Friend in a spot of bother.

banshee_bones

Bluefoam wrote: »

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...

Those were my thoughts aswell. I would say get on to Threshold AND the gardai...

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

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!

But tenant was not being petty. He was independantly assessed by a third party (the community welfare officer) who said he was unable to pay rent without state aid. This is not pettyness. It is being unable to pay.

Kipperhell wrote: »

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

I hope they told you where to stick it unless they had no contract.

Kipperhell wrote: »

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.

But not in this case

seamus

Kipperhell wrote: »

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.

The tenant is justified because he doesn't have the money to pay for it. The tenant attempted to offer a means of paying the rent, which the landlord turned down without good cause (he'd been a tenant for 4 years, so you can assume he's not a scrounger), therefore the landlord has to accept that a formerly good tenant is now unable to pay his rent, but by law is entitled to remain there for a period of four months from the date of notice, effectively rent-free unless the landlord wants to take the tenant to court.

They're the facts here, which the landlord is trying to alter. The tenant can't afford to pay his rent, so he's in the process of moving. But the landlord isn't happy with this and has resorted to breaking the law.

It's a moral wrong on the part of the landlord. The tenant's circumstances changed, as they do. The tenant would be unable to pay his rent without state assistance, but the landlord refused to accept the state's money, thereby accepting the fact that he will receive no more rent from the tenant because there is no rent to give. Yet he's insisting on getting his rent, and breaking the law. Twice.

In short, if the landlord wanted his rent, he should have signed the document. By refusing to sign the document, he was agreeing that he would not get his rent and terminating the tenancy.

Kipperhell

ZYX wrote: »

But tenant was not being petty. He was independantly assessed by a third party (the community welfare officer) who said he was unable to pay rent without state aid. This is not pettyness. It is being unable to pay.

The HSE had not agreed to pay his rent as they didn't have the landlords agreement. The request for the receipt was not for payment and would not have done him any good. The tenant was being petty by requesting the receipt as he was doing it to be awkward and smart as per the OPs description. It doesn't matter if he was legally entitled or not. I finished on this point and just sticking with him being petty.

ZYX wrote: »

I hope they told you where to stick it unless they had no contract.

No they have all apologised bar one who left afterwards and regardless of the contracts they have rights. I can still tell somebody to leave my property regardless of the law what happens after that will always be easier on the landlord. I have always stuck to the law where as tenants haven't

ZYX wrote: »

But not in this case

How do you know? I stated this as a reason why many landlords never take HSE payments. For all intense purposes the tenant did exactly that, as the HSE couldn't pay his rent he didn't pay it himself.

You can believe what you like about me and all landlords I have only stated the reality of the situation. You may think I am blinkered but at no point have I defended either parties actions I have always stated both are at fault. I am also familiar enough with the system to tell you the quickest/easiest option is to pay the rent. For landlords the quickest/easiest option is to let the tenant go.

All legal advise will always stated keep paying your rent and never withhold it.

The justification that the landlord should provide free accommodation because the tenant can't afford to pay is ridiculous. The landlord can decide how and who pays him. The tenant chose not to pay because the landlord for a service he got which simply is theft. The landlord asked him to leave in two weeks this is not illegal unless stated in writing . The landlord then blocked in a car on his property which is probably illegal but I don't think it is.

In the real world paying the rent would be quicker and easier that is really my only point if somebody can show an easier solution I'm all ears.

The_Conductor

Bluefoam wrote: »

What a load of my arse

Bluefoam- warning.
If you disagree with what someone posts- refute the points in the post, do not attack the poster.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

professore

Firstly I agree with you about the tenant paying the rent for legal reasons - however I doubt I would be cool headed either after having a stroke.

Kipperhell wrote: »

The HSE had not agreed to pay his rent as they didn't have the landlords agreement. The request for the receipt was not for payment and would not have done him any good. The tenant was being petty by requesting the receipt as he was doing it to be awkward and smart as per the OPs description. It doesn't matter if he was legally entitled or not. I finished on this point and just sticking with him being petty.

So you're saying that a good tenant of 4 years standing who's had a stroke who needs a reciept to get state aid is being petty to demand one? My 2c here is that the landlord is an asshole and an idiot. The tenant should get a good solicitor and sue him for harassment.

Kipperhell wrote: »

No they have all apologised bar one who left afterwards and regardless of the contracts they have rights. I can still tell somebody to leave my property regardless of the law what happens after that will always be easier on the landlord. I have always stuck to the law where as tenants haven't

The law is an ass when it comes to renting in this country. It's heavily biased in favour of the landlords, unlike on the Continent. That's why people are so obsessed with owning as opposed to renting.

Kipperhell wrote: »

You can believe what you like about me and all landlords I have only stated the reality of the situation. You may think I am blinkered but at no point have I defended either parties actions I have always stated both are at fault. I am also familiar enough with the system to tell you the quickest/easiest option is to pay the rent. For landlords the quickest/easiest option is to let the tenant go.

All legal advise will always stated keep paying your rent and never withhold it.

The justification that the landlord should provide free accommodation because the tenant can't afford to pay is ridiculous. The landlord can decide how and who pays him. The tenant chose not to pay because the landlord for a service he got which simply is theft. The landlord asked him to leave in two weeks this is not illegal unless stated in writing . The landlord then blocked in a car on his property which is probably illegal but I don't think it is.

Yes it is illegal ... its called THEFT. Otherwise I can steal what I like and as long as it's on my property it's legal ???

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

The HSE had not agreed to pay his rent as they didn't have the landlords agreement. The request for the receipt was not for payment and would not have done him any good. The tenant was being petty by requesting the receipt as he was doing it to be awkward and smart as per the OPs description. It doesn't matter if he was legally entitled or not. I finished on this point and just sticking with him being petty.

You are totally missing the point. He was unable to pay his rent due to illness. This is not being petty. He needed receipt to claim rent allowance (you need this to prove how much rent you are paying) this was not petty. The tenant was not being petty.

Kipperhell wrote: »

The landlord asked him to leave in two weeks this is not illegal unless stated in writing . The landlord then blocked in a car on his property which is probably illegal but I don't think it is.
.

Of course confiscating a car is illegal. Landlord told tenant to leave house with 2 weeks notice, which is an illegal eviction on many levels. One of which, as you pointed out is that he never put it in writting.

Kipperhell

ZYX wrote: »

You are totally missing the point. He was unable to pay his rent due to illness. This is not being petty. He needed receipt to claim rent allowance (you need this to prove how much rent you are paying) this was not petty. The tenant was not being petty.

Actually you are missing the point he can't claim rent allowance with a receipt he needs the landlords permission which was refused. At no point has OP stated the tenant unable to pay the rent. In which case if he could not afford the rent then he wasn't holding it back due to a receipt. In fact if he had a rent book he wouldn't get a rent allowance without the landlords agreement. Why do you think he want the receipt taking that it wouldn't help with rent payment?

ZYX wrote: »

Of course confiscating a car is illegal. Landlord told tenant to leave house with 2 weeks notice, which is an illegal eviction on many levels. One of which, as you pointed out is that he never put it in writing.

He didn't confiscate his car he prevent him moving it off the property which isn't the same. The tenant chose to leave after the landlord asked him to leave, no illegal eviction. As I pointed out the law isn't the point the quickest solution was to pay the due rent.
What are you saying was the quickest easiest solution?

professore
I have to say you just don't seem to know the way things are in this country. The receipt would not give him state aided rent payments. The laws in this country heavily favour the tenants. He didn't steal the car he just moved some of his property on his land. The same way if somebody leaves something in your house they don't have the right to break in and take it. The landlord can simply say he didn't realise he was coming back for it. I am not defending either side just stating the futility of fighting over it. Somebody lives like scumbag rat don't stoop to their level and do what you know is right.

What is your quick and easy solution?

Calina

Kipperhell,

leaving aside the arguments over whether state aid was forthcoming for the rent, do you understand that if rent is paid to a landlord, the tenant is entitled to some record of that rent, ie, a receipt or a rent book. If the landlord will not issue that then I don't think anyone should pay over any sum in rent.

This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion on rent allowance. With respect to tenancy protection legislation in Ireland, it sucks pure and simple. The grievance procedures are slow and inefficient, and I have had two landlords try to break fixed term leases on me (ones that didn't have break clauses) for reason of property sale. As a tenant I will say this, there are some good tenants, and there are some bad tenants. But equally, there are bad and good landlords and one who refuses to issue a receipt for rent received is definitely one of the bad ones, one who isssues 2 weeks notice after 4 years of tenancy is clearly one of the bad ones.

There is no justification for that.

The_Conductor

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legally- under the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act- the tenant does not have the right to withold the rent from the landlord. Under the same legislation- the landlord has to provide a rentbook to the tenant, and if evicting the tenant must do so in a prescribed manner.

Both parties are in the wrong. Just because someone breaks the law, does not entitle someone else to break the law in a different manner.......

Kipperhell

smccarrick wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legally- under the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act- the tenant does not have the right to withold the rent from the landlord. Under the same legislation- the landlord has to provide a rentbook to the tenant, and if evicting the tenant must do so in a prescribed manner.

Both parties are in the wrong. Just because someone breaks the law, does not entitle someone else to break the law in a different manner.......

My point exactly.

Calina
I doesn't matter how I feel about either party or the law the quickest solution is to pay the rent and be done with it.

From the description of the incident it sounds like the tenant was annoyed with the landlord. Then said something smart the landlord lost the head wanted him out. The tenant then tried to short change the landlord and the landlord blocked the car in.

Now you might not believe he said anything smart by asking for the receipt but I believe the landlord took it that way and I can see why. If you can't see why then you are only looking at this from one point of view. You should at least consider the possibility that he did take it that way. There no indication within the 4 years as the landlord that he ever tried to ask for any additional rent because he had no record.

galwaybabe

Just to clarify a couple of things. Never once in the four years that my friend was in the house did he get a rent receipt. He never got a lease and nothing was signed. This landlord was scamming from the start. My friend and his wife did nothing but improve the property. They painted it up, they did up a room that was previously unusable and they made the garden absolutely gorgeous. They were planning to be there for the long haul.

The landlord never let them put the electricity in their own names; the bill came to the landlord's house which he dropped down to them. It was a similar situation with their post. As far as any official was concerned this house simply didn't exist. The landlord even took their rubbish which they found out later he was burning illegally.

What was my friend supposed to do, he needed to access to rent allowance beause he can't work at the moment. He and his wife are very hardworking people who would definitely not have wanted to be in a position of getting handouts had they had a choice.

They had given up their deposit for dust so they could avoid confrontation. The balance due was a miserable €75 which I am sure you would all agree is not enough to warrant blocking his car in. My mate is totally prepared to pay this on getting a receipt. He is not out to scam anyone, he's just not like that. He simply thinks that on principle he shouldn't have to hand this money over to someone who callously kicks them out illegally without notice and without a receipt.

This landlord is a tax-evading bully who is definitely not short of a few bob, you would agree if you saw his house. My friend and his wife are very very stressed about this. He told me yesterday that his wife has literally been vomiting with the stress of it all and I can see it is having a detrimental effect on his already fragile health too. In my opinion the landlord deserves every bit of karma due to him and I hope that the PRTB and Revenue hammer him.

The_Conductor

galwaybabe wrote: »

Just to clarify a couple of things. Never once in the four years that my friend was in the house did he get a rent receipt. He never got a lease and nothing was signed.

He is not automatically entitled to a lease- but he has accrued rights under the 2006 Residential Tenancies Act. Not having a lease and not signing anything means precisely nothing. His rights are spelt out in black and white in the act.

He is entitled to a Rent-book, and should have pushed for it. He is not automatically entitled to other receipts.

galwaybabe wrote: »

This landlord was scamming from the start. My friend and his wife did nothing but improve the property. They painted it up, they did up a room that was previously unusable and they made the garden absolutely gorgeous. They were planning to be there for the long haul.

You may assume the landlord was/is scamming. Its not automatically the case though- and its not for the tenant to assume or accuse the landlord of. The tenant is entitled to claim rent-relief. Claim it. If the Revenue Commissioners determine the landlord to be 'scamming' tough luck on the landlord- it was always going to catch up on him sooner or later.

Taking good care of a property- while admirable behaviour on the part of the tenants- does not give them any more entitlements than anyone else, other than those rights accrued under the 2006 Act, to tenancy rights in the property. Irrespective of whether they planned to be for the long haul or not- providing the landlord follows prescribed procedures- he can evict them at will.

galwaybabe wrote: »

The landlord never let them put the electricity in their own names; the bill came to the landlord's house which he dropped down to them.

Nothing too unusual here. It also saved your friend from the ESBs deposit they demand from non-owners.

galwaybabe wrote: »

It was a similar situation with their post. As far as any official was concerned this house simply didn't exist. The landlord even took their rubbish which they found out later he was burning illegally.

The house does exist. There will be a record of it in Dublin Castle, along with all property in the country. You would not have any services in the property (electricity, water etc) if it did not officially exist.

If your friend discovered the illegal burning of refuse- he/she should have reported it to the local environmental health officer. The generator of the waste would normally be considered liable- irrespective of who lit the match- they were not exercising good judgement here.

galwaybabe wrote: »

What was my friend supposed to do, he needed to access to rent allowance beause he can't work at the moment. He and his wife are very hardworking people who would definitely not have wanted to be in a position of getting handouts had they had a choice.

Landlords are not obliged to accept Rent-Allowance. This means absolutely nothing. Many many landlords do not want the perceived hassle, bureaucracy and paperwork of dealing with Social Welfare (in practise there is none- but many landlords do not understand this). Rent-allowance tenants have a very bad name with landlords- a few bad apples have given the entire scheme a very bad name. This is no reflection on your friend and his wife- just a sad reflection of a lack of trust in the modern world.

galwaybabe wrote: »

They had given up their deposit for dust so they could avoid confrontation. The balance due was a miserable €75 which I am sure you would all agree is not enough to warrant blocking his car in. My mate is totally prepared to pay this on getting a receipt. He is not out to scam anyone, he's just not like that. He simply thinks that on principle he shouldn't have to hand this money over to someone who callously kicks them out illegally without notice and without a receipt.

They appear to have a cut and dry case for illegal eviction- totally aside from all other issues in the case. This should be pursued as such.

galwaybabe wrote: »

This landlord is a tax-evading bully who is definitely not short of a few bob, you would agree if you saw his house. My friend and his wife are very very stressed about this. He told me yesterday that his wife has literally been vomiting with the stress of it all and I can see it is having a detrimental effect on his already fragile health too. In my opinion the landlord deserves every bit of karma due to him and I hope that the PRTB and Revenue hammer him.

The tax status of the landlord, regardless of what people's beliefs may be, is pure innuendo. If he is not tax compliant- the Revenue Commissioners will get him, sooner or later- and the penalties and interest, will likely be far higher than any tax demand he would ever have incurred under normal circumstances. That however is a matter for the relevant authorities.

Its out of your friends hands now- he needs to emotionally distance himself from the situation- get new accommodation and sort himself and his wife.

Its hard- but what he has to do is look at the facts in an emotionally unattached manner- and chase them on that basis.

The PRTB do bring legally binding court cases all the time- they are just a little snowed under at the moment- give them a chance though.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

galwaybabe

While I take all your points as valid ones, SMcCarrick, I think you are being a little naive about how landlords function in rural areas. My friend loved the house he was in and didn't want to rock the boat. It is well known that rocking the boat can lead to eviction.

The landlord's house and my friend's house are one and the same address. There is absolutely no way of an official differentiating between the two by address alone. My friend's house is an old cottage on the land while the landlord's is a modern one so the services were already there in the cottage.
My point about the post and ESB is that my friend doesn't even have proof he ever lived there. I believe this is done on purpose by the landlord so the property does not show up on any records.

With regards to tax compliancy, the dogs on the street know that many landlords are on the dodge, particularly in rural areas where it is a lot easier to do so.

With regards to the rubbish, they are going to report him for burning it. They have only just discovered that he has been doing this and they feel awful that they may have contributed to his obvious disregard for the environment. Again, they were in a very tenuous position prior to the eviction.

Its out of your friends hands now- he needs to emotionally distance himself from the situation- get new accommodation and sort himself and his wife.

Its hard- but what he has to do is look at the facts in an emotionally unattached manner- and chase them on that basis.

That is exactly what he is planning to do once he gets his car back.

Kipperhell

Galwaybabe

You/your friend seem to be caught up in a revenge plan now rather than moving on. The level of stress for €75 is a really a waste of time. You have listed a load of issues that really aren't anything to do with the situation.

No matter what the landlord's situation with tax or any other regulations to do with renting it is none of you or your friend's business. The situation was obviously fine for the 4 years and to be going on about them now is pretty pointless. They are better off without the landlord and should move on.

If anybody is being naive it is you for thinking that any of the information about the landlord is definitive proof of tax fraud or anything else. The problem with dogs on the streets knowing anything is they lick it off the ground. I seriously wonder how you think the house "not existing" makes any difference to your friend getting his car back.

I understand the stress of this but it has come down people acting childish. It doesn't really matter who is being the most childish the best solution is to get away. Pride is worth nothing if you are twisted and bitter

galwaybabe

You/your friend seem to be caught up in a revenge plan now rather than moving on. The level of stress for €75 is a really a waste of time. You have listed a load of issues that really aren't anything to do with the situation.

The stress is getting his car back. What revenge plan by the way?
I have simply try to outline the nature of the beast that my friend is dealing with.

Kipperhell

galwaybabe wrote: »

The stress is getting his car back. What revenge plan by the way?

Pay the €75 and the problem is solved. I assumed you wanted to get the landlord for being a problem. If not then no point in any of the rest of the information don't concern yourself with it. Your friend doesn't need the receipt

Jack Bauer999

Kipperhell wrote: »

Pay the €75 and the problem is solved. I assumed you wanted to get the landlord for being a problem. If not then no point in any of the rest of the information don't concern yourself with it. Your friend doesn't need the receipt

im sure the landlord would be absolutely delighted if the tenant would pay in the 75 euro and just feck off leaving him in peace.

In the real world no one if going to get treated like that and let it go, Hammer the landlord in the pocket with the PRTB and they will think
Twice about ilegally evicting anyone ever again. If he's caught for tax dodging also that would be a extra bonus.

Kipperhell

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

im sure the landlord would be absolutely delighted if the tenant would pay in the 75 euro and just feck off leaving him in peace.

In the real world no one if going to get treated like that and let it go, Hammer the landlord in the pocket with the PRTB and they will think
Twice about ilegally evicting anyone ever again. If he's caught for tax dodging also that would be a extra bonus.

Petty revenge with out any idea of the reality of such a waste of time. You won't hammer anybody and the PRTB most likely not take your case because of non payment of rent. Next to impossible to show an illegal eviction. It will take forever all the time in stress without a car. The guy had a stroke for gods sake he should be avoiding stress. I am sure the landlord is an angry person and most likely pretty bitter not much delight there.

Jack Bauer999

Kipperhell wrote: »

Petty revenge with out any idea of the reality of such a waste of time. You won't hammer anybody and the PRTB most likely not take your case because of non payment of rent. Next to impossible to show an illegal eviction. It will take forever all the time in stress without a car. The guy had a stroke for gods sake he should be avoiding stress. I am sure the landlord is an angry person and most likely pretty bitter not much delight there.

being petty (and stupid) is illegally evicting someone, blocking thier property
and leaving themselves wide open to be sued for the sake of 75 euro.

the tenant has rights for a reason, if every landlord was allowed to get away
with this then whats stopping them doing what they want.

the prtb will not refuse to take the case becuase of non payment of rent,
they will rule there is an illegal eviction and also rule that the tenant pays the rent due. this could cost the landlord thousands and all the tentant will
pay is 75 euro. example below, and this is were the tenant owed over 6,000
euro in rent!!!

galwaybabe i hope your friend does follow this through and im sure when
the landlord get what he deserves it will give you friend something to pick his
spirits up.




Ref: DR947/2007
In the matter of Inna Ladchenko (Applicant Tenant) and Aideen Hall (Respondent Landlord) the Private Residential Tenancies Board, in accordance with section 121 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and pursuant to a declaration under section 97(4)(b) of that Act relating to a decision reached by the parties themselves, determines that:

1.The Applicant Tenant and her family was illegally evicted from the dwelling at 24 The Drive, Woodbrook Glen, Bray, Co. Wicklow on 4 August 2007.

2.The Respondent Landlord shall return all the Applicant Tenant’s personal property and possessions not later than 16 October 2007.

3.The Respondent Landlord shall pay the sum of €12,000 to the Applicant Tenant as compensation for the illegal eviction. A payment of €6,000 to be made not later than 12 November 2007 and the second payment paid not later than 12 December 2007.

4.The Applicant Tenant, if successful in her appeal to recover rent subsidy in the sum of €6,300 (approximately) from the Department of Family and Social Affairs, shall pay this sum to the Respondent Landlord, within 5 days of receipt of the subsidy.

This Order was made by the Private Residential Tenancies Board on 13 February 2008.

Kipperhell

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

The Applicant Tenant and her family was illegally evicted from the dwelling at 24 The Drive, Woodbrook Glen, Bray, Co. Wicklow on 4 August 2007...

This Order was made by the Private Residential Tenancies Board on 13 February 2008.

See the time it took! This is one case that got to court many don't. I don't really care at this point. As for a quick and easy solution I don't think this counts. OP up to you I'm done if you want to hear how you have rights and that this means you will get a similar payout go for it. For somebody sick and in need of a car I think you should do the sensible thing. If you must, pay the money and then bring them to court.

galwaybabe

Ref: DR947/2007
In the matter of Inna Ladchenko (Applicant Tenant) and Aideen Hall (Respondent Landlord) the Private Residential Tenancies Board, in accordance with section 121 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and pursuant to a declaration under section 97(4)(b) of that Act relating to a decision reached by the parties themselves, determines that:

1.The Applicant Tenant and her family was illegally evicted from the dwelling at 24 The Drive, Woodbrook Glen, Bray, Co. Wicklow on 4 August 2007.

2.The Respondent Landlord shall return all the Applicant Tenant’s personal property and possessions not later than 16 October 2007.

3.The Respondent Landlord shall pay the sum of €12,000 to the Applicant Tenant as compensation for the illegal eviction. A payment of €6,000 to be made not later than 12 November 2007 and the second payment paid not later than 12 December 2007.

4.The Applicant Tenant, if successful in her appeal to recover rent subsidy in the sum of €6,300 (approximately) from the Department of Family and Social Affairs, shall pay this sum to the Respondent Landlord, within 5 days of receipt of the subsidy.

This Order was made by the Private Residential Tenancies Board on 13 February 2008.

Thanks for that. Very useful

ZYX

Kipperhell wrote: »

See the time it took! This is one case that got to court many don't. I don't really care at this point. As for a quick and easy solution I don't think this counts. OP up to you I'm done if you want to hear how you have rights and that this means you will get a similar payout go for it. For somebody sick and in need of a car I think you should do the sensible thing. If you must, pay the money and then bring them to court.

Kipperhell, you keep on saying that to get a quick and easy solution OP's friend should pay money. Surely the quickest solution was for landlord to sign rent allowance form. At this stage things have moved on hugely. Now for the quickest, easiest solution then the landlord should offer a complete apology for his behaviour with a goodwill payment of say €1,000 and hope it is accepted.
Your attitude is a bit like saying if a builder comes to your house and does a botch job, then the easiest and quickest thing to do is to pay him and forget about it.

The_Conductor

ZYX wrote: »

Kipperhell, you keep on saying that to get a quick and easy solution OP's friend should pay money. Surely the quickest solution was for landlord to sign rent allowance form. At this stage things have moved on hugely. Now for the quickest, easiest solution then the landlord should offer a complete apology for his behaviour with a goodwill payment of say €1,000 and hope it is accepted.
Your attitude is a bit like saying if a builder comes to your house and does a botch job, then the easiest and quickest thing to do is to pay him and forget about it.

The landlord is under no obligation to sign the rent-allowance form- and given the yo-yo nature of the payments under the scheme, where there is no guarantee of what you are going to get from one month to the next- I can't say I blame him.

Do you really think that its plausible that the landlord is going to give a good will payment to the tenant to be shot of them- the tenant is going to have accept that they are in this for the long haul- and while they will get a payment down the road- that down the road could be in a years time.

The analogy of saying if a builder botches a job that you simply pay him and get rid of him- could just as easily be flipped on its head and changed to how about the landlord pays a grand to the tenant to be shot of him- its the same mindset tbh. In short- its simply not going to happen.

If I were the tenant- I'd pay the EUR75 to get my car along with any outstanding belongings- get the hell out of there- and then make a claim to the Revenue Commissioners for rent relief for the past few years (you need very little information) and then lob a complaint into the PRTB and a few other organisations. Its far easier to bollox up someone's life from a distance than from up close and personal........

But- at the same time- you have to live life, there is no point in allowing a vendetta take over your time and energy- I'd suggest treating it as a game.......

quietsailor

I'm similtaneously renting a house (where we have an extremely lazy landlord unwilling to carry out basic maintenance) and renting the house I own out to tenants so I can justifably say I know both side's arguemants


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.
A landlord is under no obligation to accept rent allowance. NONE Whatsoever. If they don't want to accept it they don't have to.


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.
Both sides are wrong:
Your friend CANNOT refuse to pay rent, even the PRTB state this. Your friend was wrong to state that he'd pay after the landlord give him a receipt.
The landlord should provide a receipt for rent paid - usually in the form of a rent book. Did your friend pay cash or by a bank lodgement/standing order? That would prove transfer of monies.


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.
The landlord is wrong. I've been in the same situation where someone walked out without paying 3 weeks rent after the deposit was used to cover bills and some rent. I had to take the loss. Tough luck for the Landlord. You can't take someones personal posessions as collateral

Any suggestions what he can do?
You probably don't want to hear this but your friend started this. Irregardless of whether the landlord is running illegially or not (You don't know so be careful of going to the media calling the landlord a tax dodger. If he's not a dodger,ie he's within the bounds of the law, you've just set yourself up for a libel/slander case) he has to pay the rent and THEN give notice.
The landlord refusing to give a receipt is a second and seperate area and should be treated as such. If your friends want to register a complaint then do. But DON'T try using it as justification for them breaking the law.
Third area: The landlord has no right to hold your friends posessions. Yes the guards will try and say it is a civil issue, keep onto them until they go to the landlord and get the car back.



What to do:
To get their deposit back pay the 75, plus any monies accrued since and give notice if it hasn't been given before now. They will have to pay rent up to the last day of the notice.

To get the car back get onto the guards.

If your friends want to complain then do so, please do so, i'm sick of being lumped in with all the cheating gouging bas***d landlords out there. I can't imagine it will be a walk in the park though and if he's recently sick it may not be good for his health. Maybe the PRTB would take over the complaint? Have ye contacted them yet?

Finally nothing to do with the OP but if any tenant of mine ever pulled the "I'll go to the PRTB on you" then I'll throw them out - legally - In fact I usually have huge problems getting them to sign the PRTB form and fill in their PPS numbers. I wonder why tenants would want to pay cash and not have their PPS number recorded?? Any takers on that one?????? I've had to pay the extra fee two different years because of that.


And now I'll sit back and wait for the bile and vitriol to flow my way :cool:

galwaybabe

Update
We went out there yesterday afternoon and got the car. The chat the Gardai had with the landlord must have worked because he didn't give us a spot of bother. He didn't mention a word about the supposed arrears either. Not such a big man when my friend had his friends with him. Roll on the PRTB.