Landlord packed our stuff up and threw it out

daithi7

lozenges wrote: »

You asked what the tenants should expect. I would think that the bare minimum that should be expected, in any circumstance (property related or otherwise) is that all parties should obey the law.

Yeah, but the law in this scenario is a biased ass.

Everybody knows that. That's why unreliable tenants like these jokers expect to have their cake & eat it too.

Furthermore the law is backed up by a biased agency, paid for exclusively by landlords, with unequal laws favorable for tenants & against landlords. The whole thing is a cod, and that's why landlords are leaving in hoards....

FVP3

daithi7 wrote: »

Nope, but it may justify a landlord moving absent tenants stuff out of their property when they've fallen behind in their rent, had already renegotiated a previous agreement and weren't at the property.

You were answering a general question about suffering the consequences about late payments.

I mean maybe the Landlord thought they had left for good!?

It was pretty clear that he didn't since they were in contact with him.

How was he to know!? They weren't paying (an already reduced) rent, they weren't there... I mean come on... what did they expect... properties cost money!!

Again, it was pretty clear that he didn't think they were leaving, since they were in contact with him. It doesn't matter he has to go though procedures anyway for eviction or to claim possession and he didn't.

Is is the claim of the landlords on this forum that the law is not important or doesn't apply to them?

FVP3

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah, but the law in this scenario is a biased ass.

Everybody knows that.

I think that only Ireland's amateurish landlords think that.

That's why unreliable tenants like these jokers expect to have their cake & eat it too.

Does having their cake & eating it too mean that they expect the landlord to not evict them illegally and not steal their deposit, break into the house and take their possessions?

Furthermore the law is backed up by a biased agency, laid for by landlords with unequal laws for tenants & landlords. The whole thing is a cod, and that's why landlords are leaving in hoards....

if you don't like it change the law. And as for shyster landlords leaving in hoards, that is what is needed. Leave the good ones, who aren't upset by obeying the law, stay.

(The agency should be funded from taxation alright)

ted1

FVP3 wrote: »

I think that only Ireland's amateurish landlords think that

No, all landlords think that. Try evicting a non paying tenant or claiming money for damages.

Pkiernan

This thread has gone sofa king stupid!

Treppen

Pkiernan wrote: »

This thread has gone sofa king stupid!

It's like when you want to talk about space exploration and it winds up as a Trump vs Hillary thing.

Calina

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah, but the law in this scenario is a biased ass.

Everybody knows that. That's why unreliable tenants like these jokers expect to have their cake & eat it too.

Furthermore the law is backed up by a biased agency, laid for by landlords with unequal laws for tenants & landlords. The whole thing is a cod, and that's why landlords are leaving in hoards....

It is not. In fact, in Ireland it provides the barest protections for tenants and on average, with one exception, the Irish landlords were the worst I have dealt with across 4 other European countries and illegal evictions were almost routine in Dublin. 4 out of the 6 I dealt with tried that and only 1 out of the 6 was reasonable to deal with.

The automatic reaction of any landlord who wants a sustainable business to this story is If this story is correct, landlord is way out of line. Instead, I see a litany of attempts to justify the illegal.

Gradius

What about people being reasonable?

A similar situation happened to me donkeys years ago. I left a shared house, all agreed with landlord. It turned out that I still owed around 100/200 on a delayed bill. No problem.

I told the landlord I'd be back in about a week, also going to pick up a few things I had left behind (I couldn't move everything at once). Reasonable, yes?

So a week later I turn up to get the few things I had left behind and also leave the money for the bill. Another renter let me into the house and then I see that my stuff has been trashed into a skip, most of it damaged and some of it missing. Why would the landlord do that?!

As it turned out, the value of my stuff was more or less equal to the bill money I owed, so that was that! The hell was I going to pay.

What makes it better is that many years later he bumped into me on the street and he was straight into it "you owe me money!". Fecking eejit.

The way things have gone with rentals seems crazy to me, people frothing about this law and that, official complaints and do hiding behind technicalities. Sure, that has its place, but if people were more reasonable all round life would be far easier for all concerned. Looks like a nightmare now!

Claw Hammer

Gradius wrote: »

What about people being reasonable?

.

I told the landlord I'd be back in about a week, also going to pick up a few things I had left behind (I couldn't move everything at once). Reasonable, yes?

!

It is not reasonable. You were changing the rules as you went along. The whole point of a contract is that the rules are fixed. This is the whole problem people are not been reasonable and thinking they can change things whenever they like.

Gradius

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not reasonable. You were changing the rules as you went along. The whole point of a contract is that the rules are fixed. This is the whole problem people are not been reasonable and thinking they can change things whenever they like.

Technical claptrap.

If he had been a reasonable human being, I would have gotten my stuff back, he would have gotten his tiny bit of money. All fine, everyone happy.

Instead, he didn't get his money, obviously grew a chip on his shoulder (for years!), my stuff was trashed and it left bad tastes on both sides.

And that's exactly what I'm referring to above. The more people cower behind technicalities, the worse the situation becomes for all involved.

Easy to understand?

Claw Hammer

Gradius wrote: »

Technical claptrap.

If he had been a reasonable human being, I would have gotten my stuff back, he would have gotten his tiny bit of money. All fine, everyone happy.

Instead, he didn't get his money, obviously grew a chip on his shoulder (for years!), my stuff was trashed and it left bad tastes on both sides.

And that's exactly what I'm referring to above. The more people cower behind technicalities, the worse the situation becomes for all involved.

Easy to understand?

That still doesn't mean you were being reasonable. If you had been reasonable it wouldn't have happened.

Gradius

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That still doesn't mean you were being reasonable. If you had been reasonable it wouldn't have happened.

This is crazy

Exactly HOW was I being unreasonable with a delayed bill, whereas the eejit of a landlord WAS reasonable to agree to one thing, and then do the opposite, and THEN to expect me to pay??

What planet do you people live on?!

Funny, isn't it, how he remembered years later about a measly 100 odd quid owed to him, while completely forgetting about throwing out my stuff. Shows the mentality of some people, grab grab grab

Claw Hammer

Gradius wrote: »

This is crazy

Exactly HOW was I being unreasonable with a delayed bill, whereas the eejit of a landlord WAS reasonable to agree to one thing, and then do the opposite, and THEN to expect me to pay??

What planet do you people live on?!

Funny, isn't it, how he remembered years later about a measly 100 odd quid owed to him, while completely forgetting about throwing out my stuff. Shows the mentality of some people, grab grab grab

You were making up the rules as you went along which is unreasonable. You are trying to impose something on a landlord you had no right to do. You still owed the money. You tried to leverage the money you owed to extract a benefit to which you were not entitled.
I am quite sure that when you got your stuff back you would have found some other excuse not to pay and the landlord knew that.

Gradius

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You were making up the rules as you went along which is unreasonable. You are trying to impose something on a landlord you had no right to do. You still owed the money. You tried to leverage the money you owed to extract a benefit to which you were not entitled.
I am quite sure that when you got your stuff back you would have found some other excuse not to pay and the landlord knew that.

So now you're just making up imaginary situations, that I wouldn't have paid a small bill no matter what. Pathetic. Comes across as pure money grubbing.

Besides that, which "rules" did I make up? Wtf are you even talking about?

If this little exchange right here is your version of a reasonable, logical, good-outcome scenario, then I have nothing but pity for the people who'd have to deal with you. Crazy, all day long.

dubrov

Claw Hammer wrote:

You were making up the rules as you went along which is unreasonable. You are trying to impose something on a landlord you had no right to do. You still owed the money. You tried to leverage the money you owed to extract a benefit to which you were not entitled. I am quite sure that when you got your stuff back you would have found some other excuse not to pay and the landlord knew that.

You should really look at the bias in your posts. You always extrapolate a story out positively for landlords and negatively for tenants.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You were making up the rules as you went along which is unreasonable. You are trying to impose something on a landlord you had no right to do. You still owed the money. You tried to leverage the money you owed to extract a benefit to which you were not entitled.
I am quite sure that when you got your stuff back you would have found some other excuse not to pay and the landlord knew that.

You’re that desperate to be positive about landlords in any situation you’re embarrassing yourself.

Gradius

Gradius wrote: »

This is crazy

Exactly HOW was I being unreasonable with a delayed bill, whereas the eejit of a landlord WAS reasonable to agree to one thing, and then do the opposite, and THEN to expect me to pay??

What planet do you people live on?!

Funny, isn't it, how he remembered years later about a measly 100 odd quid owed to him, while completely forgetting about throwing out my stuff. Shows the mentality of some people, grab grab grab

Can't agree with you here. You owed the money for the bill but you have no right to expect an additional week for free. It's for you to arrange your moving properly so you don't end up leaving stuff behind after your last day in the property.

Unless you paid an extra weeks rent. Did you?

As an aside, does anyone else see a possible similarity between the op posting here then vanishing and sending a message to his landlord and then vanishing?

Gradius

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Can't agree with you here. You owed the money for the bill but you have no right to expect an additional week for free. It's for you to arrange your moving properly so you don't end up leaving stuff behind after your last day in the property.

Unless you paid an extra weeks rent. Did you?

This is very amusing to me!

The point of my original post was that if people were reasonable, life would be so much easier for both tenants and landlords.

Then some dude comes in to prove the point, creating difficulty where it didn't need to exist, talking about "rules" and "leveraging" and so on...all completely unnecessary!

And now you, that I'm quoting here, are chiming in about "rights" and paying extra rent and so on.

I mean, is the irony lost on people or what?

If it had been a house entirely rented by me, I could KIND of see the point that it's unfair to leave stuff behind.

But it was a couple of bags left out in the shed. The blooming shed. It was in nobody's way, it was a shared house with people I knew, the landlord AGREED with me popping along the next week to pick up and settle the bill.

How easy is that? How stress free and simple and REASONABLE is that micro agreement? It wasn't a business deal, there were no solicitors involved, there wwere no negotiations as someone tried to get the upper hand as if a multi million euro brokerage.

But then you are saying I should have paid an extra weeks rent? The other bloke saying I was essentially twisting the landlords arm and that I'm unreasonable, all while ignoring that the landlord was the one who broke his word while still having his hand out for money?

Making mountains out of molehills. Should I have started an official complaint with the rental board, take 6 months of endless shoite back and forth over a small bill and small amount of stuff? Cos that's what it looks like some people would be dying to have happen here.

And here's the thing...thats fooking stupid and UNreasonable.

Gradius

Gradius wrote: »

This is very amusing to me!

The point of my original post was that if people were reasonable, life would be so much easier for both tenants and landlords.

Then some dude comes in to prove the point, creating difficulty where it didn't need to exist, talking about "rules" and "leveraging" and so on...all completely unnecessary!

And now you, that I'm quoting here, are chiming in about "rights" and paying extra rent and so on.

I mean, is the irony lost on people or what?

If it had been a house entirely rented by me, I could KIND of see the point that it's unfair to leave stuff behind.

But it was a couple of bags left out in the shed. The blooming shed. It was in nobody's way, it was a shared house with people I knew, the landlord AGREED with me popping along the next week to pick up and settle the bill.

How easy is that? How stress free and simple and REASONABLE is that micro agreement? It wasn't a business deal, there were no solicitors involved, there wwere no negotiations as someone tried to get the upper hand as if a multi million euro brokerage.

But then you are saying I should have paid an extra weeks rent? The other bloke saying I was essentially twisting the landlords arm and that I'm unreasonable, all while ignoring that the landlord was the one who broke his word while still having his hand out for money?

Making mountains out of molehills. Should I have started an official complaint with the rental board, take 6 months of endless shoite back and forth over a small bill and small amount of stuff? Cos that's what it looks like some people would be dying to have happen here.

And here's the thing...thats fooking stupid and UNreasonable.

You appear to be making the mountains here my friend. I'm simple pointing out the requirements that you are expected to stay within. In the case you stated, you are wrong. The landlord could have been easier going of course but then maybe it was the other tenants that trashed your stuff? U could also have paid the extra week. He's a business, not a charity.

In honesty, if the landlord asked you to move earlier so he could store stuff in your room, would you have agreed without a reduction in rent? If so, you would be a minority.

You have to appreciate that landlords get ****ed over constantly. I rent a room, just one in my house that I live in and even under those circumstances the amount of assholes I deal with is unreal. Damage they deny, late rent, expecting to be allowed store property after moving day, trying to change the rules after agreeing to them and so on and so forth. Shockingly, the people that ask for an extra week to move or to be allowed leave property behind are always of the same opinion, it's reasonable for them to ask but very unreasonable for me to refuse or request a weeks rent from them. My answer by the way will always be based on how they were with me. I have stored items many times or allowed extra time to people that were decent tenants.

It's why I have said before in other threads, if you get a good tenant, you work to keep them.

Gradius

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You appear to be making the mountains here my friend. I'm simple pointing out the requirements that you are expected to stay within. In the case you stated, you are wrong. The landlord could have been easier going of course but then maybe it was the other tenants that trashed your stuff? U could also have paid the extra week. He's a business, not a charity.

In honesty, if the landlord asked you to move earlier so he could store stuff in your room, would you have agreed without a reduction in rent? If so, you would be a minority.

You have to appreciate that landlords get ****ed over constantly. I rent a room, just one in my house that I live in and even under those circumstances the amount of assholes I deal with is unreal. Damage they deny, late rent, expecting to be allowed store property after moving day, trying to change the rules after agreeing to them and so on and so forth. Shockingly, the people that ask for an extra week to move or to be allowed leave property behind are always of the same opinion, it's reasonable for them to ask but very unreasonable for me to refuse or request a weeks rent from them. My answer by the way will always be based on how they were with me. I have stored items many times or allowed extra time to people that were decent tenants.

It's why I have said before in other threads, if you get a good tenant, you work to keep them.

But there's the difference. I'm talking about reasonable accommodations, on both sides. And that makes life easy, for both sides. No skin off anyone's nose.

You're talking about contracts and rights etc. One is not the same as the other.

But I can understand the point of view of landlords dealing with unreasonable tenants too. It's nice to hear that you deal with fair people fairly. As it should be!

The overall problem as I see it is one of escalation. If everyone engages in "letter of the law" it simply grows and grows into this monster that wrecks everyone's head in the end. Worse landlords and worse tenants.

My little anecdote was about some small bill. I'd hate to see the reactions of some people over a significant amount of money.

Anyway, all I can say is that I'm glad to be out of all that rental stuff because it genuinely seems worse now than anything I remember

daithi7

ted1 wrote: »

No, all landlords think that. Try evicting a non paying tenant or claiming money for damages.

Hear, hear ....

The rtb is a populist quango that is mucking up a free market badly, costing landlords and ultimately tenants cos they're are less landlords that are prepared to put up with the ****e involved in renting out their property.... and so they're leaving an unequally regulated marketplace .... in droves !!

steddyeddy

daithi7 wrote: »

Hear, hear ....

The rtb is a populist quango that is mucking up a free market badly, costing landlords and ultimately tenants cos they're are less landlords that are prepared to put up with the ****e involved in renting out their property.... and so they're leaving an unequally regulated marketplace .... in droves !!

The ones who complain about the RTB on Boards are often (not always) the same ones who justify illegal evictions and cases like this where a LL enters a residence without permission and removes personal belongings without permission.

I think it's no bad thing if people like that are leaving the rental market.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You were making up the rules as you went along which is unreasonable. You are trying to impose something on a landlord you had no right to do. You still owed the money. You tried to leverage the money you owed to extract a benefit to which you were not entitled.
I am quite sure that when you got your stuff back you would have found some other excuse not to pay and the landlord knew that.

To be honest I agree that the poster acted inappropriately in making up dealing with money owed.

However, I'm struggling to ascertain how you can type the following with a straight face.

You were making up the rules as you went along which is unreasonable. You are trying to impose something on a landlord you had no right to do.

The landlord in this thread took items without communication or permission, kept the deposit as rent without permission and illegally evicted them. This is a text book example of making up the rules as you go along.

dubrov

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

As an aside, does anyone else see a possible similarity between the op posting here then vanishing and sending a message to his landlord and then vanishing?

Yes. The landlord should use the OP's posting record on boards as their main defence in court.

steddyeddy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

As an aside, does anyone else see a possible similarity between the op posting here then vanishing and sending a message to his landlord and then vanishing?

No. There's generally no similarity between posting regularity and someone's behaviour and responsibility as a tenant. The OP's post is indicative of someone who now has a lot of things to sort out before coming back to Dublin.

There's a very superficial parallel to be made, however, I wouldn't think it would stand up in court.

I've seen many an OP who didn't even reply to their own thread.

pwurple

billybonkers wrote: »

I really don't see how anyone can justify the actions of this landlord at all.

Must be a wind up by some of the LL's in this thread or just somewhere to vent, they can't honestly believe this behaviour is OK.

Hope you don't assume the people commenting are landlords, it's a wind up I assume too.

Actual landlords here know full well this was a ridiculous action. We stopped participating on the first page or so... only so many times you can say the same thing.

overkill602

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

You’re that desperate to be positive about landlords in any situation you’re embarrassing yourself.

Boards needs posts to survive I suspect this is a wind up they probably plan a couple to increase traffic usual emotive subject always works

GreeBo

Gradius wrote: »

But there's the difference. I'm talking about reasonable accommodations, on both sides. And that makes life easy, for both sides. No skin off anyone's nose.

You're talking about contracts and rights etc. One is not the same as the other.

But I can understand the point of view of landlords dealing with unreasonable tenants too. It's nice to hear that you deal with fair people fairly. As it should be!

The overall problem as I see it is one of escalation. If everyone engages in "letter of the law" it simply grows and grows into this monster that wrecks everyone's head in the end. Worse landlords and worse tenants.

My little anecdote was about some small bill. I'd hate to see the reactions of some people over a significant amount of money.

Anyway, all I can say is that I'm glad to be out of all that rental stuff because it genuinely seems worse now than anything I remember

You seem to think that you agreeing to pay what you owed was doing him a favour so he should reciprocate and store your crap for you... Why?
The landlord clearly needed the place cleaned as he already had a new tenant moved in.

People like you who push things are why we can't have nice things. When you move out, your stuff moves out. It's pretty simple. The fact that you paid s bill you owed is irrelevant and the landlord is correct, you or him money.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

No. There's generally no similarity between posting regularity and someone's behaviour and responsibility as a tenant. The OP's post is indicative of someone who now has a lot of things to sort out before coming back to Dublin.

There's a very superficial parallel to be made, however, I wouldn't think it would stand up in court.

I've seen many an OP who didn't even reply to their own thread.

There is no Court. Unless it's to deal with illegal data retention.

Lighten up ffs