Landlord packed our stuff up and threw it out

FVP3

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The landlord may have agreed to deffer the rent but they paid 1900 for april, thats 400 in arrears that carry over into may, on may 1st theyre 2700 in arrears and in arrears for 30 days

He agreed to reduce the rent and presumably they have that in writing. So they are not in arrears. Not that it matters given the new laws on eviction.

Holding onto deposits should in my view be a criminal offense, not just a civil one. So should entering a property and seizing other people's property. He. now has that property.

This guy is hoping to get effectively two months rent and then start to rent again. Amazing the support for spivs here.

( And I am aware that renters can make life hell for Landlords too but that is not this, is it?).

elefant

bucketybuck wrote: »

Maybe the OP could clarify what he meant by all tenants being unable to pay their rent in May but then having no issues going forward? What was different about May?

Why should he clarify this? It's completely immaterial.

Eric Cartman

Dylan94 wrote: »

Where does it say the landlord agreed to deffer the rent? They clearly said that the LL agreed to reduce the rent for the duration of the lockdown.

FVP3 wrote: »

He agreed to reduce the rent and presumably they have that in writing. So they are not in arrears. Not that it matters given the new laws on eviction.

Holding onto deposits should in my view be a criminal offense, not just a civil one. So should entering a property and seizing other people's property. He. now has that property.

This guy is hoping to get effectively two months rent and then start to rent again. Amazing the support for spivs here.

( And I am aware that renters can make life hell for Landlords too but that is not this, is it?).

I would be shocked if this landlord put it in writing or they had anything to that effect. If they don't have it in writing and "we can only pay you 1900 this month" and the landlord going 'Ok' is not a confirmed rent reduction , then they were 37 days in arrears when they were evicted.

If the rent was all paid on 1st of may 1 doubt any of this would happen. They'd only be 800 in arrears of 0 days on may 1st if it was paid on time.

Also by all government metrics to do with covid and evictions, this was not their home, so it wasn't 'illegal' to do this during lockdown. Similar to the people now in their holiday homes etc.. they're home was with their parents.

bucketybuck

elefant wrote: »

Why should he clarify this? It's completely immaterial.

Getting the full story is never immaterial.

FVP3

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I would be shocked if this landlord put it in writing or they had anything to that effect.

Of course they probably got confirmation about that.

If they don't have it in writing and "we can only pay you 1900 this month" and the landlord going 'Ok' is not a confirmed rent reduction , then they were 37 days in arrears when they were evicted.

But it doesn't really matter even if that is true that the rent wasn't paid in full, the landlord would have to have gone through procedures even in normal times. He was obliged to send them a letter saying they were in arrears. Then follow normal procedures, given that he didn't do that in April or May.
In covid times they cant be evicted anyway so thats moot.

In any case you are making u your own story here. And even then you are wrong.

If the rent was all paid on 1st of may 1 doubt any of this would happen.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, (or still my aunt if she was trans I suppose.)

What might have happened is irrelevant.

FVP3

bucketybuck wrote: »

Getting the full story is never immaterial.

That's true, as we dont know colour of the paint on the walls in the second bedroom we cant continue to discuss this.

Eric Cartman

FVP3 wrote: »

Of course they probably got confirmation about that.



But it doesn't really matter even if that is true that the rent wasn't paid in full, the landlord would have to have gone through procedures even in normal times. He was obliged to send them a letter saying they were in arrears. Then follow normal procedures, given that he didn't do that in April or May.
In covid times they cant be evicted anyway so thats moot.

In any case you are making u your own story here. And even then you are wrong.



If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, (or still my aunt if she was trans I suppose.)

What might have happened is irrelevant.

A yes, comparing your contractual obligation to pay a specified amount of rent on a specified day is definitely related to an old proverb about your aunt having a sex change...

Ballso

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A yes, comparing your contractual obligation to pay a specified amount of rent on a specified day is definitely related to an old proverb about your aunt having a sex change...

What are you waffling on about, the law is perfectly clear here.

FVP3

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A yes, comparing your contractual obligation to pay a specified amount of rent on a specified day is definitely related to an old proverb about your aunt having a sex change...

You took one thing from my post, which was an aside and not related to the main point. Go back and answer the rest of it.

Eric Cartman

Ballso wrote: »

What are you waffling on about, the law is perfectly clear here.

yes it is, tenants abandoned a property for 52 days, were in rent arrears for 37 and the only contact between mid march and now was a single text message sent explaining that they wouldn't be paying mays rent on time.

bucketybuck

FVP3 wrote: »

That's true, as we dont know colour of the paint on the walls in the second bedroom we cant continue to discuss this.

:rolleyes:

Ballso

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes it is, tenants abandoned a property for 52 days, were in rent arrears for 37 and the only contact between mid march and now was a single text message sent explaining that they wouldn't be paying mays rent on time.

Even if you hadn't just made most of that up (why?), show us the section of the RTA which allows the landlord to ignore the standard process to recover the property

FVP3

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes it is, tenants abandoned a property for 52 days,

They didn't abandon it. They kept paying rent. Their possessions were there.

were in rent arrears for 37

They weren't.

and the only contact between mid march and now was a single text message sent explaining that they wouldn't be paying mays rent on time.

That's not true either.

FVP3

Here is the law on abandonment


The landlord cannot end the tenancy and re-let the property without a possession order, which takes time to obtain and will require proper proof that the he has left. Tenant rights mean that landlords cannot even enter the property immediately to check that it is abandoned, except in emergency circumstances (outlined below).

and

Checking if the property is abandoned
As a landlord, if you think the property has been abandoned, you should first attempt to contact the tenant. Ask the tenant for written confirmation that they’re returning possession of the property to you, and to return the keys. Once you received this confirmation you can go into the property immediately.

If, after repeated attempts, you cannot reach the tenant, you can investigate further. The property can only be considered abandoned if the rent is overdue and there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is abandoned.

The following are clear and accepted indicators of it:

non-payment of rent,
the property keys have been left behind, and
the tenant’s possessions have been removed from the property.

LeineGlas

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, it isn't and no, it hasn't 'literally' been stolen. It's a case for a phonecall. People can still resolve issues themselves. Gardai don't need to baby people in every circumstance.

The landlord has no intention of depriving the owner of their property. If he refused to give it back or made it unreachable then yes but I don't believe that's the case here.

Yes it has.

Gardaí absolutely need to be involved. Theft of property is illegal.

Treppen

FVP3 wrote: »

Here is the law on abandonment


The landlord cannot end the tenancy and re-let the property without a possession order, which takes time to obtain and will require proper proof that the he has left. Tenant rights mean that landlords cannot even enter the property immediately to check that it is abandoned, except in emergency circumstances (outlined below).

and

Checking if the property is abandoned
As a landlord, if you think the property has been abandoned, you should first attempt to contact the tenant. Ask the tenant for written confirmation that they’re returning possession of the property to you, and to return the keys. Once you received this confirmation you can go into the property immediately.

If, after repeated attempts, you cannot reach the tenant, you can investigate further. The property can only be considered abandoned if the rent is overdue and there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is abandoned.

The following are clear and accepted indicators of it:

non-payment of rent,
the property keys have been left behind, and
the tenant’s possessions have been removed from the property.

and the Covid-19 Emergency Legislation for the Rental Sector
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/covid-19-emergency-legislation-for-rental-sector/

"No one can be made to leave their accommodation (other than in limited and exceptional circumstances where a breach of tenant obligations takes place and an RTB Determination Order is sourced through the dispute resolution process)."

Also

"Please be aware that carrying out an illegal eviction, which includes prohibiting access to the property or making the property uninhabitable by disconnecting services, can result in damages of up to €20,000 being awarded to the tenant. The RTB can seek an injunction from the Courts to reinstate the tenant and will continue to prioritise these cases during the emergency period."

elefant

bucketybuck wrote: »

Getting the full story is never immaterial.

It's absolutely immaterial when it make no difference to the outcome. The reason they were late with their payment is totally irrelevant.

Even if they'd secretly agreed between themselves that they were going to string the landlord along and never pay him a cent again, he'd still have been wrong to go into their house, take all their belongings and tell them he's holding their deposits.

Ballso

LeineGlas wrote: »

Yes it has.

Gardaí absolutely need to be involved. Theft of property is illegal.

Only in the world of the amateur Irish landlord is entering a property without permission, loading thousands of euros worth of property into a van and driving it to a lockup not theft and not illegal. What a nightmare having to deal with these people in the rental sector.

Claw Hammer

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No. It falls under tort (contract law) and is for the civil courts, Ptb and solicitors to deal with

Tort and contract are distinct causes of action. Tort is not contract and contract is not tort.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

He legally can’t move back tilll at least July 20th.

Well they have the landlord over a barrel here. He acted illegally in evicting them and bordering on illegally going through their stuff.

He would have to be careful accusing them of "illegally back in to their residence.

steddyeddy

I haven't lived in Ireland for over five years but it's scary how many Irish landlords think it's acceptable to illegally remove people's belongings from their place of residence.

Claw Hammer

steddyeddy wrote: »

I haven't lived in Ireland for over five years but it's scary how many Irish landlords think it's acceptable to illegally remove people's belongings from their place of residence.

It is even scarier how many tenants think it is acceptable to enter a contract and then ignore the terms.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is even scarier how many tenants think it is acceptable to enter a contract and then ignore the terms.

Both are scary but that's just whataboutery and not applicable to what I said.

Claw Hammer

steddyeddy wrote: »

Both are scary but that's just whataboutery and not applicable to what I said.

I don't understand this remark. There are 2 parties to a contract. If both ignore the terms only 1 is to be condemned?

bucketybuck

elefant wrote: »

It's absolutely immaterial when it make no difference to the outcome. The reason they were late with their payment is totally irrelevant.

Even if they'd secretly agreed between themselves that they were going to string the landlord along and never pay him a cent again, he'd still have been wrong to go into their house, take all their belongings and tell them he's holding their deposits.

I asked a question of the OP so I don't know why I am even replying to you, but regardless...

The OP offered the information that he was late/didn't pay rent in May, and then stated that the issue was only with May and that the rent would have been paid on time in June.

He offered that information, he must have considered it relevant. What you think is irrelevant.

Deebles McBeebles

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its clear he has taken a gamble here, hoping that all the circumstances of the current crisis will distract you or anyone from going after him for breaking the law, which is has done wilfully.

Prove him wrong.

Exactly. Chancing his arm. Keep the deposit, probably up the rent beyond 4% for the next tenants. Make an example of him so others don't have to put up with it.

Best of luck, OP, not that you need it. Let us know where you go with the money you're about to come into.

FVP3

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I don't understand this remark. There are 2 parties to a contract. If both ignore the terms only 1 is to be condemned?

I doubt if the contract said if they were 7 days late on payment the landlord can take the deposit, break into the house, and steal their property, but if it did say that it was an illegal contract.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I don't understand this remark. There are 2 parties to a contract. If both ignore the terms only 1 is to be condemned?

What part did the tenants ignore?

Claw Hammer

steddyeddy wrote: »

What part did the tenants ignore?

Paying the rent on time or at all.

Claw Hammer

FVP3 wrote: »

I doubt if the contract said if they were 7 days late on payment the landlord can take the deposit, break into the house, and steal their property, but if it did say that it was an illegal contract.

So what. Two wrongs don't make a right.