Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Management company threatening to sue landlord for tenants anti-social behaviour

  • 08-09-2021 1:29pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    I posted a good while ago about a friend who had let their apartment to the council and had a problem tenant in it and the council wouldnt do anything.

    That tenant actually died of an overdose in the apartment.

    But wait for it. Since then another tenant has been put in that apartment by the council and are equally as anti-social.

    This time the friend got a registered letter from management company that stated in my own words.

    Your tenant is up to anti-social activity.

    1 - They played loud music from 1pm to 7pm all day on Friday, disturbing other people.

    2 - They have been p!ssing in the gardens of other residents since they moved in.

    3 - They have damaged another residents car. (broke the wipers off).

    4 - They sprayed obscene grafitti on the door of another resident and also on the wallof the apartment block.

    You will be receiving a bill from the management company to cover the cost of removing the grafitti from the residents door and also from the side of the apartment block, as well as to repair the damage to the car.

    If you do not pay ww will attach the charge to your apartment and you will have to pay it that way.


    Now there are a few issues at play here.

    This person is worried now that they will face huge bills forever.

    I have already told them that they cannot be charged for damage that their tenant does to other peoples property, or the management companies property, so forget about that. Tell the management company to gather the evidence that the CoCos tenant did indeed do these things and go to the gardai to sort them out. It is not my friends job to be the police. And anyway they leased it to Fingal coco for a set number of years and arent allowed near the place.

    Also the pwner of the property who does not live there is not responsible for the loud music the occupier plays. Plus as far as I know you can play loud music up until 10pm, so the middle of the day nobody can really do anything about. And besides, thats a matter for the management company to report to the gardai themselves if its after hours.

    Also the management company cant attach a cost to the apartment for remedying grafitti done by an individual or for damage to cars.

    So the management company cant actually do anything to the owner of the property. They are still worried.

    But the main point is that its disgraceful how the county council can lease properties long term and then put anti-social parasites in them to ruin the lives of those people who own both the property they have leased and also the people who live in the properties around them. Disgraceful.

    Dont let your property to the council is all I can say.



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,073 ✭✭✭ sheesh


    I would be contacting the county Council and finding a solicitor. request payment from the council for damage the tenant did so you can pay the management company. this looks like the councils problem



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik



    Well they didnt believe me either. They are checking with a solicitor today to make sure.

    The landlord has leased the property to fingal coco. No matter what action is taken against them, they can evict the tenant themselves.

    Even if it they had access to the RTB sure they couldnt evict for years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,901 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010


    Jimmy, if your friend has an agreement with Fingal CoCo, then it would be Fingal CoCo who would have the issue with your friend, rather than the tenant if they were evicted. A bit of lateral thinking should provide your friend with a suitably quick resolution to the problem.

    Caranica is correct in relation to owners responsibility in MUD, MC make no distinction between an owner occupied and tenant occupied property.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    Just sent me a message. They called a solicitor and solicitor said this is between the management company and Fingal CoCo.

    If he wants he can help bridge the gap between Fingal and the management company, but he is responsible nothing.

    Though he is trying his best to get the Co Co to evict the tenant. They didnt listen last time, so probably wont listen now.

    Its true too that playing load music during the daytime isnt a crime. Seems its not a crime at night either.

    All the gardai can do is ask the person to turn it down. They dont even have to turn it down (I didnt know that either).

    And he said the gardai probably wont bother doing anything about the graffiti or the damage to the car either, unless there is clearly identifiable video of the person doing it.

    The management company cant even report him to the RTB. My friend cant even report the tenant to the RTB themselves.

    Its all on Fingal coco.

    Solicitor told him if the management company try and charge them any more than the normal management fee to come back to him and he will sort it out.

    I definitely would not let a property to a council on a LTL.

    My friend regrets the day he went into that agreement, as do the neighbours.

    His wife has actually fallen out with one of the neighbours who was a good friend because of it. The neighbours think there is something himself and his wife can do about it, but there isnt a thing they can do, as much as they would like to.

    Allegedly it would take years to evict even if the tenant was a tenant of his own too.

    They are now going to ask Fingal coco if they want to buy the apartment. What a joke. Council lease apartment. Put an anti-social tenant, forcing the owner to want to get rid. And then get to buy it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,643 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_maxx


    Those long term lease arrangements are especially designed for dysfunctional people.

    They put them in a property and its " out of sight- out of mind

    I doubt the management company has the power to do all of the above however?


    Both the guards and the council would be likely to try and blame your friend however though I doubt a judge would listen



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,643 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_maxx


    Some of that is incorrect, I have a house leased to limerick city council under a ten year lease ,they have a scumbag in it naturally enough but

    The RTB have no involvement in long term leases to the State


    Secondly , limerick council are my tenant, not the low life who they put in it ,I don't even know who lives in it

    I'm not saying that the OMC can't bill the OP,s friend and you are correct about being bound to covenants etc



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,901 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010


    Jimmy, I have to agree with Markpb, it is not unusual for MCs to get letters from solicitors acting on behalf of dissatisfied owners, nor indeed is it unusual for same solicitors to backtrack when it is pointed out to them what the contractual obligations of the owner are. Again, MCs do not distinguish between owner occupied or tenancy occupied units, the owner is responsible. Your friend would do well not to rely wholly on that solicitor’s advice.

    Also Jimmy, while not wishing to cross the boundaries which apply to this forum, if Fingal CoCo are the other party in the agreement, what is the likelihood of them taking action against your friend if the tenancy was suddenly ended?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,987 ✭✭✭ haphaphap



    having a long term lease already in place might even be considered a selling point. No EA fees but I expect they'll demand their pound of flesh in other ways.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,120 ✭✭✭ Flinty997


    Its another daft rule that puts the responsibility on the LL but with the other hand removed any ability to fix the the problem by series of other rules.

    Fining the LL won't solve it because they can't do anything about. Except not rent. Which perhaps is the motive.

    Catch 22.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    YEah its a horrible situation. Worse, im sure, for the neighbours even.

    CoCo should really get their act together.

    Management companies are notoriously full of it. They always think they are right, and when challenged will back down from their bluster.

    He even spoke to the management company to explain the steps he was taking and asking the co co to take. They also asked the management company to send all their evidence to the gardai to prosecute the tenant and they would be only too happy to testify that the coco had been informed of everything too.

    The management company start telling him that they will go to the RTB and that they will drag him through the RTB. He said to them that the RTB cannot be involved here and they came out with more bluster about how they know for a fact that the RTB will take action and they have had people evicted via the RTB within a couple of months.

    All bull from the management company to be fair.

    And the management company really shouldnt be making threats to the only person who is actually trying to help them sort out the situation. Because the coco will just reply with "GDPR" and that the end of the conversation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,643 ✭✭✭✭ Mad_maxx


    The RTB are not party to any long term lease contract with the local authority


    One of the pitches made by the council to entice landlords towards leasing to the council is


    " no RTB registration"



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,022 ✭✭✭ Caranica


    "Management companies are notoriously full of it" - do you know what a management company is? It's a legal entity comprising all the owners in a development. Your friend is a member of said management company. Most management companies hire a management agent to administer the day to day running of the development.

    I know my documents that I signed when I purchased my place in a managed development said I committed to ensuring that any tenants I may place in my unit would not adversely affect the development or other residents. I expect your friend signed something similar. That's a legal obligation, on the owner, not the local authority.

    I am a director of our management company and have a duty of care to all residents. If there were tenants like your friends we would be taking legal action against the owner, we would have no relationship with the Council, they are tenants. It's up to your friend to subsequently take action against the local authority.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,901 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010


    I think you are wrong on pretty much every aspect of your post.

    There is no impediment to the MC, or a neighbour taking a third party dispute to the RTB. Whether the RTB will adjudicate on it is another matter, there is a tenancy in existence, whether the RTB has jurisdiction will be considered.

    When you say MC are “full of it”, they have the benefit of both the MUD Act and the articles of memorandum which the buyer agreed to when purchasing the property, to support their position. From experience of being a Director for a few years, and sitting in on multiple AGMs/EGMs over the years, owners who either do not understand their obligations, or fail to take the time to read what it is they agreed to, are far more likely to be “full of themselves” than the MC.

    In relation to the “threats”, that is what MCs do, the unit owner is asked nicely first, if like you, they either ignore or don’t understand the implications of not abiding by their purchase agreement, then the threat of legal action/RTB becomes necessary.

    In relation to GDPR, the law is clear, neither the CoCo, the MC, nor indeed your friend can give information relating to the tenant to anyone who isn’t entitled to it under GDPR regulations.

    Again, Jimmy, for the third time, the MC does not distinguish between the actions of an owner occupier and tenant occupier, the unit owner is responsible for any issues that arise in relation to the MC articles.

    Post edited by Dav010 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik




    Yeah, was a director of one for 3 and a half years.

    Bluster it is, such as whats in your post there, is typical of the stuff that was written up by us to pretend we knew what we were talking about.

    And as soon as a solicitor got involved, we were out. Once though, we got our own solicitor involved and he advised us to drop it.

    Next you'll be telling us that the RTB can evict the tenant. Or indeed that the RTB can have any involvement in the situation.

    Anyway, im not here to argue with people on management committees who think they are right about everything.

    I just came to post about how unreasonable the council are in LTL situations, in case anyone is thinking of getting into one.

    And as for my friend, he has been given legal advice, so now its between himself, his solicitor, the council and the mc and the mcs solicitor if they are bothered consulting one for correct advice.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,901 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010


    If you/your MC didn't know what you were talking about, you shouldn't have been trying to bluff your fellow MC members, poor form.

    If what you had "written up" had no legal standing, or it wasn't worth the fight, it comes as no surprise to anyone that you were advised to drop it. In your friends situation, it does not sound like the neighbours/MC can drop it, and as I have stated (you should know this if truthfully you were a Director), the MC rarely even knows the name of the tenant, all correspondence relating to obligations and responsibilities go to the property owner/member, it is then up to the Unit owner to deal with the problem or face the consequences as laid out in the MC agreement.

    I am saying no such thing in relation to the RTB, what I am saying is that the Mc and neighbours can open a third party dispute with the RTB, where it goes from there will depend on whether the RTB has jurisdiction.

    As a matter of interest, have you or even your friend read what is in the MC articles and what he/she agreed to when buying the property? That is usually a good starting point, everything else, including your friend's responsibilities follow from there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik



    His solicitor has read it and based his advice on that.

    And stop with the RTB bull. You were making it up and have been called on it.

    And then the management company directors on the thread preaching and posting definitions of mcs like eveyone else in the thread is an idiot and they arent.

    Its just typical of what mcs do tbh.

    Just stop digging.

    All anyone should learn from this thread is.

    1 - The council will not be any help to you if you LTL a property to them and they put in a bad tenant who causes trouble.

    2 - Consult a solicitor for legal advice and do not rely on internet advice. Solicitor advice> internet advice

    3 - Directors of mcs are never wrong :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,901 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010


    One more:

    4 - A lot of complaints to/about MC's are made by owners/their friends who are clueless about the obligations of unit owners, the laws which govern the workings of MC's, GDPR, and purchase agreements.

    Unfortunately a huge amount of time is wasted dealing with complaints from people who don't bother to read what they have agreed to.

    In relation to third party disputes, here is a little reading for you, as you can see, it is the LL who is responsible for enforcing the terms of the tenancy relating to behaviour on the tenant. There is absolutely nothing to stop a neighbour from opening a dispute with the RTB, and it is the property owner who is the party to that dispute, whether the RTB will adjudicate on it or has jurisdiction considering the tenancy agreement is with Fingal CoCo is another matter, as I have stated in every post. If you feel that is "Bull" feel free to post a link that shows otherwise.

    It certainly appears from your earlier post, that when you were a Director, you/your MC were wrong, and told to drop whatever you were doing.

    Post edited by Dav010 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭ Jmc25


    Would have to give a +1 to management companies generally being all bark (if even) and no bite.

    Legally speaking they can do all sorts of things but the practicality is they need to go to court to do basically any of them and so in most cases don't bother.

    That sounds like a fairly horrific scenario for the neighbours though, so this could be one of those occasions where they go to court all guns blazing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    Would you give over.

    Ive seem your posts before. You'll go on for years if you have to and even when you are wrong you will never give up.

    Its your way.

    The simple fact here is the person contacted a solicitor and the solicitor said no way can the management company charge the owner of the property for vandalism committed by the tenant. Thats a matter for evidence to be gathered and handed over to the police to chase the person who did it and take action against them.

    Solicitor basically says let the mc bark all they want but they wont bite. And if they try to bite, they'll be running away with their tail between their legs shortly after.

    Next you'll be saying that the management company can put a charge on the property to pay back any banks that they rob.

    Also the loud music cant be prosecuted either (which was a new one on me too tbf).

    The solicitor said dont worry about it and if they keep it up come back to him and he will soften their cough for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,901 ✭✭✭✭ Dav010


    Edit: As with all matters of this type, comes down to what is written in the contract and whether you understand that MCs don’t distinguish between an owner occupier or someone occupying with the owners permission and responsibility. If you can’t understand that, what’s the point?

    Post edited by Dav010 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    News on this today.

    He got a registered letter from the management company on Friday, with all of the threats in writing. Contacted his solicitor that day.

    Solicitor said leave it with him. Solicitor rang him today to tell him its all gone away. Letter on the way to him.

    I'll fill you in when he fills me in.

    But the council have been worse than useless in this whole mess.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭ mrslancaster


    On the DCC website it says the landlord does not need to register with the RTB and the council are the landlords to the tenants. If there's a problem is it not the council or AHB that are responsible for sorting it out?




Advertisement