What are the penalties for an illegal eviction?

Mod Note: Thread Split


What's the penalty if you just remove the tenants yourself and change the locks?

Pay the illegal eviction fine you'll get from the estate and be done with it?


EDIT: To clarify, I am not advocating you follow this approach.
I was just curious as to what sort of penalties someone who tried to do this would face. I'm sure it occurs on occasion with landlords who don't exactly follow the legal options.

4ensic15

salonfire wrote: »

What's the penalty if you just remove the tenants yourself and change the locks?

Pay the illegal eviction fine you'll get from the estate and be done with it?

Potentially get hauled into court and told to let the tenants back in and with a bill for the legal costs. The beneficiaries might not take too kindly to having their inheritance squandered on legal costs.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/familys-home-rented-to-another-man-while-mother-collected-children-from-school-court-hears-36863744.html

Graham

Mod Note

As this is an interesting question in its own right, it deserves a thread of its own.....

Peregrinus

You'll be looking at paying the tenants' legal fees, plus their costs of securing alternative accommodation while they were locked out of their home, plus compensation for any other loss or damage they may have suffered as a result of the exclusion (e.g. if they can't access their possessions left in the home, or if their possessions are damaged by your handling of them). The costs of securing alternative accommodation will continue until they have access to their home again or until you terminate their right to possession of the property lawfully and effectively, as will any other damages that result from their exclusion, so there is no fixed cap to the amount you could be liable for here.

If you're an executor, these costs are not legitimately payable from the estate. You incurred them; you bear them.

Tl;dr: Don't do this. It won't end well.

Samuel T. Cogley

It is their home though. It's my fecking property though so if they don't pay the rent there should be a quicker way of regaining possession.

ted1

If there’s no one in the house when the landlord goes to clean up after a tenant was meant to move it , and he puts all items in storage and changes the lock. Does that count as an eviction.

4ensic15

ted1 wrote: »

If there’s no one in the house when the landlord goes to clean up after a tenant was meant to move it , and he puts all items in storage and changes the lock. Does that count as an eviction.

It depends on whether or not there is rent owed and if the tenant is still living there.

Graham

Mod Note

I've split the "is it a house or home" discussion to a new thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057997235

Peregrinus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It is their home though. It's my fecking property though so if they don't pay the rent there should be a quicker way of regaining possession.

Possibly there should be. But an illegal eviction is not that way.

utmbuilder

Apart from the fines in this climate you could end up like the dentist who killed cesil the lion

The chances.of 50 loons arriving is very possible at the moment

utmbuilder

utmbuilder wrote: »

Apart from the fines in this climate you could end up like the dentist who killed cesil the lion

The chances.of 50 loons arriving is very possible at the moment

A tad paranoid, but not beyond the realms of possibility

In relation to penalties, worse case scenario a huge fine and possibly your name published on RTB website and in print/online media That may still be less than the financial penalty incurred by leaving the tenant in situ for a year not paying rent. Best case scenario, tenant understands the importance of a reference and doesn’t want to be named on what is now the best database for unappealing tenants, the RTB website, so no penalty at all.

4ensic15

Dav010 wrote: »

A tad paranoid, but not beyond the realms of possibility

In relation to penalties, worse case scenario a huge fine and possibly your name published on RTB website and in print/online media That may still be less than the financial penalty incurred by leaving the tenant in situ for a year not paying rent. Best case scenario, tenant understands the importance of a reference and doesn’t want to be named on what is now the best database for unappealing tenants, the RTB website, so no penalty at all.

You could also be ordered to let the tenant back in and deal with the tenant according to the law. Your chances of the RTB being of any help subsequently would be very low. You would face further delays and masive legal costs in that scenario.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

A tad paranoid, but not beyond the realms of possibility

In relation to penalties, worse case scenario a huge fine and possibly your name published on RTB website and in print/online media That may still be less than the financial penalty incurred by leaving the tenant in situ for a year not paying rent. Best case scenario, tenant understands the importance of a reference and doesn’t want to be named on what is now the best database for unappealing tenants, the RTB website, so no penalty at all.

I don't know if there are any fines at all for evicting someone illegally but, even if there are, however great they are they are probably not the "worst case scenario". The worst case scenario is almost certainly having to compensate the tenant for the cost of securing alternative accommodation for the period for which the unlawful eviction continues, and paying other damages, which could certainly exceed the cost of simply not receiving rent for the same period.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

You could also be ordered to let the tenant back in and deal with the tenant according to the law. Your chances of the RTB being of any help subsequently would be very low. You would face further delays and masive legal costs in that scenario.

The RTB would be unable to prevent a subsequent legal eviction which no doubt would be set in motion immediately on the tenants return. Also, if the second eviction was legal, the RTB would be bound by their own rules, they could not rule a legal eviction is illegal, just because of previous performance.

If a tenant stops paying a €2k+ pm rent, knowing you are going to have to wait a year to legally evict apparently gives some pause for thought.

voluntary

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It is their home though. It's my fecking property though so if they don't pay the rent there should be a quicker way of regaining possession.

If people would chase their TDs or at least emailing them, maybe something would happen. Most do nothing though, just moan around on boards and waste the energy on meaningless, unproductive discussions.

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

The RTB would be unable to prevent a subsequent legal eviction which no doubt would be set in motion immediately on the tenants return. Also, if the second eviction was legal, the RTB would be bound by their own rules, they could not rule a legal eviction is illegal, just because of previous performance.

If a tenant stops paying a €2k+ pm rent, knowing you are going to have to wait a year to legally evict apparently gives some pause for thought.

The landlord would have to go through the RTB. The RTB will be most unlikely to pay for the costs of any court enforcement of its orders. The landlord will be saddled with the costs of the initial injunction forcing him to take the tenant back in, plus, when eventually he gets an order, the costs of enforcing it.

jimmycrackcorm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It is their home though. It's my fecking property though so if they don't pay the rent there should be a quicker way of regaining possession.

Welcome to Bleeding hearland.

I can understand the sensitivity with our history of evictions, but the solution should be the ability to get an earnings attachment order so that threshold can't keep telling tenants to take the piss and overhold.

Peregrinus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Welcome to Bleeding hearland.

I can understand the sensitivity with our history of evictions, but the solution should be the ability to get an earnings attachment order so that threshold can't keep telling tenants to take the piss and overhold.

If you've got a judgment against somebody for unpaid rent, you can get an earnings attachment order. Or any of the other orders available for the enforcement of judgments.

However you might choose not to do this until after the (lawful) eviction. Once the rent has been collected you might have greater difficulty in evicting them.

DubCount

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you've got a judgment against somebody for unpaid rent, you can get an earnings attachment order. Or any of the other orders available for the enforcement of judgments.

However you might choose not to do this until after the (lawful) eviction. Once the rent has been collected you might have greater difficulty in evicting them.

You may choose not to seek a judgement as after spending a small fortune on legal costs and lost income and property damage while getting a legal eviction, you may not think its worth getting a judgement for €5 per week for the next 80 years as the judge will likely rule the rogue tenant cannot afford anything more than that.

How can anyone still believe landlords do not get financially destroyed by rogue tenants, and rogue tenants can just abandon their responsibilities without any implication.

Calina

DubCount wrote: »

How can anyone still believe landlords do not get financially destroyed by rogue tenants, and rogue tenants can just abandon their responsibilities without any implication.

Sure they do. Some of them. But I had 4 illegal evictions from landlords in Dublin in 12 years despite paying rent on time every month for the 17 years I lived in Ireland, all because they over extended and were forced to sell. Tbh, you can whinge all you like about rogue tenants but I think you would find good tenants get taken for a ride, particularly in Ireland atm. Landlords are exploiting a market that suits them. Overholding is happening because of the chronic lack of accommodation in parts of Ireland.

Peregrinus

DubCount wrote: »

You may choose not to seek a judgement as after spending a small fortune on legal costs and lost income and property damage while getting a legal eviction, you may not think its worth getting a judgement for €5 per week for the next 80 years as the judge will likely rule the rogue tenant cannot afford anything more than that.

Well, that depends on the rogue tenant's means. Jammycrackcorn's suggestion of getting an earnings attachment order isn't of much use if a tenant doesn't have any earnings.

The bottom line here is that landlords are engaged in a commercial transaction in which the creditworthiness of the other party is, or should be, of great importance to them. The time to think about that is at the time you form the contract; there's not much can be done about it when the tenant defaults. I'm a landlord (though not in the Irish market); I pitch my target rent below what the market will bear so that I will have a wide choice of tenants. I look very carefully at the character, situation, references, etc of prospective tenants. If I have a satisfactory tenant, my rent increases are also below what the market will bear (or the law will permit). And I do all that because I got stung before by taking on a tenant who was, basically, fraudulent, and on whom I lost a great deal of money before I could get them out which, yes, involved court proceedings and eventually an eviction by the sheriff. Yes, I got a judgment against the tenant for the money owing. No, it was never collected. Burnt by that experience, the quality of tenants is really important to me, and I "invest" in that by accepting a lower immediate return than I could get, if I chose.

The thing is, business involves taking risks. The risk of a bad tenant is the landlord's risk to manage. If it goes bad, the losses accrue to the landlord but that's not wholly unreasonable given that, if it goes well, the profits accrue to the landlord. If I take on a tenant who doesn't have the means to satisfy a judgment, no court order is going to rectify that situation, and it's unreasonable to expect that it could.

And in an overheated market like Ireland's, where tenants are put to the pin of their collars to pay absurd rents, you should expect the rate of defaulting tenants to rise - when you're stretched to the limit, even a modest change in circumstances can lead to default. All the more reason, then, for landlords to think about this when they need to, and to be realistic about what court procedures can acheive after the problem has arisen.

DubCount

Calina wrote: »

Sure they do. Some of them. But I had 4 illegal evictions from landlords in Dublin in 12 years despite paying rent on time every month for the 17 years I lived in Ireland, all because they over extended and were forced to sell. Tbh, you can whinge all you like about rogue tenants but I think you would find good tenants get taken for a ride, particularly in Ireland atm. Landlords are exploiting a market that suits them. Overholding is happening because of the chronic lack of accommodation in parts of Ireland.

I dont condone the actions of rogue landlords any more than I do those of rogue tenants. The best way to ensure landlords stay in line, is to make sure you have a decent supply of rental property - that way tenants can move if they run into a bad landlord. You wont get a decent supply of rental property while allowing rogue tenants to break the system like they currently can. Good tenants and good people are paying for the actions of the rogues.

DubCount

Peregrinus wrote: »

The bottom line here is that landlords are engaged in a commercial transaction in which the creditworthiness of the other party is, or should be, of great importance to them.

That would be logical. However, someone thought of that already. So now, if a landlord seeks to rent only to someone with employment and financial means, they are guilty of discrimination against HAP recipients and liable to a significant fine from the WRC.

Darc19

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It is their home though. It's my fecking property though so if they don't pay the rent there should be a quicker way of regaining possession.

This is what is wrong with current legislation.

There should be some time limit such as 90 or 120 days of non payment that automatically triggers an eviction clause without recourse to any other action.

If there's a dispute, a tenant could pay into an escrow account.

It would only affect a tiny number of tenants who take the proverbial, but it would be a good safety net for landlords

And, posters have often complained about being asked to show proof of earnings/savings when applying for a rental.

Calina

DubCount wrote: »

That would be logical. However, someone thought of that already. So now, if a landlord seeks to rent only to someone with employment and financial means, they are guilty of discrimination against HAP recipients and liable to a significant fine from the WRC.

Creditworthiness of both parties is critical. I would, in Dublin, like to see how,many landlords want to share their accounts with tenants to show they are not in danger of repossession.

Calina

Calina wrote: »

Creditworthiness of both parties is critical. I would, in Dublin, like to see how,many landlords want to share their accounts with tenants to show they are not in danger of repossession.

Tenant’s rights are not effected by repossession, the bank/receiver has to abide by RTA so the owners financial standing is not the concern of the tenant.

Limpy

What if the tenant gets a bee in his bonnet and breaks a window or lock to get back in?

Big can of worms will be opened either way.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

Tenant’s rights are not effected by repossession, the bank/receiver has to abide by RTA so the owners financial standing is not the concern of the tenant.

They are not directly affected by repossession, in that the tenant has the same rights against the receiver as he had against the landlord. But, realistically, it changes things a lot. Following a repossession the bank is almost certain to want to sell, and therefore will want to terminate the tenancy, and has the right to do so, and that's obviously something that could significantly adversely affect the tenant. So, yeah, if a tenant knew that a landlord was financially stressed and facing insolvency, that should negatively affect his willingness to rent from that landlord. If it doesn't, that just underlines the relative powerlessness of tenants in landlord/tenant negotiations in the current market.

Peregrinus

Limpy wrote: »

What if the tenant gets a bee in his bonnet and breaks a window or lock to get back in?

Big can of worms will be opened either way.

The tenant is entitled to enter the property (assuming his tenancy has not been terminated).

In general if the tenant damages the property, e.g. by breaking a window, he needs to make good that damage before delivering up the property at the conclusion of the tenancy, or he is liable to the landlord for the cost of doing so. But in this case, obviously, he'd have a counterclaim against the landlord for wrongly denying him possession of the property during the tenancy, and that counterclaim would extend (among other things) to the cost of repairing a window which the tenant had to break to gain access to the property.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are not directly affected by repossession, in that the tenant has the same rights against the receiver as he had against the landlord. But, realistically, it changes things a lot. Following a repossession the bank is almost certain to want to sell, and therefore will want to terminate the tenancy, and has the right to do so, and that's obviously something that could significantly adversely affect the tenant. So, yeah, if a tenant knew that a landlord was financially stressed and facing insolvency, that should negatively affect his willingness to rent from that landlord. If it doesn't, that just underlines the relative powerlessness of tenants in landlord/tenant negotiations in the current market.

This is no different than a Landlord deciding to sell. Tenants are by no means powerless in the current market, to say so is naive and shows a lack of understanding in the rental market. The RTA offers more protection to a tenant than a landlord, an overholding, or non paying tenant is far more difficult to remove, and the LL has far more to lose than a tenant in terms of financial penalties.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

This is no different than a Landlord deciding to sell. Tenants are by no means powerless in the current market, to say so is naive and shows a lack of understanding in the rental market. The RTA offers more protection to a tenant than a landlord, an overholding, or non paying tenant is far more difficult to remove, and the LL has far more to lose than a tenant in terms of financial penalties.

This is no different than a landlord deciding to sell, but it's much more likely to happen than a landlord deciding to sell. Following a repossession, a sale is almost certain; therefore only the most transient tenants would be interested in renting a property likely to be repossessed.

It may well be the case that the RTA system is skewed in favour of tenants. On the other hand, the current market - characterised by high demand, low supply and historically very high rents - tends to put landlords in a very strong position. It could be argued that the RTA system aims to redress that, although I appreciate that it may not do that very well, or that it may do so only for a limited class of tenants.

It may well be that a better system would limit rents and rent increases, for the benefit of tenants, in return for giving landlords a prompt and effective system for terminating tenancies where the limited rent was not paid, for the benefit of landlords.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is no different than a landlord deciding to sell, but it's much more likely to happen than a landlord deciding to sell.

I’m sorry, but this is untrue. Many times in recent months there has been articles stating that landlords are choosing to flee the rental market in increasing numbers due to the effect of legislation and rising property prices. Every study on the deminishing amount of rental properties available lists landlords selling as one of the main causes, are you saying repossession rates have now overtaken voluntary sales? When did this happen?


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1016879/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/richard-curran-rental-crisis-is-set-to-continue-as-some-landlords-decide-to-exit-37630028.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-are-landlords-leaving-the-market-in-large-numbers-1.3360363?mode=amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/homeless-families-8-4680518-Jun2019/?amp=1

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are not directly affected by repossession, in that the tenant has the same rights against the receiver as he had against the landlord. But, realistically, it changes things a lot. Following a repossession the bank is almost certain to want to sell, and therefore will want to terminate the tenancy, and has the right to do so, and that's obviously something that could significantly adversely affect the tenant. So, yeah, if a tenant knew that a landlord was financially stressed and facing insolvency, that should negatively affect his willingness to rent from that landlord. If it doesn't, that just underlines the relative powerlessness of tenants in landlord/tenant negotiations in the current market.

A tenant has no rights against a receiver unless the receiver accepts rent and adopts the lease. The only exception is where the bank has consented in writing to the mortgage, which never happens.

GGTrek

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A tenant has no rights against a receiver unless the receiver accepts rent and adopts the lease. The only exception is where the bank has consented in writing to the mortgage, which never happens.

It is coming soon, the next RTA Amendment bill (in my opinion coming live in mid 2020) will be brutal for anyone with a tenant occupying:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/select_committee_on_housing_planning_and_local_government/2019-04-11/3/


"Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Share
I cannot accept the proposed amendment. The amendment is trying to deal with the rights of the tenant where properties are in receivership. I want to address that issue, but I am not addressing it through this Bill. I will address it in follow-up legislation. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment."



With respect to the case of a peaceful re-entry and change of locks after the RTB determination is final and tenant is overholding, the only recourse for a tenant would be a legally expensive injunction and even the injuction could be defended and opposed by presenting the determination order. The legal eagles here should show a case where, after an RTB determination ordering a dwelling to be vacated by a defined date, locks are changed after such date and a court grants an injuction for the overholding non paying tenant to be allowed entering the dwelling again. This is food for thought for many landlords having nightmare tenants inside their properties.


Of course if the eviction happens before an RTB determined final date, then the civil penalties imposed by RTB are quite heavy (thousands of euros, maximum 20k, depending on gravity of what happened, very rarely they imposed the maximum, but fines between 3k to 12k are common) + court can impose other heavy damages.

GGTrek

Also suggest a good article about injuctions and the fact that the applicant needs to have "clean hands" in order to apply:
https://businessandlegal.ie/injunctions-in-ireland-types-of-injunction-available

An overholding non paying tenant ordered to vacate by an RTB adjudication definitely does not have clean hands.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m sorry, but this is untrue. Many times in recent months there has been articles stating that landlords are choosing to flee the rental market in increasing numbers due to the effect of legislation and rising property prices. Every study on the deminishing amount of rental properties available lists landlords selling as one of the main causes, are you saying repossession rates have now overtaken voluntary sales? When did this happen?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that, while a modest percentage of solvent landlords will sell in any year, virtually 100% of landlord insolvencies will be followed by a sale. This doesn't translate into "more insolvent sales than solvent sales" because, of course, there are far, far more solvent landlords than insolvent landlords.

What it does mean, though, is that if a prospective tenant knew or suspected that the landlord of the property offered to him was financially stressed, that should make the tenant reluctant to rent, because there is a high prospect that the tenancy will be interrupted by a sale following the landlord's insolvency.

My real point here, and the one I started out by making, is that it's wrong to say that a tenant's position is unaffected by the landlord's insolvency and by repossession of the property. In these circumstances the tenancy is almost certain to be terminated in short order, and that clearly affects the tenant.

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A tenant has no rights against a receiver unless the receiver accepts rent and adopts the lease. The only exception is where the bank has consented in writing to the mortgage, which never happens.

A receiver has no more power to evict than the previous landlord who lost their property.

Many receivership sales are with tenant in situ, if the receiver could have the place vacant, they would do so every time

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A receiver has no more power to evict than the previous landlord who lost their property.

Many receivership sales are with tenant in situ, if the receiver could have the place vacant, they would do so every time

Exactly, the tenants rights are uneffected no matter who controls the property, all must abide by the RTA.

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A receiver has no more power to evict than the previous landlord who lost their property.

Many receivership sales are with tenant in situ, if the receiver could have the place vacant, they would do so every time

A receiver may not have to recognise a tenancy at all if the bank never consented in writing to the tenancy. This is the case in the vast majority of leases. If the receiver demanded rent he would be taken to have adopted the tenancy.