PRTB Adjudication Hearing - Finally

miju

RuggieBear wrote:

meh. kids don't respect anything and will wreck a place far quicker than "professionals".... but maybe not "students"!:)

my kid does i believe its called proper parenting

RuggieBear

miju wrote:

my kid does i believe its called proper parenting

I can't but agree!!! But you also have to agree that a child will add considerably to "wear & tear"...

OTK

cream carpet makes no sense in a rental property.

picture hooks. Why not leave them in the wall for the next tenant? The ones pictured are not six inch nails they are the smallest picture hooks available.

tenancy agreement. I have had various tenancy agreements and none both as renter and landlord. I got one in London that really impressed me and made me feel that I was going to get my deposit back if I did everything on the lengthy printed checklist. I did.

The list included dusting the tops of skirting boards, cleaning caked washing powder from the inside of the washing machine drawer, cleaning the oven etc. carpet cleaning by one of a list of firms. Also first and last months rent in advance plus deposit. references from my employer, my previous landlord and my bank. The inventory and condition of the apartment was independently assessed at the start and the end of the tenency. Apartment was inspected every three months.

The whole thing was so professional that I completely trusted the landlord not to rip me off at the end.

In this case it's probably not worth your while pursuing the tenant for a couple of hundred quid. What would be worth your while is accepting that you could have handled the tenancy better and changing your approach in future. Are you going to do this?

faceman

OTK wrote:

Apartment was inspected every three months.

even though im a landlord, i disagree with this clause

OTK

it was fine. the letting agent would make a prior appointment and just stick his head in to make sure we weren't smashing the place to bits.

byte

While the picture hooks may not be big, I think the tenant should have asked for permission first from landlord. If I, in the house I'm renting, wanted to put up anything, I always ask the landlord first.

The cream carpet was a mistake though!

Lex Luthor

byte wrote:

While the picture hooks may not be big, I think the tenant should have asked for permission first from landlord. If I, in the house I'm renting, wanted to put up anything, I always ask the landlord first.

and thats where the problem is.....no permission was asked and when I mentioned them I was told that they weren't a big deal.

as for the 6" nails....I just haven't put that picture up but the master bedroom had them used to hang small pictures....

regardless of the colour of the carpet, it should still have been returned clean at their cost

Lex Luthor

OTK wrote:

What would be worth your while is accepting that you could have handled the tenancy better and changing your approach in future.

All my actions were will within the PRTB regulations. I stand by them

OTK wrote:

Are you going to do this?

:rolleyes:

Lex Luthor

PRTB hearing went ahead this morning. Only one party showed up so I'll fill you in what happened.
All the evidence was looked at and it appears all will be in our favour.
I can see it being a problem trying to get the money back from the tenant, but at this stage, we are happy with the outcome and justice prevailed.
Getting some spons out of it will be a bonus.

Lex Luthor

got the results yesterday and was awarded all my expenses I put in for

Now they have 7 days to pay....lets see what happens

faceman

Lex Luthor wrote:

PRTB hearing went ahead this morning. Only one party showed up so I'll fill you in what happened.

only one tenant or just yourselves? did they have a defense?

godtabh

Lex Luthor wrote:

got the results yesterday and was awarded all my expenses I put in for

Now they have 7 days to pay....lets see what happens

Whats the next step?

Can they be foreced to pay?

faceman

kearnsr wrote:

Whats the next step?

Can they be foreced to pay?

in the event they dont pay, it can be taken to the district court to force the individual to pay AFAIK

godtabh

faceman wrote:

in the event they dont pay, it can be taken to the district court to force the individual to pay AFAIK

Do you know the success rates it getting people to pay up is?

If it goes as far as the courts can they over turn the PRTB decsions?

faceman

sorry i dont have any stats on it, i havent come across too many cases publicised.

Victor

kearnsr wrote:

If it goes as far as the courts can they over turn the PRTB decsions?

AFAIK it goes to court for enforcement only.

Lex Luthor

faceman wrote:

only one tenant or just yourselves? did they have a defense?

the tenant never showed

as for enforcement, I have to get back to the PRTB if I don't get anything by next week, then they take it from there

godtabh

Can they go to jail if they refuse to pay?

Rhonda9000

kearnsr wrote:

Can they go to jail if they refuse to pay?

The PRTB determination is enforced through the circuit court.

Rhonda9000

Victor wrote:

AFAIK it goes to court for enforcement only.

Yup, enforcement at circuit ct. Appeal on a point of law only to high ct.

godtabh

Rhonda9000 wrote:

The PTRB determination is enforced through the circuit court.

that doesnt really answer my question

patrickolee

Eventually I think it does.... eventually. You often here Joe Higgins giving out that people are in jail for minor fines, non payment of tv license etc, while bigger fish get off.

Rhonda9000

kearnsr wrote:

that doesnt really answer my question

The PRTB cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment.

If they fail to comply with the PRTB determination it will be enforced by the circuit ct. The circuit ct order compels a party to comply with the terms of the PRTB determination (cannot be an imprisonment term).

I refer you to s 126 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004:

Offence for failure to comply with determination order. 126.—(1) A person who fails to comply with one or more terms of a determination order is guilty of an offence. (2) Subsection (1) has effect notwithstanding the means provided under section 124 for enforcement of a determination order. (3) A person convicted of an offence under this section shall not be sentenced to any term of imprisonment in respect of that offence if he or she shows that the failure to comply with the term or terms concerned was due to his or her limited financial means.

In summary, possibility of jail if they fail to comply with the circuit court order if the failure to comply is not because of financial circumstances (have to be dire in reality for this to work).

Rhonda9000

FYI the penalties as per s. 9 of the Res. Ten. Act 2004 are:

- Fine not exceeding 3,000
- Imprisonment not exceeding 6 months
- or both.

In all seriousness OP, I dont think it will come to this in 99.95% of cases.

godtabh

Rhonda9000 wrote:

FYI the penalties as per s. 9 of the Res. Ten. Act 2004 are:

- Fine not exceeding 3,000
- Imprisonment not exceeding 6 months
- or both.

In all seriousness OP, I dont think it will come to this in 99.95% of cases.

So y our saying they can go to jail if they dont pay?

Rhonda9000

kearnsr wrote:

So y our saying they can go to jail if they dont pay?

Imprisonment is provided for in the Act. The circuit court decides the penalty to be imposed.

Back in the real world, I very much doubt anybody will end up in jail for an offence under the Residential Tenancies Act. Just my $0.02

Lex Luthor

I've checked the letter that came from the PRTB

it states they have 7 days to pay of 21 days to appeal

Whats all that about?

Victor

Lex Luthor wrote:

it states they have 7 days to pay of 21 days to appeal

Is the 'of' meant to be 'or'?

Lex Luthor

Victor wrote:

Is the 'of' meant to be 'or'?

ya

Rhonda9000

Lex Luthor wrote:

ya

As the order says - they have to either pay or appeal within the given time lines. OP, What is controversial about this?