Landlord er.. suing me

RicardoSmith

Paddy20 wrote:

RicardoSmith,
Ahem, What agreement did 'substr' make with the landlord in question, have you seen it, as far as I am aware he has no agreement ?.. or maybe you know better ?...

He said signed a 6 month lease.

Paddy20 wrote:

In relation to Rachmanism. Are you trying to state that we have no brothels in Ireland,or that we do not have property sharks who force people out of their homes.

I'm saying its nothing to do with this thread. All landlords are not evil, they don't all have brothels.

Paddy20 wrote:

If that is what you think. I suggest you take off the rose tinted glasses and look at how so called respectable 'Banks' happily re-possess at the drop of a hat.

What have the banks got to do with this thread? N o t h i ng.

Paddy20 wrote:

The Irish property market is totally corrupt, and the blatant exploitation of innocent young tenants by unscrupulous landlords, financed by Banks and other Commercial mortgage brokers is at an all time high, even in rural backwaters such as my very own Donegal.

There will be a backlash, and the sooner the better.

Totally corrupt. So there no honest law abiding people in the property market? Theres no decent landlords? There will be a backlash. What does that mean? In fact landlords are people, and have rights too. Many aren't aware as they should be of the regulations, just as the tenants aren't either. But that doesn't make them dishonest or corrupt. Stupid maybe. But then tenants are guilty of that too.

substr is trying to get out of an agreement he made. I'm not passing judgement on the legality of the agreement. The landlord is looking to cover the costs incurred of the tenant leaving. Its a simply business. Its possible that the landlord has a mortgage to cover, and other costs. If substr had handled it better, like found a tenant to replace himself, its likely the landlord wouldn't have had a problem with him leaving earlier, once it wasn't going to cost money. But by breaking an agreement, then getting all heavy, trying to threaten the landlord is no way to handle this.

But claming that all landlords are evil isn't helping him one iota. IMO.

Paddy20

I acknowledge that the details relating to the contents of the so-called lease that he signed are somewhat vague.

So, in this instance. Let's just agree to disagree.

In relation to landlordism. My opinion of people who make money in this manner is pretty clear.

OK :cool:

RicardoSmith

Paddy20 wrote:

...
In relation to landlordism. My opinion of people who make money in this manner is pretty clear....

There are good and bad landlords, and there are good and bad tenants. I might as well say all tenants are the sum of the earth, robbing gits. It would be as logical as what you are saying.

substr

Guys I'll post more info on this when I have time.
I've found out through the housing authority (Private Rented Dwellings Register) and through the revenue office that
a) They are definetly not registered and
b) They are definetly not paying income tax on the apartment
So I reporteed them to the authority and the revenue commissioners. Now I'm wondering is the lease they wrote out still legally binding if they aren't registered and aren't paying tax? Because if it's not, I'm entitled to my deposit back and am willing to go to the small claims court in order to claim it. Thanks

grumpytrousers

For Gods Sakes, you are NOT entitled to your deposit back, you broke terms of an agreement. The witnessing of it is probably irrelevant. What you are (understandably) trying to do is exercise some leverage in that you get your deposit back in return for not shopping 'em to the revenue.

There are two separate relationships here

a) you and your landlord
b) your landlord and the revenue.

The fact that your landlord isn't registered doesn't alter the fact that you reneged on the lease. And the revenue won't care. And it's nothing to do with them anyway. The significant fact that you walked out after x weeks rather than 6 months matters not a whit to the Revenue. They'll add your landlord to their..um..mailing list and that's the beginning and end of their involvement.

The relationship between you and your landlord remains the same - they hold your deposit and you still owe them money. Now that you seem to have shot your bolt on the 'shopping them' issue - you've shot the hostage - they have nothing to lose in suing you for the money you owe them. The lease can not be made 'unbinding' due to some fact or other coming to light subsequent to the signing that doesn't have a major effect on the terms of the lease itself. There was no mention, i would think, of the landlord paying on Tax on the property in the lease, so the fact that you know know that they don't doesn't significantly alter the terms...

In other words - if you accept a lease at face value and sign it. And the landlord signs it, and you move in, then the lease has pretty much done its job. You've got a place to stay for 6 months - guaranteed, and the landlord has a contract with you that guarantees them income for 6 months. The lease is merely a thing between you and the landlord. What they do with the money is none of your business - in the same way that how you make your money (for paying 'em with) is none of their business. (unless you're running a knocking shop in their flat!!! )

I'm not sure how wise it was to go nuclear on this one so early...as I say, you've now shot your bolt and have possibly pissed off your landlord. You have no way of pulling back now...I'm not having a pop at local council efficiency, but to be honest, I'd want more than phone confirmation on my side before i did what you did...

RicardoSmith

I very curious to know what happens with this. Keep us updated.

substr

grumpy, ignoring the fact they are cheating tax with the revenue, legally they aren't ALLOWED to lease that apartment out to me. So if I did bring them to the small claims court, I don't think that lease would hold. It would be like me selling drugs, and then trying to bring someone to court for not paying me - do you see what I'm getting at?

vorbis

might not be as clear cut as that substr. Legally they could be allowed rent out that apartment wheras they're in trouble for not declaring tax. Drug dealing is just straight out illegal. It could be as grumpy views it, two separate issues under the law. Your lease agreement and their obligations to the Revenue Commissioners.

Also if the place was such a dump why did you move in there in the first place?

grumpytrousers

substr wrote:

grumpy, ignoring the fact they are cheating tax with the revenue, legally they aren't ALLOWED to lease that apartment out to me. So if I did bring them to the small claims court, I don't think that lease would hold. It would be like me selling drugs, and then trying to bring someone to court for not paying me - do you see what I'm getting at?

Lookit - best of luck to you. The dye is cast in this matter now anyway and what happens. I just think you may be a bit naive in what you've done...

While some would say that right/wrong is a black and white issue, I can assure you that (as vorbis says) there is right, there is wrong and there is 'way off the scale wrong'. While what they're doing may be wrong, it's not drug dealing/child prostitution and they're not gonna have *that* heavy a book thrown at them.

FWIW, I've no time for people who rent out dumps to people who need the accomodation, much less those who cheat the taxman, but the last two landlords I've rented from were both diamonds - new furniture when needed, speedy repairs for household appliances when necessary, but both cash in hand jobbies...

The other thing that crossed my mind is that potentially if your landlord is a 'professional' landlord, it's possible that the property isn't registered in their name. God only knows - it could be a company partnership, a few mates together....whatever - and thus any names etc you've quoted to the revenue might not have brought up the right records.

Also - and i hate to say this - if this does go to court, the fact that you shopped 'em will now be mentioned and inasmuch as court proceedings will be between you and the landlord, will certainly show you for having been 'morally' in the wrong. i.e. people don't tend to rat their landlords unless they've a reason. Yours was they were withholding the deposit and the reason for that was...you guessed it, broke the terms of the lease.

Case for the plaintiff rests, judge...

Again - best of luck. Tread carefully!

RicardoSmith

Someone mentioned the small claims court. Would a case like this go to that court?

Sleipnir

grumpytrousers wrote:

The other thing that crossed my mind is that potentially if your landlord is a 'professional' landlord, it's possible that the property isn't registered in their name. God only knows - it could be a company partnership, a few mates together....whatever - and thus any names etc you've quoted to the revenue might not have brought up the right records.

They search for the property address, not the landlord name. So it doesn't matter who it is registered to.

substr

The other thing that crossed my mind is that potentially if your landlord is a 'professional' landlord, it's possible that the property isn't registered in their name. God only knows - it could be a company partnership, a few mates together....whatever - and thus any names etc you've quoted to the revenue might not have brought up the right records.

Wrong.

Sleipnir wrote:

They search for the property address, not the landlord name. So it doesn't matter who it is registered to.

Exactly - was just going to point this out. Both the housing authority and the revenue wanted the address of the apartment.

but the last two landlords I've rented from were both diamonds - new furniture when needed, speedy repairs for household appliances when necessary, but both cash in hand jobbies

What you do in your own time is you business. But I feel this is more widespread than our 2 cases. There's a reason tax/paye in this country is so high and I feel its somehow related to the hundreds/thousands/god knows how many people cheating the system, forcing tax rates up for the regular joe like me.

Also - and i hate to say this - if this does go to court, the fact that you shopped 'em will now be mentioned and inasmuch as court proceedings will be between you and the landlord, will certainly show you for having been 'morally' in the wrong.

Wrong again - (do you ever get tired of being wrong) - Neither the housing authority nor the revenue asked for my name/address/any details at all. They said it's all completely anonymous.

And now my personal opinion on this:

While what they're doing may be wrong, it's not drug dealing/child prostitution and they're not gonna have *that* heavy a book thrown at them

A crime is a crime. Just because the victim is an entire state rather than an individual in the case of rape/murder etc, doesn't make it any more/less of a crime.

grumpytrousers

Wrong again - (do you ever get tired of being wrong) - Neither the housing authority nor the revenue asked for my name/address/any details at all. They said it's all completely anonymous.

Fair enough. But if this goes to court as a civil matter and you're under oath and asked did you inform the revenue, will you perjure yourself?

Remember, as somebody 'round here said "A crime is a crime. Just because the victim is an entire state rather than an individual in the case of rape/murder etc, doesn't make it any more/less of a crime."

That's all I'm gonna say on this matter. As for 'never tiring of being wrong', that's rather subjective an analysis - you did come here and ask for advice and opinions. If my appraisal of your situation don't happen to coincide with your own, then I'm sorry; the threads of wholehearted approval of everything you ever say or do are down the corridor, third door on the left...

Again, best of luck

grumpy

Paddy20

Substr,

Re: The Small Claims Court ?..

You would need to do a check with the Clerk of the Court at your nearest District Court about whether you can claim for your deposit through the Small Claims Court. Just to be sure, or do a check online.

RicardoSmith,

I consider 'Landlordism' as immoral. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Under our Constitution everyone has a right to a roof over their head. Simply because our little Countries Local Authorities and corrupt Politico's have failed our citizens miserably, leaves the door open for scum to charge €900 per Month for a flea pit that is unfit for human habitation. Cop on for heavens sake.

RicardoSmith

Paddy20 wrote:

...
I consider 'Landlordism' as immoral. You are trying to defend the indefensible. Under our Constitution everyone has a right to a roof over their head. Simply because our little Countries Local Authorities and corrupt Politico's have failed our citizens miserably, leaves the door open for scum to charge €900 per Month for a flea pit that is unfit for human habitation. Cop on for heavens sake.

If you don't like it use local authority housing.

So renting property, or land is immoral? I suppose capitalisim is too. What would you suggest as an alternative, ban all rental property and replace it with....?

Paddy20

Reasonably priced housing for all. With Government mortgage schemes for all.
Capitalism has a very ugly side, and 'Landlordism' is one that I would make illegal.

Except for local authorities. With the responsibility for providing EU standard high quality housing at a rent according to means.

grumpytrousers

Paddy20 wrote:

Reasonably priced housing for all. With Government mortgage schemes for all.
Capitalism has a very ugly side, and 'Landlordism' is one that I would make illegal.

Except for local authorities. With the responsibility for providing EU standard high quality housing at a rent according to means.

Capitalism has indeed an ugly side - the major weakness of capitalism is that it fails to take account of the pure naked selfish greed (called unlimited wants by economists!) which unfortunately is part of what we are as humans.

Socialism, on the other hand works at lot better. Except for the fact that it fails to take account of the...um....same...um...unlimited wants....

Is there a name for this paradox?

RicardoSmith

Does the govt not provide housing though the local authorities?
Why should the govt be obligated to help you buy property?
Name one place in the world were Socialism works?
Capitalism not pretty but it works no?
Landlordism is unavoidable in a capitalist system, no?

Victor

Paddy20 wrote:

Under our Constitution everyone has a right to a roof over their head.

Are you sure? Can you point out the Article this is contained in?

There is definitely a right to private property, which landlords can rely on.

Regarding the legality of the non-registration, I imagine it is an offence to not register (when renting out), not that it is an offence to rent out without being registered. Subtle but real difference. The contract is tainted, not void.* If it was the other way around, landlords could chuck out tenents by simply not renewing their registration.

* By comparision to the drug analogy, a pharmaceutical company can sell cocaine, but not to you.

Paddy20

No, I can not point out the Article in the Constitution at the moment, as I am quoting from memory. Although I well remember when I first read the ROI Constitution that paragraph had a dramatic effect on me.

Even so, in law Local Authorities are obligated to provide housing to homeless people. Starting with them paying for emergency B&B and then with a Rent Allowance along with the local Health Boards for more permanent flat's/bedsit's until a proper Local Authority property becomes available suitable according to the persons needs and circumstances.

Naturally, they do not like this fact, and tend to deny that people "Have the constitutional right to a roof over their head" but under pressure they generally comply with their legal responsibilities.

We always have a shortage of Local Authority housing, and waiting lists tend to be extremely long. Thereby leaving the door open for exploitation by private landlords.

This situation has arisen not because of a lack of money to build new housing, but IMO because of the "I'm alright jack and to hell with you" - mentality of a lot of civil servants who are only waiting to take early retirement.

The public/local authority housing situation is improving, but it has taken far too long due I believe, to a lack of Political will.

grumpytrousers

Here's a copy of the constitution

Don't see a guaranteed absolute right to a roof over head there. Paddy20, Artile 40.5 is as close as i can find to what you allude to, but if there's more there, you might point it out....

Paddy20

Hmmm, must be somewhere. I must do a bit of research as it appears I must have read that statement elsewhere. But where ?..now where do I start

It's 'Old Age' that's what it is, my brain has gone blank :eek: Dammit to hell.
Better go and have my afternoon nap now.

RicardoSmith

Paddy20 wrote:

....We always have a shortage of Local Authority housing, and waiting lists tend to be extremely long. Thereby leaving the door open for exploitation by private landlords...

I still don't get how landordisim is "morally" wrong though. Its supply and demand. Capitalisim no? There are lot of good landlords too. I think your main problem is with the politics of it all.

Definately a day for an afternoon nap. Good thinking!

substr

Could this be right, they said they only got the apartment last november so haven't submitted tax returns yet and also they "forgot" to register with the local housing authority but they have the form now and are going to register as soon as possible ?

sceptre

substr wrote:

(do you ever get tired of being wrong)

You're a happy camper aintcha?

cdebru

Paddy20 wrote:

.This situation has arisen not because of a lack of money to build new housing, but IMO because of the "I'm alright jack and to hell with you" - mentality of a lot of civil servants who are only waiting to take early retirement..

what complete nonsense someone has been watching too much yes prime minister
so we dont have enough houses because of civil servants and is it there fault we dont have enough hospital beds or good schools
why do we elect governments then
do civil servants not need houses
or do you think they get a house with the job

meatball

substr wrote:

Could this be right, they said they only got the apartment last november so haven't submitted tax returns yet and also they "forgot" to register with the local housing authority but they have the form now and are going to register as soon as possible ?

You played your ace a bit early there substr.

Victor

RicardoSmith wrote:

Someone mentioned the small claims court. Would a case like this go to that court?

Yes, it could. It would be Small Claims Court up to about €1,000. District Court after that (up to €5,000?).

RicardoSmith

Victor wrote:

Yes, it could. It would be Small Claims Court up to about €1,000. District Court after that (up to €5,000?).

Handy to know. What happened with this saga anyway?

jd

RicardoSmith wrote:

Handy to know. What happened with this saga anyway?

We are waiting for paddy20 to wake up after his constitutional nap..