Friend in a spot of bother.

galwaybabe

Hi. I hope someone can advise on this. My friend recently had a stroke and has recently had to go on disability benefit as a result. He asked his landlord of four years to sign a rent allowance form. The landlord refused. The community welfare officer even rang the landlord to beg him to sign but he still refused. It all got a bit tense as you can imagine.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the landlord (who lives beside them) stopped my friend in the drive and demanded the rent off him. My friend refused and said he would give him the rent when the landlord gave him a receipt. The landlord promptly gave him two weeks to get out of the house.

Rather than put up a fight, my friend decided to move. Now the landlord is refusing to give him his deposit back and has parked a trailer in front of his car so he can't get it out. He says he can't have the car back until he pays the rent.

Any suggestions what he can do?

Johnny Bitte

Gardai to get the car out anyway. I can only imagine this is illiegal.

As for the deposit, I can only guees at what to do here.

Sleipnir

Don't think the gardai will move it as it's a civil matter, not criminal.
Although I would still ask them to show up when the landlord is there. They might ask him to move the car.

galwaybabe

The_Goose135 wrote: »

Gardai to get the car out anyway. I can only imagine this is illiegal.

As for the deposit, I can only guees at what to do here.

That's what I thought re the gardai. I'm not sure if they'll just say it's a civil matter though.

seamus

It all sounds pretty illegal. The landlord is obviously a scumbag who is counting on your mate not having the balls to stand up to him.

For a start, he's better off not living under a landlord who's such a cowboy.

Assuming that he was renting a home and not renting a room in the landlord's house, then his tenancy falls under part 4. If he's been there more than 4 years, he's entitled to 4 months' notice before the landlord can throw him out. If he's there just under 4 years, he's entitled to 3 months notice. This is the case whether or not the rent has been paid.

No ifs or buts here - if the landlord changes the locks, then he should get a locksmith to break them open and bill the landlord for the cost and then contact the Gardai to make a complaint that the landlord illegally entered his home. Bring criminal charges if necessary.

The landlord also has no entitlement to detain the guy's car and the Gardai should be contacted to help him in moving the trailer out of the way.

The best thing to do is to make both of these things clear to the landlord - threaten him with arrest if he attempts to throw your mate out and doesn't release his car. And follow through.

Bogger77

galwaybabe wrote: »

That's what I thought re the gardai. I'm not sure if they'll just say it's a civil matter though.

Local press, even the likes of RTE, would love to hear about this kinda of thing. Disabled person being held "hostage" by tax dodging landlord.
I'd spread the word to all the media outlets in Galway, GBFM, Tribune, Jim Fahy (rte), etc, it's not as if the landlord/ tenant relationship hasn't completly broken down.

bobbysands81

Contact Threshold immediately for advice. www.threshold.ie

Lodge a complaint with the Private Residential Tenancies Board regarding the deposit and lack of notice given to move out (though not sure what will happen here as your pal willingly moved out). If the landlord refused to give a receipt then maybe he/she is not registered with the PRTB so a further complaint in relation to this could be undertaken. www.prtb.ie for more details.

If the landlord is not registered (then they're not paying tax on income from rent) then you might also make a complaint to Revenue that his/her tax affairs are not in order. www.revenue.ie

If the landlord is holding your pals car on his property without your pals permission then surely that is stealing??? I would contact the local Garda station about this immediately.

Bluefoam

Sounds like the landlord is not paying tax on his rental income - hence the fact that he does not want to fill in the rent allowance form - this would force him to go legit...

Your friend could threaten to go to the revenue commisioner and the landlord would be liable for all the back tax & any mortgage allowance he has recieved on the property.

TBH your friend is better off getting out of there - the threat of the revenue should frighten the landlord to let him go & get his deposit back. Then once he is gone he should report the matter to both the revenue & the Gards and screw the landlord over...

galwaybabe

A quick update. He's just got Threshold to phone landlord and they mentioned PRTB. He told them to f*** off. Also it's not a trailer in front of it, it's a van.

eth0_

RING THE GARDAI! Why has this not occured to you?
Yes, they can't help with the landlord demanding rent, but they most certainly can force the landlord to move his van!

I would also suggest your friend gets the PRTB onto this and/or a solicitor.

galwaybabe

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm meeting my mate in a while and I'll show him all the responses.

The_Conductor

galwaybabe wrote: »

A quick update. He's just got Threshold to phone landlord and they mentioned PRTB. He told them to f*** off. Also it's not a trailer in front of it, it's a van.

Next step is to contact the PRTB and escalate a dispute with them.

There is a set manner, prescribed in the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act, detailing how to evict a tenant. If the landlord fails to follow it to the letter of the law- he/she can be found guilty and fined under the act (its a civil rather than a criminal conviction).

The PRTB are only too happy to deal with bolloxes like this landlord- they have a bit of a backlog- but the tenant cannot be evicted prior to a PRTB hearing (if proper eviction procedures were not adhered to before the complaint was brought to their notice- which I very much doubt).

S.

eth0_

smccarrick wrote: »

but the tenant cannot be evicted prior to a PRTB hearing

And who enforces this? I doubt the gardai would be responsible?

The_Conductor

eth0_ wrote: »

And who enforces this? I doubt the gardai would be responsible?

According to the act- its enforced by a District Court on issuance of civil proceedings by the tenant. Aka- the tenant needs legal representation. The PRTB would normally be expected to be represented, and often take over the case. Note: this is *prior* to a hearing- post a hearing- the ball is wholly in the PRTB's court (as it were).

Kipperhell

Both parties are in the wrong. The tenant first refused to pay the rent and then the landlord just escalated from there.

While the landlord is being an ass the tenant also provoked him. You can say what you like about the landlord but it is foolish to be a rude to your landlord.

Nobody here knows the landlords situation and he could easily be in financial trouble due to late payment of rent. In saying that he should have been reasonable but I don't think the tenant has acted reasonably either.

Pay the rent due and don't bother with the legal course as it will just cause frustration even though they would most likely win. Ultimately the OP's friend has not paid rent and has no grounds not to pay it.

Bluefoam

Kipperhell wrote: »

Pay the rent due and don't bother with the legal course

So what about his deposit, which the landlord refuses to pay?

Calina

Kipperhell wrote: »

Both parties are in the wrong. The tenant first refused to pay the rent and then the landlord just escalated from there.

As I read it, the tenant made payment of the rent conditional on receiving a receipt for rent paid. Landlord refused to issue receipt. Landlord is in the wrong.

cocoa

Kipperhell wrote: »

Both parties are in the wrong. The tenant first refused to pay the rent and then the landlord just escalated from there.

While the landlord is being an ass the tenant also provoked him. You can say what you like about the landlord but it is foolish to be a rude to your landlord.

Nobody here knows the landlords situation and he could easily be in financial trouble due to late payment of rent. In saying that he should have been reasonable but I don't think the tenant has acted reasonably either.

Pay the rent due and don't bother with the legal course as it will just cause frustration even though they would most likely win. Ultimately the OP's friend has not paid rent and has no grounds not to pay it.

but surely the tenant would have been able to pay the rent if, at the beginning of the story, the landlord had filled out the rent allowance form, right?

galwaybabe

Update. He rang Gardai who confirmed the landlord is breaking the law. He is going tomorrow to try to retrieve the car.

If anyone from the media is reading this thread, my friend says he is happy to talk to them. PM me for his number.

Thanks again to everyone who has responded.

Kipperhell

Bluefoam wrote: »

So what about his deposit, which the landlord refuses to pay?

The OP has stated there is still rent due I am assuming that means the deposit didn't cover it.

Calina wrote: »

As I read it, the tenant made payment of the rent conditional on receiving a receipt for rent paid. Landlord refused to issue receipt. Landlord is in the wrong.

A tenant can't really make anything conditional on payment for the service provided. Now I can spot this as the smart comment made by the tenant after the landlord decided not to takes HSE payment for rent. It doesn't really matter as the tenant had already been there 4 year and suddenly decides to refuse to pay with out a receipt.

IMHO
Both parties are in the wrong and you can dress it up anyway you like about the obligations of both parties but simply rent not paid and still due. Quickest/easiest solution will be to pay. Considering health is an issue that seems the smartest option.

seamus

Kipperhell wrote: »

IMHO
Both parties are in the wrong and you can dress it up anyway you like about the obligations of both parties but simply rent not paid and still due. Quickest/easiest solution will be to pay. Considering health is an issue that seems the smartest option.

There's a difference between being in the wrong and breaking the law. Also considering that the tenant has a legal right to a rent book, then he would seem to be in the right to refuse to pay rent until that rent book is forthcoming. That it wasn't an issue before is kind of irrelvant.
The landlord has no right to issue 2 weeks notice to leave and no right to retain the car for unpaid rent.
The landlord is breaking the law here, the tenant is not.

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

The OP has stated there is still rent due I am assuming that means the deposit didn't cover it.

A tenant can't really make anything conditional on payment for the service provided. Now I can spot this as the smart comment made by the tenant after the landlord decided not to takes HSE payment for rent. It doesn't really matter as the tenant had already been there 4 year and suddenly decides to refuse to pay with out a receipt.

IMHO
Both parties are in the wrong and you can dress it up anyway you like about the obligations of both parties but simply rent not paid and still due. Quickest/easiest solution will be to pay. Considering health is an issue that seems the smartest option.

Kipperhell, the tenant is well within his rights to ask for a receipt at any time he likes any consumer is. If you go to the same shop every Sunday for your Sunday papers and never get a receipt, then one day you ask for one... they cannot refuse you the receipt. It is your right as a consumer.

This Landlord is either not registered or in some financial difficulty, either way he has got absolutely no excuse for the way he is behaving. The OP clearly stated that his friend would pay if he got a receipt. I've been through the mill before with a dodgy landlord ... unregistered, when I went to him looking for his PRSI no. so I could claim tax relief on my rent I opened a whole can of worms, not only was he not registered but he was claiming that he lived in my flat, was unemployed and was claiming rent relief from the SW for it!

He's registered now, and he wont be trying that again with anyone else:)

luckat

Those magic words "Have you filled in your income tax returns recently?" usually help people to calm down.

Kipperhell

seamus wrote: »

There's a difference between being in the wrong and breaking the law. Also considering that the tenant has a legal right to a rent book, then he would seem to be in the right to refuse to pay rent until that rent book is forthcoming. That it wasn't an issue before is kind of irrelvant.
The landlord has no right to issue 2 weeks notice to leave and no right to retain the car for unpaid rent.
The landlord is breaking the law here, the tenant is not.

People break the law all the time the reality is both party are in the wrong simple as. The tenant NEVER has the right to refuse to pay the rent in law if you want to go the legal route. You see that is the problem with relying on law to sort out something that can be easily done if people discuss things.

I am not saying he wasn't entitled to a rent book I am saying he was being a smart arse for refusing to pay without one. This got the landlords back up and he then acted like an ass himself. Note this started with the landlord not willing to take HSE payments.

I can say that every time a thread like this appears somebody will suggest threaten the landlord with the tax man and that will sort them out. This is only any use as vengeance and pretty ineffective too. The quickest solutions is to pay the rent and generally always will be.

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

I can say that every time a thread like this appears somebody will suggest threaten the landlord with the tax man and that will sort them out. This is only any use as vengeance and pretty ineffective too. The quickest solutions is to pay the rent and generally always will be.

"The quickest solution is to pay the rent and generally always will be"..... for the Landlord.... not for the tenant, he's entitled to a receipt by law. He's also entitled to acccess to his car. Not all Landlords are tax dodgers or scammers, but there are quite a few of them out there... this guy certainly sounds like one.

Kipperhell

jobucks wrote: »

"The quickest solution is to pay the rent and generally always will be"..... for the Landlord.... not for the tenant, he's entitled to a receipt by law. He's also entitled to acccess to his car. Not all Landlords are tax dodgers or scammers, but there are quite a few of them out there... this guy certainly sounds like one.

The point is it is quickest for EVERYONE involved! The tenant would have got their car back if the rent had been paid. I am purposely ignoring the ultimate who is entitled to what, paying the rent solves the problem quickest.
It doesn't matter what the landlord is like in most situations. Both were being petty and it escalated.

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

The point is it is quickest for EVERYONE involved! The tenant would have got their car back if the rent had been paid. I am purposely ignoring the ultimate who is entitled to what, paying the rent solves the problem quickest.
It doesn't matter what the landlord is like in most situations. Both were being petty and it escalated.

Kipperhell, I understand your frustration at this, reading some of your posts on other threads I know that you are a Landlord. You may conduct yourself professionally however there are a lot of other Landlords out there who don't.
You say the tenant would have gotten his car back if the rent had been paid,.... the rent would have been paid if the Landlord had agreed to give the tenant a receipt, which he is legally obliged to do, he is not however legally obliged to obstruct the tenants access to his vehicle.
The tenant was not being petty, he was simply trying to get a point across that if the landlord had no obligation to sign the form for him, then he was going to get something from him that he was obliged to give.He had been a tenant for 4 years, most landlords worth their pinch of salt would have signed the form for rent relief until the tenant was fit to go back to work. The Landlord would not be out of pocket, would still be paid every month, this leads me to believe that he most likely wasn't registered.

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

The point is it is quickest for EVERYONE involved! The tenant would have got their car back if the rent had been paid. I am purposely ignoring the ultimate who is entitled to what, paying the rent solves the problem quickest.
It doesn't matter what the landlord is like in most situations. Both were being petty and it escalated.

Not sure I agree here. The quickest way would have been for landlord to sign rent allowance form. Tenant rented for 4 years and presumably landlord was happy with tenant. Then tenant became disabled and needed rent allowance. He did not pay rent because he was unable to, due to landlord refusing to sign form. This was not being petty. Landlord caused an illegal eviction and then landlord confiscated tenant’s goods (obviously illegal). Landlord will now be looking at a settlement of many thousands of euro, why should tenant not get this.

Kipperhell

jobucks wrote: »

Kipperhell, I understand your frustration at this, reading some of your posts on other threads I know that you are a Landlord. You may conduct yourself professionally however there are a lot of other Landlords out there who don't.
You say the tenant would have gotten his car back if the rent had been paid,.... the rent would have been paid if the Landlord had agreed to give the tenant a receipt, which he is legally obliged to do, he is not however legally obliged to obstruct the tenants access to his vehicle.
The tenant was not being petty, he was simply trying to get a point across that if the landlord had no obligation to sign the form for him, then he was going to get something from him that he was obliged to give.He had been a tenant for 4 years, most landlords worth their pinch of salt would have signed the form for rent relief until the tenant was fit to go back to work. The Landlord would not be out of pocket, would still be paid every month, this leads me to believe that he most likely wasn't registered.

I doubt you understand the frustration as the point I am making is being consistently missed. I have worked for a long time with people from many different disciplines and the question of who is right and who is wrong comes up a lot. 9 times out of 10 it has already escalated to the point where both parties are at fault.

I have tried several times to point out that going on about entitlements of one party or the other is pointless. Boil the whole thing down and take the simple approach. In this case that means pay the rent. Used a service pay for it simple as.

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

Bluefoam

Kipperhell wrote: »

I doubt you understand the frustration as the point I am making is being consistently missed. I have worked for a long time with people from many different disciplines and the question of who is right and who is wrong comes up a lot. 9 times out of 10 it has already escalated to the point where both parties are at fault.

I have tried several times to point out that going on about entitlements of one party or the other is pointless. Boil the whole thing down and take the simple approach. In this case that means pay the rent. Used a service pay for it simple as.

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

What a load of my arse

jobucks

Kipperhell wrote: »

I doubt you understand the frustration as the point I am making is being consistently missed. I have worked for a long time with people from many different disciplines and the question of who is right and who is wrong comes up a lot. 9 times out of 10 it has already escalated to the point where both parties are at fault.

I have tried several times to point out that going on about entitlements of one party or the other is pointless. Boil the whole thing down and take the simple approach. In this case that means pay the rent. Used a service pay for it simple as.

Now you claim the tenant is not being petty but as you described it above you have actually described somebody being petty and similar was recieved. In your description you have stated that the tenant was "making a point" and you pretty much described it in a similar manner as to how I pictured it. That is being petty!

I have told tenants to leave for threatening me with the tax man as they all assume we aren't paying tax. Some people just don't like treats or pettiness

Now I doubt anybody can reply to this and describe their view of the tenant being justified for not paying for a service he received without using the concept of entitlement or by minor legal detail. Why should anybody not pay for something the used?

There are many reason not to take HSE payments the main one being if they decide to stop paying the tenant will often also not pay.

Its becoming increasingly obvious that as a Landlord yourself you refuse to see the side of the tenant, Again I will reiterate that the Tenant is willing to pay , it is because the Landlord is refusing to give him a receipt that he hasn't. It was the Landlords pettiness that started this dispute, THE easiest way and quickest way to sort this out is for the landlord to sign the forms.... everyone's happy then.