Threatening letter from a solicitor

lawred2

Any chance the landlord wrote the letter himself?

lawred2

bucketybuck wrote: »

To provide some perspective. Because despite his "victory" he still doesn't own the flat, it still isn't his flat, and he still has the owner of the flat wanting him to get out of the flat.

Recognition of who actually owns the place may provide some perspective on what is going to happen long term and influence decisions the OP will soon have to make.

But thank you for the personal abuse, it speaks well of you.

how is it perspective? You think nobody knows how ownership vs occupation works?

The only context that matters is that the OP has won three separate cases including an award of compensation against this abject thug of a landlord.

That's the context that matters. Not whatever nonsense you're putting forward.

Tacitus Kilgore

bucketybuck wrote: »

To provide some perspective. Because despite his "victory" he still doesn't own the flat, it still isn't his flat, and he still has the owner of the flat wanting him to get out of the flat.

Recognition of who actually owns the place may provide some perspective on what is going to happen long term and influence decisions the OP will soon have to make.

But thank you for the personal abuse, it speaks well of you.

Part of our housing crisis is due to a complete lack of security in rentals. This thread is a demonstration of a landlord abusing that lack of security for bullshit reasons, and how it can be overcome in a legal way.

Unscrupulous Landlords like this - want people to rent, but also be at their whim. The only reason long term renting works in other places like Germany etc. is due to the fact that there are secure long term rentals. Not just Paddy & Mary who bought an aul apartment during the recession with a spare bit of cash looking to milk it for every red cent possible. Feck the owner of that apartment, he's made his bed.

petros1980

bucketybuck wrote: »

To provide some perspective. Because despite his "victory" he still doesn't own the flat, it still isn't his flat, and he still has the owner of the flat wanting him to get out of the flat.

Recognition of who actually owns the place may provide some perspective on what is going to happen long term and influence decisions the OP will soon have to make.

But thank you for the personal abuse, it speaks well of you.

What decisions will he soon have to make??

No worries on the personal abuse. Idiot

lawred2

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Part of our housing crisis is due to a complete lack of security in rentals. This thread is a demonstration of a landlord abusing that lack of security for bullshit reasons, and how it can be overcome in a legal way.

Unscrupulous Landlords like this - want people to rent, but also be at their whim. The only reason long term renting works in other places like Germany etc. is due to the fact that there are secure long term rentals. Not just Paddy & Mary who bought an aul apartment during the recession with a spare bit of cash looking to milk it for every red cent possible. Feck the owner of that apartment, he's made his bed.

I wonder how much more he stood to make had he got the OP out?

More or less than the 5k he's stuck having to pay out now

Tacitus Kilgore

lawred2 wrote: »

I wonder how much more he stood to make had he got the OP out?

More or less than the 5k he's stuck having to pay out now

This same shite happened to us 2 years ago, letter from the LL "ah we're going to sell, would you mind vacating by XX/XX"

We knew it was horseshit but were never in a position to do anything about it, financially and due to the fact that we just had to jump on the only other available rental in the town for fear of not being able get one when the time came to move.

Low and behold it was never even advertised for sale but put back on the rental market a few months later with an increase of 400/m.

Pricks, the rent was plenty on it beforehand too - now it's obscene. €1,650/m for a 2 bed on the outskirts of a midlands town, and some poor egit now paying it.

Landlord owns the entire block too, and a few more nearby, increase wasn't because they were struggling, pure opportunism.

partyguinness

I received a similar letter before and this was my response:-

"Dear Sirs,

Duly noted. I have treated your correspondence with the contempt it deserves and is now in my recycling bin.

Yours etc etc"

Never heard again.

I would send a copy of the letter to the RTB to place on the file.

bucketybuck

petros1980 wrote: »

What decisions will he soon have to make??

No worries on the personal abuse. Idiot

Tell me, what do you think happens next?

Do you really think the landlord is going to go away and leave the OP alone?

bucketybuck

lawred2 wrote: »

The only context that matters is that the OP has won three separate cases including an award of compensation against this abject thug of a landlord.

That's the context that matters. Not whatever nonsense you're putting forward.

And do you think it ends there? Really?

Because it would be quite naive to think that winning those cases is the only context that matters.

Curious1002

Up Donegal wrote: »

OP, are you 100% sure the letter is actually from the landlord's lawyers, and that it wasn't concocted on a computer by the landlord, to frighten you into leaving the property? I would suggest that you show it to your own solicitor and ask his/her opinion on the letter and the content that you refer to as 'super unprofessional'. Did the letter contain the terms 'ruin me financially'; 'fight me in the courts'; 'put me in jail', or are you paraphrasing what was written?

I hope everything works out for you.

Hi UpDonegal, a few posts up of this thread i wrote the exact quote of what the letter stated. The letter was indeed sent by the landlord's lawyer.

lawred2 wrote: »

Any chance the landlord wrote the letter himself?

Yes, had that thought too but because i have been "dealing" with my landlord's lawyers for some time now I recognised the headed paper, names and signatures of the lawyers. The letter was legitimately written by the landlord's legal team. I decided to ignore it and I sent a complaint to the Legal Service Regulatory Authority (LSRA) body to look into this.
Just a few weeks ago I was at the brink of eviction so spending money on my own solicitors was a big issue for me so I scheduled an appointment for a free legal advice with FLAC. Got a phone call from FLAC a few days later saying to either respond only: "I acknowledge the receipt of your letter. Kind regards" or not to respond at all and wait for their move. Flac also suggested me to open a new RTB dispute for failing to provide me with a peaceful living ect. I didnt do anything other than sending a complaint to LSRA.

Tiddlypeeps

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

This same shite happened to us 2 years ago, letter from the LL "ah we're going to sell, would you mind vacating by XX/XX"

We knew it was horseshit but were never in a position to do anything about it, financially and due to the fact that we just had to jump on the only other available rental in the town for fear of not being able get one when the time came to move.

Low and behold it was never even advertised for sale but put back on the rental market a few months later with an increase of 400/m.

Pricks, the rent was plenty on it beforehand too - now it's obscene. €1,650/m for a 2 bed on the outskirts of a midlands town, and some poor egit now paying it.

Landlord owns the entire block too, and a few more nearby, increase wasn't because they were struggling, pure opportunism.

Why not open a case against him with the PRTB? If it's in a rent pressure zone he'll be forced to put the rent back down to what it should have been and you might get some compensation out of it for the illegal eviction. These types of landlords need to be held accountable or they'll just carry on pulling these types of shenanigans.

lawred2

bucketybuck wrote: »

And do you think it ends there? Really?

Because it would be quite naive to think that winning those cases is the only context that matters.

such an odd crusade you're on..

Curious1002

Curious1002 wrote: »

Hi guys, it would be great if you could please shed some light on the best way to approach my "little problem".

My landlord for months has been serving me with termination notices using various reasons (1. Massive rent increase. 2. Substantial renovations. 3. His kid has to move in, etc). All notices i challenged with RTB and the first 2 cases I won. My last case is still in progress and i had my hearing just last week.
At the hearing my landlord learnt that my neighbours wrote me statements about their own yet the very same experience with my landlord. He owns a lot of apts in my building. At the hearing I also presented 1 audio-recording i had about him threatening my neighbours for speaking to me.

Today, just 2 days after the hearing, I got a threatening letter from my landlord's lawyers saying they will ruin me financially, seek injunction, will fight me in courts, put me in jail etc etc if:
a) i dont stop speaking to my neighbours and "forcing" them to write me statements, and
b) i dont stop recording him or taking photographs of my building, halls and car parking (i submitted a few photographic evidence to my hearing).

They gave me 7 days to respond to this letter.


My questions to you are:

1. Do i have to even respond? Can i simply ignore it and wait for an appeal of my RTB dispute (if i lose my case and appeal, or if they lose and appeal) to file the letter there as additional evidence to show what he is doing?

2. Should i open a new RTB case showing how he intimidates and threatens me and my witnesses for challenging his actions in RTB?

3. If i am required by law to reply to such ugly letter (it's really ugly and super unprofessional), how to answer so they understand that I have 100% right to speak and receive a statement from whoever i want and whoever is willing to give me such letter?

I want to protect myself from this man and audio-record all my interactions as he claimed at the last hearing that some meetings he had with me never took place or that he wasnt "in the country" on the day of some incident while in fact i have a pic of him in the car on my parking spot. Without pics and audio recording i would have zero evidence but they are super helpful.

Would be great if you could please let me know the best approach. I can't hide that my fav option would be number 1 (n
o reply to the letter), but dont know if I am allowed to ignore it.

Get advice from a solicitor on how to proceed.

These are strong arm tactics. Receiving letters like these can be very stressful when they appear to be wielding the law like a cudgel. The best advise would be to talk to a solicitor to get reassurance and advice how to proceed. It will give you peace of mind and I suspect inform you of the weakness of their position.

Tacitus Kilgore

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Why not open a case against him with the PRTB? If it's in a rent pressure zone he'll be forced to put the rent back down to what it should have been and you might get some compensation out of it for the illegal eviction. These types of landlords need to be held accountable or they'll just carry on pulling these types of shenanigans.

I fear my other half would shit the bed if I did, she doesn't want the stress/hassle - and neither do I tbh.

Seth Brundle

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Part of our housing crisis is due to a complete lack of security in rentals. This thread is a demonstration of a landlord abusing that lack of security for bullshit reasons, and how it can be overcome in a legal way.

Unscrupulous Landlords like this - want people to rent, but also be at their whim. The only reason long term renting works in other places like Germany etc. is due to the fact that there are secure long term rentals. Not just Paddy & Mary who bought an aul apartment during the recession with a spare bit of cash looking to milk it for every red cent possible. Feck the owner of that apartment, he's made his bed.

In fairness, this is one landlord and I can only assume that the likes of him is a fraction of a percent of the total number of landlords so it's disingenuous to attempt to tar them all with this brush.

Secondly, by the sounds of it there are as many, if not more, unscrupulous tenants which are probably causing more damage to the market because their actions help the landlord make the decision to sell up. But again, I wouldn't try and assume that because some tenants are bad, that all of them are!

For the record, I'm not a landlord!

Tacitus Kilgore

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In fairness, this is one landlord and I can only assume that the likes of him is a fraction of a percent of the total number of landlords so it's disingenuous to attempt to tar them all with this brush.

Secondly, by the sounds of it there are as many, if not more, unscrupulous tenants which are probably causing more damage to the market because their actions help the landlord make the decision to sell up. But again, I wouldn't try and assume that because some tenants are bad, that all of them are!

For the record, I'm not a landlord!

And a fair point you make too, but tell me this:

Where did I tar them all with the one brush?

Are you saying that all landlords are unscrupulous?

petros1980

bucketybuck wrote: »

Tell me, what do you think happens next?

Do you really think the landlord is going to go away and leave the OP alone?

I think that unless the landlord is very unwise, he wont want to try another illegal eviction resulting in him having to pay another 5k fine; although you never know maybe he will try that...

Only way he's getting the tenant out is if he is genuinely selling the place, which of course he won't be...

What do YOU think will happen - you seem to have it all figured out?

Seth Brundle

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

And a fair point you make too, but tell me this:

Where did I tar them all with the one brush?

Are you saying that all landlords are unscrupulous?

Dunno. It originally read that way in my semi-attentive brain

Tacitus Kilgore

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Dunno. It originally read that way in my semi-attentive brain

Blinded by a bias you didn't know you had?



There are good and bad in all walks of life, however, IMO in the case of housing the bias should probably lie with the person needing & paying for a roof over their head, over those wanting an extra few bob from their investment.



FWIW - It should also be significantly easier & quicker to remove destructive tenants and especially tenants who won't pay.

bucketybuck

lawred2 wrote: »

such an odd crusade you're on..

That is no answer at all of course. But regardless, I made a factual point and got jumped on, there is no crusade.

petros1980 wrote: »

I think that unless the landlord is very unwise, he wont want to try another illegal eviction resulting in him having to pay another 5k fine; although you never know maybe he will try that...

Only way he's getting the tenant out is if he is genuinely selling the place, which of course he won't be...

What do YOU think will happen - you seem to have it all figured out?

I would have thought it pretty obvious that the unscrupulous landlord, described as a thug in this very thread, is going to continue with his desire to have the OP leave the landlords flat. Whether that be through harassment or by finally following proper procedures it seems obvious that he is not going to just pay the OP €5k and decide to leave it there.

Is that not obvious?

As such the OP needs to consider that. He has won this battle but does the war continue? Because the fact is that the OP does not own the flat and as such will always be at risk of eviction.

petros1980

bucketybuck wrote: »

That is no answer at all of course. But regardless, I made a factual point and got jumped on, there is no crusade.



I would have thought it pretty obvious that the unscrupulous landlord, described as a thug in this very thread, is going to continue with his desire to have the OP leave the landlords flat. Whether that be through harassment or by finally following proper procedures it seems obvious that he is not going to just pay the OP €5k and decide to leave it there.

Is that not obvious?

As such the OP needs to consider that. He has won this battle but does the war continue? Because the fact is that the OP does not own the flat and as such will always be at risk of eviction.

You haven't answered my question one bit.....

Through harassment == more fines - Do you not get that?
What proper procedures??? - Only way he can evict tenant is if he's going to sell the flat

10pennymixup

petros1980 wrote: »

You haven't answered my question one bit.....

Through harassment == more fines - Do you not get that?
What proper procedures??? - Only way he can evict tenant is if he's going to sell the flat

I would say that they have answered your question though not in great detail. It's not their fault it wasn't answered to your satisfaction nor comprehension.

And you're incorrect, there are 6 legal reasons allowing a LL terminate a tenancy. Terminating a tenancy is the correct phrase, not evict.

bucketybuck

petros1980 wrote: »

You haven't answered my question one bit.....

Through harassment == more fines - Do you not get that?
What proper procedures??? - Only way he can evict tenant is if he's going to sell the flat

You asked what will happen next, I answered that it is very likely that the landlord is going to continue his efforts to remove the tenant. That is the factual answer. Honestly I thought it was so obvious that I shouldn't have needed to state it, but here we are.

By the way, it is also very naive to think that it is as simple as "harassment = more fines". An unscrupulous person can easily harass in ways that are very hard to prove in court, and we have already established that this landlord is unscrupulous.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

petros1980 wrote: »

Only way he's getting the tenant out is if he is genuinely selling the place, which of course he won't be...

I wouldn't be so sure after all of this, he might be happy enough to wash his hands of it at this stage.

nuac

Mod
Language!
Looking at you -Petros, Curiouser, Tacitus!

Curious1002

Hi All, again,
just to let you know that my landlord has just filed an appeal with the RTB. His lawyer sent me another letter yesterday saying that my landlord's daughter who "requires" my apartment for her use is available to meet with me to confirm that she requires to move into my apartment. Weird letter. They give me 7 days to respond. Crazy idea, but i suspect they just want to collect more evidence against me at this stage. I will ignore it just like i did with all previous letters.

So my joy of winning the case against him lasted less than a week. I will see the bunch of them again at the appeal, probably in 1.5-2 months. The case details will be made public so you will read about this awful case in a few months on the RTB website. It just shows how determined some people are when they want someone out - the cost, the Law, the reputation doesnt matter to them.

fritzelly

Why would you need to meet his daughter - beggars belief

Didn't the RTB rule they didn't believe the story?

Curious1002

fritzelly wrote: »

Why would you need to meet his daughter - beggars belief

Didn't the RTB rule they didn't believe the story?

Yeah, I was wondering myself why they sent me that letter. They knew I would ignore it.

It must be a tactical game and here are my 4 guesses:

1. They try to collect new evidence of how the notice of termination quoting the urgent need of my apt for the daughter is real and genuine. They think that by showing the daughter's involvement in this case now, it will make it more "real and genuine". The daughter didnt show up at the first hearing and she never issued any statement, no emails, no texts of how much she wants my apt, nothing. So now for the appeal they will show the mountain of evidence proving the reason is genuine.

2. In case I agree for the meeting they will record my answers and use them against me at the appeal.

3. To destroy my peace and stop me from feeling happy and secured after my win.

4. To show how unwilling i am to participate in a friendly meeting and how, in their opinion, it proves of how bad/nasty/awful guy I am.
The adjudicator wrote in the determination order that i appear genuine, honest and trustworthy while my landlord appears as untruthful and his evidence unreliable. They now will try to destroy this image and my character at the appeal.

After RTB Adjudicator's ruling, the losing party has a right to appeal to the Tribunal within 10 days. And that's what my landlord did. Having a team of lawyers behind him and despite the crushing determination order, the RTB will accept the appeal application if the €100 fee is paid.
So the next step is the Tribunal.

fritzelly

Do not entertain any contact with her - if she knocks on the door close the door

Curious1002

fritzelly wrote: »

Do not entertain any contact with her - if she knocks on the door close the door

100%