5k awarded WRC

gmisk

Woman on rent supplement 'placed under severe financial pressure' in eviction row awarded €5k https://jrnl.ie/4451262

What an odd story, sounds like landlord was clueless but Tennant sounds like a nightmare, running a dog minding business.... From an apartment... Jesus love to have them as a neighbour!

Askthe EA

gmisk wrote: »

Woman on rent supplement 'placed under severe financial pressure' in eviction row awarded €5k https://jrnl.ie/4451262

What an odd story, sounds like landlord was clueless but Tennant sounds like a nightmare, running a dog minding business.... From an apartment... Jesus love to have them as a neighbour!

Reads to me that the landlord handled a justifiable termination very poorly. Lesson there for all landlords.

The Megaphone

Sorry if this is an obvious / stupid question, but why was this case referred to the Workplace Relations Commission? - impact on the dog minding business?

Wheety

Why are the WRC adjudicating this?

L1011

The WRC took over the operations of a number of other agencies; the name is clearly wrong for what it does these days though. This would probably have been previously covered by the Equality Tribunal that was merged in with, the basis being the tenant's RAS status

DubCount

Wheety wrote: »

Why are the WRC adjudicating this?

The case related to discrimination on the grounds of being in receipt of Rent Allowance. This is heard by the WRC.

Matters relating to the eviction notices, alleged breaches of tenant obligations etc. are referred to the RTB, but when it comes to discrimination, that goes to teh WRC.

handlemaster

and they wonder why Landlords are leaving the business. Handle wrongly but 5 k, if it was the other way around , the landlord would never see the colour of that money.

overkill602

That quango awarded a polish family 7K who where refused HAP from a LL i know well they are now back in poland.
All these fines are further negatively effecting supply

Browney7

overkill602 wrote: »

That quango awarded a polish family 7K who where refused HAP from a LL i know well they are now back in poland.
All these fines are further negatively effecting supply

Is that the case where the LL was an absolute fool and strung the tenants along for months upon months saying he'll sign the HAP form soon but never did and eventually gave an eviction notice with a "there's your HAP" style comment?

The LL in the case here seemed to be making it up as they went along firing eviction notices out like confetti and then revoking them. What was the LL trying to achieve with all the messing with social welfare? Strange case but shows the importance of doing things properly and by the book and not in a haphazard manner

Askthe EA

The WRC took it because the tenants claim that they tried to get the LL to sign a rent allowance form and that he said he would but never did.

Id imagine he was happy to take it until the complaints strated coming in.

Cuddlesworth

If you read the article, its a great example of when a clueless landlord and bad tenant interact.

He is going to be looking at a huge RTB payout too, if he ever gets her out.

Fol20

He tried to evict her multiple times failing on every attempt. At that stage, id be using a solicitor to remove them so you do it properly once and for all. Once you have to pay compensation to a claimant, that would be the final nail in the coffin for me and i wouldnt want to them in my house any longer no matter how good they or the government were paying me. I wish we had a feedback account similar to adverts where landlords and tenants can leave feedback alike. This would really make a lot of ll and tenants think twice before they do something like this.

Can someone please tell me why they backed out of the evict 3-4 times. Did he just keep incorrectly providing eviction or is there something else im not seeing here.

Browney7

Fol20 wrote: »

He tried to evict her multiple times failing on every attempt. At that stage, id be using a solicitor to remove them so you do it properly once and for all. Once you have to pay compensation to a claimant, that would be the final nail in the coffin for me and i wouldnt want to them in my house any longer no matter how good they or the government were paying me. I wish we had a feedback account similar to adverts where landlords and tenants can leave feedback alike. This would really make a lot of ll and tenants think twice before they do something like this.

Can someone please tell me why they backed out of the evict 3-4 times. Did he just keep incorrectly providing eviction or is there something else im not seeing here.

I'm guessing they gave the tenant a one year fixed term lease which served to reduce their eviction options.

I'd guess they tried to strongarm the tenant out at the first sign of trouble (the pets etc) and claimed to the tenant they can terminate for any reason in first six months.

Probably then made a balls of the eviction for antisocial and breach of lease grounds by not giving opportunity to remedy.

Possible they then manufactured a rent arrears termination ground by not signing the social welfare form or not following the notification process correctly.

That's my reading of the lines here. A very unprepared landlord meeting an unsuitable tenant.

Lesson to take from this is don't give fixed term leases

beauf

Browney7 wrote: »

Is that the case where the LL was an absolute fool and strung the tenants along for months upon months saying he'll sign the HAP form soon but never did and eventually gave an eviction notice with a "there's your HAP" style comment?

The LL in the case here seemed to be making it up as they went along firing eviction notices out like confetti and then revoking them. What was the LL trying to achieve with all the messing with social welfare? Strange case but shows the importance of doing things properly and by the book and not in a haphazard manner

I thought it said the LL and tenant agreed a compromise, or to stop doing whatever caused the termination notice so the LL withdrew them. Only other things happened so he issued then again.

Lot of messing either way. He should have just gone ahead with the first notice.

Cuddlesworth

beauf wrote: »

I thought it said the LL and tenant agreed a compromise, or to stop doing whatever caused the termination notice so the LL withdrew them. Only other things happened so he issued then again.

Lot of messing either way. He should have just gone ahead with the first notice.

Says in the article, first notice was deemed to be invalid by the RTB.

The landlord did other things, like not signing the Social forms(illegal), writing threatening letters, putting the occupied apartment up for rent with the sitting tenant there, giving multiple notices of eviction which were deemed invalid by the RTB, trying to use the family rule when it was obviously untrue, lying about signing the social welfare forms on multiple occasions.

He started digging his own grave and didn't stop till a kangaroo gave him a smack.

beauf

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Says in the article, first notice was deemed to be invalid by the RTB.

The landlord did other things, like not signing the Social forms(illegal), writing threatening letters, putting the occupied apartment up for rent with the sitting tenant there, giving multiple notices of eviction which were deemed invalid by the RTB, trying to use the family rule when it was obviously untrue, lying about signing the social welfare forms on multiple occasions.

He started digging his own grave and didn't stop till a kangaroo gave him a smack.

There was messing on both sides.

A bit of balance wouldn't go amiss.

My point was simply he should have corrected the first notice and tried again with a proper termination. He seemed to be indecisive, when it was obvious the tenant wasn't going to work out. The rest of the stuff was him just flailing around blindly.

Cuddlesworth

beauf wrote: »

There was messing on both sides.

A bit of balance wouldn't go amiss.

My point was simply he should have corrected the first notice and tried again with a proper termination. He seemed to be indecisive, when it was obvious the tenant wasn't going to work out. The rest of the stuff was him just flailing around blindly.

The law and RTB are heavily in favour of the tenant. Landlords don't get to mess around, everything has to be perfect.

After the first notice of termination, which was invalid, he followed up with threats(in writing) and listed the property for rent while the tenant went to the RTB. From that point, he was winning nothing with or without valid notice.

quietsailor

This quote from the article worries me

"O’Driscoll went on to add:

"I find a prima facie case of less favourable treatment has been shown by the complainant due to the actions of the respondent in notifying the Dept of Social Protection on four occasions that he was refusing to accept rent, and notification of the termination of the tenancy to the Department,” O’Driscoll said in her findings and conclusions"

So if a LL is evicting a person and the LL informs the correct authorities that the tenant will no longer be living in the property so the Dept should stop paying them towards the rent in the LLs property the LL can be fined?????

That's nuts, how are the Dept supposed to know when to stop paying out?

beauf

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The law and RTB are heavily in favour of the tenant. Landlords don't get to mess around, everything has to be perfect.

After the first notice of termination, which was invalid, he followed up with threats(in writing) and listed the property for rent while the tenant went to the RTB. From that point, he was winning nothing with or without valid notice.

I don't disagree that he handled the notices badly, but...

The tenant was reported for multiple breaches of the lease by the LL and by the management company, and other tenants after one month! I sounds like hes being trying to get the tenants out from then. Everything stems from that.

Sounds like the tenant is there.

beauf

quietsailor wrote: »

This quote from the article worries me

"O’Driscoll went on to add:

"I find a prima facie case of less favourable treatment has been shown by the complainant due to the actions of the respondent in notifying the Dept of Social Protection on four occasions that he was refusing to accept rent, and notification of the termination of the tenancy to the Department,” O’Driscoll said in her findings and conclusions"

So if a LL is evicting a person and the LL informs the correct authorities that the tenant will no longer be living in the property so the Dept should stop paying them towards the rent in the LLs property the LL can be fined?????

That's nuts, how are the Dept supposed to know when to stop paying out?

I would say the LL was trying to get their payment cut off to put pressure on them to leave.