Tenant Refusing To Pay Rent * MOD WARNING IN POST #1 *

PO!NT wrote: »

What is the responsibility of the Agent when SHTF.

Unless the agent was negligent in checking references at he outset, he cannot be responsible for the failure of the tenant to pay rent. He is paid to introduce a tenant and possible mange the tenancy, not guarantee the rent.

costacorta wrote: »

Contact all the SF and PBP TDs , They are the ones who encourage non payments of rent as according to them nobody should be evicted from a property.

Are you not aware that all property is theft from the proleteriat and also that its the duty of the government to provide housing for everyone?

mrslancaster wrote: »

What do posters here think about a landlord asking for a Guarantor when tenants are signing a new lease? One of my friends just told me her son and his girlfriend have been asked by the Estate Agent to get a guarantor to co-sign the lease with them. The EA said its because of all the new regulations and if they default on the rent then the guarantor will also be responsible to pay the rent. Is that a new thing?

normal in other countries. all for it.

mrslancaster wrote: »

What do posters here think about a landlord asking for a Guarantor when tenants are signing a new lease? One of my friends just told me her son and his girlfriend have been asked by the Estate Agent to get a guarantor to co-sign the lease with them. The EA said its because of all the new regulations and if they default on the rent then the guarantor will also be responsible to pay the rent. Is that a new thing?

I'm not sure the guarantee is even legally enforceable. A contract usually requires consideration on all sides - everyone gives something and takes something. In this case the guarantor is giving something, but receiving nothing.

mrslancaster wrote: »

What do posters here think about a landlord asking for a Guarantor when tenants are signing a new lease? One of my friends just told me her son and his girlfriend have been asked by the Estate Agent to get a guarantor to co-sign the lease with them. The EA said its because of all the new regulations and if they default on the rent then the guarantor will also be responsible to pay the rent. Is that a new thing?

It would make it practically impossible for potential renters who dont have access too an Irish property owning guarantor to rent.This would preclude most non nationals so dont see that coming any time soon.

fliball123 wrote: »

I would get a plumber in on the QT and play dumb, get a sparks in and do the same. A lot of this can be done from outside the property.

And then he calls a plumber, and a sparks, and gets them reconnected? It's their home in the eyes of the law (and the ESB, and Irish Water) whether they are paying rent or not.

ring esb tell them to cut the power off...

I remember in the States years ago the landlord would look at your TRW - now FICO, credit rating and low score meant no chance of renting. If you failed to pay rent the landlord could report you to them as being in default so that was a major disincentive for people not to pay.
Could that work here?

DubCount wrote: »

Anyone wondering why Landlords are selling up while rents are at record high levels - read this thread.

Anyone considering being a landlord - read this thread.

Anyone seeking a ban on evictions..... you get the idea.

Not that I disagree with most of that, cant see why anyone seeking a ban evictions care to know this? they would already be in a place of inexperience and likely not connected with the reality of renting out a property.
OP, definitely go the legit route and start on it ASAP, even try talk to the tenant, by no means (in my opinion) offer the tenant any money (not yet), if you can still keep them on talking terms great, tell them you cant sustain paying your costs with them not paying rent and have they looked at what options there might be ie rent allowance etc, tell them you'll still go ahead with the RTB route as you're in a bind yourself, but if they can get Rent allowance or whatever in place then you'll do as much to help them (assuming you think thats an option).

You dont actually know if he has applied for HAP or Rent allowance or if he lost his job (although its not your concern, it has become your problem)

It might be unlikely, but dont assume he knows about these options
(and ,while his marriage isnt your concern, it is causing you a problem)
if its a legit problem, and he is all over the place because of it, you might be better to try help him get something sorted for your own sake.



Even if you are taking the tenant on in the RTB, it is still good if you can keep them on side so to speak, it might even light a fire under any rent application (and you could say that to the tenant) as SW or whoever deals with HAP (council) might not make it a priority if there is nothing to make it urgent.
Its quite possible the tenant are in a difficult financial situation (not that that should be your burden), I dont fully know what the steps are anymore (they appear to have changed, and I prefer to forget my experience, even though it wasnt the worst I heard of from others).
Another poster has given a list of steps, I quoted them at the end of this my post.

Blanco100 wrote: »

What happens if you need to evict someone because you need to move into the house yourself with your own family?

You have to wait until they leave or are removed.

dalyboy wrote: »

Is your agent taking any responsibility for your situation? (Was it the agent that vetted the tenant in the 1st place ?)

It may very well depend on that contract, the agent may be responsible for getting the tenant in only, or in this case it sounds like collecting rent also. I would hardly think it includes pursuing the tenant or guaranteeing rent, but if there were delays in informing the landlord the OP might have some small recourse, but I wouldnt consider thats where the OP should focus their attention and in fact see if the Agent has any input/support/recommended solicitors etc. If I was the Op and they are asking what to do (ie dont know), Id get a solicitor familiar with the RTB and lettings and start taking action now.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

probably needs to considering paying a bribe of at least 5 k and possibly 10 k , eviction process will cost most landlords the guts of 20 k in lost income so 10 k would be relatively cheap

I wouldnt recommend any of this, Id at least try get them out legitimately first before making any kind of suggestion, If ever it comes up, and the tenant hints at it, Id see what they say, Id always have my phone on record when speaking to them, just to have a record so they cant accuse the OP of anything, phone mics arent always great so dont make it obvious.

kian163 wrote: »

As someone above suggests you need to follow the new 10 step process while emergency periods (5km restrictions) are in place.

1. First of all you need to send a 28 day warning letter to the tenant and also send a copy to the RTB. The 28 days will not begin till the tenant and the RTB both receive a copy.

2. After this is dependent on the actions of you and the tenant. There are options for you both to send in self declarations due to hardship. The tenant is also required to engage with the RTB, MABS and the landlord.

3. If the tenant does not engage a 28 day termination notice can be issued once the initial 28 days are up. If they do engage and provide a self declaration the termination notice must be 90 days. Again the RTB must be forwarded any notices or else they become invalid.

In theory with a non engaging tenant you are looking at 56 days notice. In reality it's very different.

OP, this guy, follow this advice and imo get a solicitor

Not sure if it is relevant how long the tenant is there so far if they aren't paying and opening an RTB case for non payment.


Reading this, didnt know there were extra conditions regarding starting the process, its stressful to deal with, realistically you are unlikely to come out of this not losing money, its never easy to deal with, but not impossible, always keep your cool or if you're quieter person, just state things matter of fact. I lost less then others mentioned in this thread, but I couldnt afford it at the time, ended up with Banks threatening me with legal action (and that was after the tenant left) just my situation was somewhat dire trying to stay afloat, took it on the chin, but definitely stressed, saw how things were changing and got out, but even then I hadnt predicted how they would change.

It ends eventually, best of luck.

JPCN1 wrote: »

I remember in the States years ago the landlord would look at your TRW - now FICO, credit rating and low score meant no chance of renting. If you failed to pay rent the landlord could report you to them as being in default so that was a major disincentive for people not to pay.
Could that work here?

It would work, but it is also basically illegal. In the past proxies for credit rating such as "Rent Allowance Not Accepted" or requiring an employment reference are not permitted any more.


What would actually work is the UK system: Three months unpaid rent means mandatory eviction.

Why would he offer the tenant money to move out? That's such a stupid suggestion. Follow the rules + instigate the eviction. Worst case scenario, you lose a few months rent? Hardly that big of a deal...

dubrov wrote: »

Could be a choice between paying 5k to the tenant or losing 20k between lost rent and legal fees.

Where would the legal fees come from? He can serve the eviction notice himself. Surely his agent has advised him of this route?

Government buildings wrote: »

Also might be two years before you can sell the property.

Did he mention how long the tenant has been renting his property?

Government buildings wrote: »

The agreement you make between yourself and the tenant counts for nothing. There is no point in drawing up an agreement between landlord and tenant. It is a waste of paper.

The RTB decides the rules.

I personally think that in recent years people have become less honest, and are prepared to break agreements and refuse to pay rent, as there are no consequences.

I don't think this would have happened in years gone by.

Eh, or they could be sued? There's so much misinformation in this thread.

Government buildings wrote: »

Who could be sued?

Who do you think? Lol honestly..

beauf wrote: »

At some point they'll stop LL from selling at all.

I think the day is coming where you won’t be allowed to evict a tenant just to sell your property. You’ll have to sell it with a sitting tenant. Which is why I’m trying to get out this year. But a six month notice period could easily become eight or ten months with lockdowns.

Government buildings wrote: »

Who could be sued?

Well I think he means the tenant, but Im sure he is joking, all the have to have is nothing of value to take and what are you going to get? assuming you can pin them down and they turn up to court, end up costing more.

Aph2016 wrote: »

Well this thread is eye opening. I'm not sure I'd consider being a landlord after reading this, or maybe the screening process for tenants is hugely important, get tenants with secure government jobs where their income isn't likely to be affected by external factors.

I wouldnt recommend it.

The screening process means zero, even someone who is loaded could try not pay and make off into the sunset.
Im sure there is a thread somewhere you could get some advice as what returns similar or better returns, worse returns would be better than letting property. because there is so much hassle, time, things you cant claim for even though associated with renting.
You cant rely specifically on just getting a Govt employee.

Government buildings wrote: »

In one way, this would be of benefit to landlords.

At the moment you can't sell a house with a sitting tenant because no bank will lend an investor money to buy it.

However, if all properties must or could be sold with sitting tenants, banks will be forced to offer mortgages to prospective investors.

No headache trying to get rid of tenant. So it would be a way out for those landlords who want to sell.

I dont see this as benefiting landlords,
That would force someone to sell to a more limited market, would that be legal even?
They might be limited in what they could ask for compared to similar house not rented on the same street.

No one will want to let a house that isnt already occupied in a rental again imo, if they are limited to that kind of restriction, might it be unconstitutional even? its private property, how or why should the State be able to say what a person can do with their private property?


Why should they be forced to have this as a way out? why cant they sell to the rest of the general population, some of which might offer more, ie the market rate.

its restrictive rules and ideas (along with existing inaction on non payment of contracted rent and other drawn out pedantic rules ) that have caused landlords to want to exit the market despite as has been said as highest market rentals again.
Landlords cant even without difficulty offer tenants lower rates without screwing themselves

Government buildings wrote: »

But could such tenant not demand to be reinstated in the property, as the money you gave him would have no legal standing?

The money would be a gift, end of. The tenant would be under no obligation to leave, despite being paid. The only option is to follow the rules and issue a notice for eviction. How is that so difficult to understand?

Arealred wrote: »

OP,

Have you considered getting the electricity cut to the property. Is that in your name.

Likewise you could consider cutting water to property.

See how long tenant lasts without them.

Another thing that builders do if not getting paid is turn up outside the persons workplace with placard re money owed.

This is illegal and will result in the op paying a pile of money to the tenant when he takes them to court/rtb