payment towards any unpaid rent was being made.
I'm a bit surprised by this, but Im more suprised that it isnt the way things are being done all the time, as there is definitely no sense in the alternative of letting a delinquent tenant live rent free for 2 years.
Id be suspicious of how it could go if there were children involved, particularly small children.

GGTrek

1874 wrote: »

Id be suspicious of how it could go if there were children involved, particularly small children.

What you are talking about can only be pursued at the High Court with serious legal fees paid in advance, not at the RTB with a pittance of 15-25 eur fee. Very unlikely that a non paying lowly educated tenant with no job (which is 99% of the cases with rent arrears, since a tenant with a half-decent job would risk a garnish order on his/her salary) will be able to raise a case at the High Court as a litigant in person.
It is quite easy to avoid rent arrears in my opinion: do not rent to people that don't have the means to pay rent with their own finances; these people should be housed directly by the state/councils which in Ireland is seriously abdicating its responsibilities and screwing private landlords by imposing a variety of BS discrimination laws and one-sided schemes.

bleary

Ok first locking someone out is an illegal eviction
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/ending-a-tenancy/what-is-an-illegal-eviction/
If you read that article fines can be up to 20 k and the ll may be ordered to take the tenant back after that so I would tread very carefully.
Below is a case report awarded 8000

http://www.mcgrathmcgrane.ie/news/damages-for-illegal-eviction-from-the-prtb.html
And here the head of the rtb discusses an award of 15,000
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/up-to-five-illegal-eviction-cases-each-week-says-rtb-1.3333519

goat2

dudara wrote: »

I think that’s quite unfair. Many of the people have no income, are unemployed, have had partners leave or are even mentally unwell. The housing agencies will only take action to help them when they’re evicted. Yes, of course these people shouldn’t overhold, but the whole system is f*cked.

I’d prefer to keep use of the word “scumbags” for people who truly deserve it, not people who are on hard times. It could happen to any of us.

They are in a hole, they put themselves there, the owners of those properties worked hard to pay for them, and they have every right to put them out,
If you don't pay
you don't stay