Inaccurate Information from the PRTB

calsatron

Just had a discussion with an individual at the PRTB who informed me that

"As far as were aware theres no legislation that requires a landlord to provide contact details for either himself or his agent"

Well if you ignore the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act then they could we be right.

When I pointed that out to him I just got the same line again.

I'm phoning them for advice and end up arguing a point of fact with them.

Absolute waste of time, what chance have you got.

The_Conductor

I am not sure that there is any obligation on the Landlord/Agent to provide contact details in the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act (link to act here).

To the best of my knowledge, once the Landlord has registered the tenancy with the PRTB, they have fulfilled their obligation re: provision of details (they must advise of changes to rent charged etc, and make prescribed payments towards maintaining the registration database).

Please point out where in the act it prescribes an obligation to the tenant on the part of the landlord to provide contact information for either the landlord or his agent.

I do think the PRTB are accurate in this instance- but please correct me if I am wrong.

Kind regards,

Shane

sharpsuit

Shane,

Section 12 f of the Residential Tenancies Act is the portion you are looking for. This imposes an obligation to provide a tenant with means for the tenant to contact the landlord.

There is also an obligation to inform a tenant if an agent is acting on the landlord's behalf.

The_Conductor

sharpsuit wrote:

Section 12 f of the Residential Tenancies Act is the portion you are looking for. This imposes an obligation to provide a tenant with means for the tenant to contact the landlord.

Mea culpa.
You're absolutely right.

Shane

antoinolachtnai

You wouldn't want to take the PRTB's knowledge of the law too seriously to be honest.

connundrum

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You wouldn't want to take the PRTB's knowledge of the law too seriously to be honest.

QFT, but I don't know if I'd blame them tbh. They appear to have an ever increasing workload with an ever decreasing budget.

The entire accomodation and housing laws need an overhaul, covering landlords and tenants rights, management companies, responsibilities of developers and builders etc etc etc.

I may as well be shouting at a wall though

antoinolachtnai

PRTB has a massive income from registrations, surely? It is growing all the time.

The tenant laws have already been overhauled.

connundrum

Again I'm going on the word of someone who works in PRTB i.e. We just don't have the resources to deal with the amount of issues we're presented with.

I know that the tenant laws were overhauled.. was in two years ago now? But I really feel that the laws haven't struck a fair balance, in that the tenant now holds a huge amount of power if he/she feels like being an arse.

I refer to one case I'm dealing with where it has taken the guts of 6 months to remove a tenant who was 1st issued with 28 days notice for failure to pay rent back in January. The landlord wanted to do everything legally and lodged a complaint with PRTB. The tenant was finally removed last week. I don't think this is fair, but its what we're left with.

antoinolachtnai

As regards eviction, this is really no different to the way it was before. It was always tough to get a tenant out. I agree, these things should be heard faster.

PRTB does not at first face appear to have gotten into its stride as a well run organization. PRTB appears to have never published accounts (at least, they are not on the website and there is no sign of them anywhere else on the web).

PRTB has not yet published its annual report for 2006, even though it is now July 2007.

It seems to take months to process registrations. I sent in a registration on a property months ago, and haven't heard anything back.

They frequently give out wrong information. The registration form instructions PRTB supply describe the law incorrectly in several ways (for example, there is no statutory requirement on tenants to supply PPS numbers and there is no requirement for tenants to provide a signature).

If you followed the procedure on the PRTB website as regards dealing with new tenants, (http://www.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Further%20Information%20for%20Queries%20about%20the%20PPSN.pdf) you could be breaking the law by discriminating on the basis of nationality and could easily find yourself in front of the Equality Tribunal and facing a hefty compensation claim.

The example above shows that they are not able to provide basic, accurate factual information over the telephone either. This is not interpretation of the finer points of the law, which I admit might be difficult. They are missing out on the basics.

There is no online registration of tenancies, even though the legislation is apparently designed to allow for it. This would enormously streamline the operations of the Board.

They are (or should be) rolling in money. They have 175,000 registrations, which provides an income of around 4 million a year, enough to employ 70 people.

There is no excuse for not finding adjudicators to deal with cases promptly. This work could be contracted out.

Victor

antoinolachtnai wrote:

PRTB has not yet published its annual report for 2006, even though it is now July 2007.

The RPA only issued theirs a few weeks ago. Annual reports also need to be translated into Irish.

antoinolachtnai

RPA has accounts as part of its annual report. PRTB appears to have the practice of publishing them separately, at a later date.

Translating into Irish really doesn't take very long.

Olivia Leon

Beware of PRTB's new trick to avoid dealing with complains or uncomfortable communications from "customers" that persist on trying to make them take responsibility and make amendments for their mistakes: they list your email address as "SPAM" and make your emails bounce back... Smart!?

BostonB

Olivia Leon wrote: »

Beware of PRTB's new trick to avoid dealing with complains or uncomfortable communications from "customers" that persist on trying to make them take responsibility and make amendments for their mistakes: they list your email address as "SPAM" and make your emails bounce back... Smart!?

Send a registered letter instead of mucking around with email.

BostonB

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As regards eviction, this is really no different to the way it was before. It was always tough to get a tenant out. I agree, these things should be heard faster....

It is different. LL didn't used to get fined vast sums for getting their own property back, causing LL, huge financial losses, and almost no punitive measures on overstaying.

Has it reversed the rate of illegal evictions? I have no idea.

Victor

Olivia Leon wrote: »

Beware of PRTB's new trick to avoid dealing with complains or uncomfortable communications from "customers" that persist on trying to make them take responsibility and make amendments for their mistakes: they list your email address as "SPAM" and make your emails bounce back... Smart!?

Welcome to boards.ie.

Please don't dig up 5 year old threads.

Please familiarise yourself with the charter.