What is the point of the PRTB!!!

Rafa1977

Can anybody please tell me what is the point of the PRTB and do they actually excist??. I took a case aganist my landlord for holding on to my deposit and a determation went aganist the landlord over 3 months ago, and I still havent received my deposit. Have been on to the PRTB and they said they would write to both parties within 21 days, that was 2 months. Now they dont answer any phone calls, emails or letter I write to them. These guys are jokers and only look out for landlords.

bertie1

It works both ways , I went after a tenant for arrears of rent & severe damage to a property . I won the case was awarded everyting & still have not got a penny. The tenant left the property 18 months ago. The system is a joke.

the_syco

Rafa1977 wrote: »

These guys are jokers

They have no "real" power, as such.

Mr CJ

the_syco wrote: »

They have no "real" power, as such.

Well why are we as landlords paying these sh**s €70 for every registration + having the nerve to double that if your late, when they never do anything??
Your better of not wasting your time with them and sort the problem yourself!
I never had to use them thank god but if I did require there assistance for something and if i got no where with them I simply would never pay them again. If everyone done this as a way of protesting they might get there act together, but I would not hold my breath

No1XtinaFan

As much as I hate them as well, you can't just not pay them unless you've a mortgage free property you are renting out.

In order for you to get your interest offset against the rent paid when doing tax returns you have to be registered with them. :rolleyes:

rightwingdub

Get your local councillor onto to them in flash preferable Labour or Sinn fein:D

EKRIUQ

The PRTB only gives judgements its not there to enforce these judgements, courts are there for that.

bugler

Can anyone tell us what the next step is, if the PRTB decision has gone unheeded (by tenant or landlord)? THe PRT is there to keep cases out of the courts, but once this avenue has been exhausted can you then go the court route?

Dymo

Id the PRTB warrent the case to go to court they can persue it there.

Xiney

like many initiatives in this country, good in theory, but underfunded and without any real power and thus is useless, pretty much.

BostonB

In effect its just another tax for landlords.

All it seems to achive is delay the eviction of tenants, and recovery of your property in the event of non payment of rent. Then it has no power to recover that rent. For landlords if offers nothing. It makes the situation worse if naything.

It does seem to offer some protection from bad landlords. So for tenants its good. Too good perhaps.

amacca

EKRIUQ wrote: »

The PRTB only gives judgements its not there to enforce these judgements, courts are there for that.

fantastic, its as powerful as me then....I make "judgements" about disputes/issues everyday and I'm more or less powerless to enforce the results of these "judgements" on the parties involved in said dispute

wish I could charge money for my services

seems utterly ridiculous to set up an agency to make judgements (presumably fair and equitable) and then divorce them from the power required to enforce the outcomes of these judgements


they also seem very pro tenant from what I'm hearing.

bugler

amacca wrote: »

they also seem very pro tenant from what I'm hearing.

Funnily enough everyone seems to "hear" that, or "know" it. It seems that landlords who fall afoul of the PRTB cry loudest, to the point where it seems no landlord has ever been deemed in the right by the PRTB.

But even a cursory dip into the PRTB decisions on their site shows that there are plenty of judgements in favour of landlords. Enforcement, whether in favour of tenant or landlord, is a whole other issue, as this thread shows.

BostonB

Thats the problem, you can find the landlord, and fine them. But not the tenants. The only solution I can think of is to ask for bigger deposits.

amacca

bugler wrote: »

Funnily enough everyone seems to "hear" that, or "know" it. It seems that landlords who fall afoul of the PRTB cry loudest, to the point where it seems no landlord has ever been deemed in the right by the PRTB.

But even a cursory dip into the PRTB decisions on their site shows that there are plenty of judgements in favour of landlords. Enforcement, whether in favour of tenant or landlord, is a whole other issue, as this thread shows.

Fair enough....I am guilty of "anecdotal" evidence I suppose.

My dad used to own a house in Dublin, I can still remember the day the "man with the clipboard" ( read jumped up little so and so from dublin countycouncil I think) called around insisting the toilet was inadequately ventilated etc .....fair enough.....didn't realize...queue hundreds (of pounds as it was then) to remedy the situation, seemed like nitpicking, id never had any trouble breathing in there having lived in the house until age of about 7 or 8..but grand, fine....got one or two other visits of this sort....


didn't however see any agency help my dad when one tenant threatened him with a visit from his "friends" in the "north" before leaving matches hidden behind the fridge on top of the compressor (you know how hot that can get) and skipping out on three months rent while leaving days of cleaning work behind him..gards didnt seem to do much.

didn't see anyone with a clipboard demanding one (memorable for me at the time but can now see my dads point) tenant cease getting paid by gentleman callers for her services on health and safety grounds.

Thats why I have an issue with these agencies. No problem with rules and regulations as long as they are fair for both parties but I have no respect for an organisation that cant enforce its "judgements" Theres no point paying these people wages if they cant do anything as the chancers will still be chancers and everyone else will have to shoulder an even larger burden to pay for the clipboards, sanctimonious attitudes and worst of all toothlessness.

Its because their judgements aren't enforced that I think its one sided, in such a situation the tenants seem to be able to skip out on their responsibilities more often than then landlord can....he/she is left cleaning up and dealing with unpaid rent (on what after all is a business)etc while the wrongdoing tenant doesn't have to deal with the consequences of their own actions.

btw stories above represent vanishingly small proportion of the tenants I remember. for the most part people treated the place well, paid their rent on time etc which is why its so frustrating when the gougers get away with it

Mr CJ

bugler wrote: »

Funnily enough everyone seems to "hear" that, or "know" it. It seems that landlords who fall afoul of the PRTB cry loudest, to the point where it seems no landlord has ever been deemed in the right by the PRTB.

The reason why landlords "cry loudest" is because usually they report a property been damaged by a tenant or report a tenant not paying rent which can lead into a loss of tens of thousands for the landlord, where as a tenant complaint is only minor in comparison, and since the cr**p that landlords have to put up with in relation to PRTB I think they are entitled to "cry loudest"

From reading and hearing about the trouble landlords have with PRTB it sounds to me like a complete waste of time to go near them.
If a tenant will not leave your property and possibly causing damage after wasting perhaps months with PRTB and even if it goes to court more than likely the judge will order the land lord to pay the tenant to leave the property as the landlord is the capatalist. Its crazy stuff like this that makes the law and so called authorities a complete joke!

bugler

Mr CJ wrote: »

If a tenant will not leave your property and possibly causing damage after wasting perhaps months with PRTB and even if it goes to court more than likely the judge will order the land lord to pay the tenant to leave the property as the landlord is the capatalist. Its crazy stuff like this that makes the law and so called authorities a complete joke!

Is this based on actual occurrences? Have you knowledge of a case where a court directed a landlord to pay a tenant to leave a property?

Reading through PRTB decisions quite a few seem to be related to disputes that wound up in illegal eviction or invalid notice of termination. This would most commonly have been due to unpaid rent. It's hard to know the full story because the PRTB don't publish it. But there are numerous decisions that state the landlord did not serve valid notice, but yet the tenant should pay X amount in unpaid rent.

If a landlord evicts someone unjustly they should be punished heavily. The best thing a landlord can do if the tenants have breached their obligations is to serve valid notice of termination/eviction, and then evict in a manner that is appropriate.

I have yet to find a case where a landlord was punished heavily for evicting a tenant owing substantial rent, but I will keep reading the decisions.

BostonB

bugler wrote: »

....If a landlord evicts someone unjustly they should be punished heavily. The best thing a landlord can do if the tenants have breached their obligations is to serve valid notice of termination/eviction, and then evict in a manner that is appropriate.....

Takes ages to get a legal eviction. How is the tenant punished for not paying rent, or damage in that case. Should a tenant be punished heavily?

bugler

BostonB wrote: »

Takes ages to get a legal eviction. How is the tenant punished for not paying rent, or damage in that case. Should a tenant be punished heavily?

Yes, and they can be ordered to backpay rent.

The real issue appears to be compelling parties to pay up, which does not seem to be within the remit of the PRTB. An issue for landlords and tenants alike.

As for my earlier post, what I actually meant was I have yet to see a case where there was non-payment of rent, there was an illegal eviction, and the LL was penalised heavily. Common sense has seemed to reign.

But I'll keep reading to see if I can find a decision that acknowledges the tenant owed substantial rent monies but is still entitled to compensation for an illegal eviction. Maybe there are such cases.

BostonB

The PRTB therefore is completely useless for landlords.

bugler

..and tenants, if that's your rationale.

It can only do what the legislation allows it to do.

shoegirl

bugler wrote: »

Yes, and they can be ordered to backpay rent.

The real issue appears to be compelling parties to pay up, which does not seem to be within the remit of the PRTB. An issue for landlords and tenants alike.

In fairness, the main reason why most tenants don't pay up is because they cannot. Unlike the landlord property-owning class, most tenants come from the bottom income groups and as much as 40-50% of the entire rented sector is anecdotally suggested to be getting rent allowance. The very fact that this is paid in arrears creates a problem to start with.

Its different in Dublin and to a lesser extent in Cork where many good earners have been entirely priced out of property ownership but in much of the rest of the country the rented sector has become a proxy waiting booth for the housing list. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but the high proportion of non earners and low earners "stuck" on the private rented sector without a choice creates the problems, not the PRTB which is only intended to enforce basic regulations. Unfortunately the level of abuse that was made in the late 90s in terms of cowboy evictions, appalling standards and huge rent hikes made PRTB necessary.

yutta

shoegirl wrote: »

In fairness, the main reason why most tenants don't pay up is because they cannot.

Really? "cannot" because they spent the money boozing, buying glossy magazines or on Sky TV.

shoegirl wrote: »

Unlike the landlord property-owning class, most tenants come from the bottom income groups and as much as 40-50% of the entire rented sector is anecdotally suggested to be getting rent allowance. The very fact that this is paid in arrears creates a problem to start with.

Chip on your shoulder? Nobody is entitled to own property. Roof over their head yes. Anything after that, you work hard for it. Some are fortunate enough to inherit property. But then again, we're not all equal and everyone just gets on with it.

shoegirl wrote: »

Its different in Dublin and to a lesser extent in Cork where many good earners have been entirely priced out of property ownership but in much of the rest of the country the rented sector has become a proxy waiting booth for the housing list. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but the high proportion of non earners and low earners "stuck" on the private rented sector without a choice creates the problems, not the PRTB which is only intended to enforce basic regulations. Unfortunately the level of abuse that was made in the late 90s in terms of cowboy evictions, appalling standards and huge rent hikes made PRTB necessary.

Plenty of property reasonably priced out there. Probably not in the style you're accustomed to though.

bugler

No one is entitled to live rent-free at someone elses expense. It doesn't matter if you get RA or if you lost your job. You don't turn your problem into someone else's.

If you can't afford your rent then you move out - end of story.

Osgoodisgood

shoegirl wrote: »

In fairness, the main reason why most tenants don't pay up is because they cannot.

A huge generalisation but even if it were true, what's your point?
If you can't pay you leave.

Unlike the landlord property-owning class, most tenants come from the bottom income groups .......

:eek: wtf?
You've heard of the collapse of the housing market?
50% falls in house values, 16 year lows in rent income. Is this the stuff you resent?

Graces7

yutta wrote: »

Really? "cannot" because they spent the money boozing, buying glossy magazines or on Sky TV.


Chip on your shoulder? Nobody is entitled to own property. Roof over their head yes. Anything after that, you work hard for it. Some are fortunate enough to inherit property. But then again, we're not all equal and everyone just gets on with it.


Plenty of property reasonably priced out there. Probably not in the style you're accustomed to though.

This reply to a good post is why the PTRB and more vitally the 2004 Tenancy Act is needed and of value.

It is a reflection on the poster of course. He needs to get in touch with reality as it is for so many of us.

Many of us who rent cheaply are pensioners, or disabled, coping with long term illness and with no hope of what you call "working hard"

We certainly do not drink etc. or buy even a newspaper, or have any TV- period.

Until the 2004 Act came in, landlords could evict cruelly and illegally; now we have some protection. We are not seeking rent free housing by any means.

And what accommodation is there for us? here in Donegal the rent allowance limit is E85 a week. Try finding somewhere decent for that?

This cheap house is damp; no proper bathroom etc, and was all we could find when our previous house flooded.

what the PTRB can and does do for those threatened with bad landlords who take no heed of leases etc that they signed, is to buy us time so that we can find better accommodation IF we can find the deposit, moving costs etc etc. which many cannot do of course.

They can "freeze" the situation which allows a breathing space.

This is the situation we are in just now and have been for a couple of months.

The poster needs to have some thought for others.

Really!

shoegirl; thank you!

Graces7

shoegirl wrote: »

In fairness, the main reason why most tenants don't pay up is because they cannot. Unlike the landlord property-owning class, most tenants come from the bottom income groups and as much as 40-50% of the entire rented sector is anecdotally suggested to be getting rent allowance. The very fact that this is paid in arrears creates a problem to start with.

Its different in Dublin and to a lesser extent in Cork where many good earners have been entirely priced out of property ownership but in much of the rest of the country the rented sector has become a proxy waiting booth for the housing list. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but the high proportion of non earners and low earners "stuck" on the private rented sector without a choice creates the problems, not the PRTB which is only intended to enforce basic regulations. Unfortunately the level of abuse that was made in the late 90s in terms of cowboy evictions, appalling standards and huge rent hikes made PRTB necessary.

Thank you for this; and take no heed of the others.. you are right.

yutta

Graces7 wrote: »

This reply to a good post is why the PTRB and more vitally the 2004 Tenancy Act is needed and of value.

It is a reflection on the poster of course. He needs to get in touch with reality as it is for so many of us.

Many of us who rent cheaply are pensioners, or disabled, coping with long term illness and with no hope of what you call "working hard"

We certainly do not drink etc. or buy even a newspaper, or have any TV- period.

Until the 2004 Act came in, landlords could evict cruelly and illegally; now we have some protection. We are not seeking rent free housing by any means.

And what accommodation is there for us? here in Donegal the rent allowance limit is E85 a week. Try finding somewhere decent for that?

This cheap house is damp; no proper bathroom etc, and was all we could find when our previous house flooded.

what the PTRB can and does do for those threatened with bad landlords who take no heed of leases etc that they signed, is to buy us time so that we can find better accommodation IF we can find the deposit, moving costs etc etc. which many cannot do of course.

They can "freeze" the situation which allows a breathing space.

This is the situation we are in just now and have been for a couple of months.

The poster needs to have some thought for others.

Really!

shoegirl; thank you!

Rubbish. It's illegal to put someone in a damp house with no proper bathroom.

€85 a week will give you a perfectly insulated place with all the mod-cons. There's the local authority housing list too.

The landlord might charge €85 a week to the local authority, but if the local authority provided their own housing, it would end up costing the taxpayer many more multiples.

Graces7

yutta wrote: »

Rubbish. It's illegal to put someone in a damp house with no proper bathroom.

€85 a week will give you a perfectly insulated place with all the mod-cons. There's the local authority housing list too.

The landlord might charge €85 a week to the local authority, but if the local authority provided their own housing, it would end up costing the taxpayer many more multiples.

You are seriously out of touch with reality, young person, so please do not hurl abuse and accusations around.

REALLY!

conorhal

BostonB wrote: »

Takes ages to get a legal eviction. How is the tenant punished for not paying rent, or damage in that case. Should a tenant be punished heavily?

I think the worst decision in recent years was the change in how payment is made regarding rent allowance, it went from paying the rent directly to the landlord to paying it to the tenant instead.
That move opened up a world of fraud and abuse because it emboldened bad tenants to act the maggot.
My last flat mate was a prime example, she receives rent allowance as part of a back to education scheme, but wanted to sub let her room for the summer so she could spend the rent allowance on hols in San Fran!
When the landlord said no, she just left (fine, that's her right), but my guess is that she still got the rent allowance to spend on holiday because the landlord only signed the forms on an annual basis. As a taxpayer, I don't mind my hard earned cash supporting people that want to re-skill and improve their prospects of getting a job, but it annoyed the heck out of me to think that I was funding her holidays.
The PTRB should be able to apply to the social welfare to withhold rent allowance from a recipient to pay unpaid rent if a RA recipient skips out on a landlord, but we don't do joined up thinking or inter agency cooperation in this country. Equally the PTRB should have a database or both tenants and landlords against whom a complaint has been upheld that can be searched to ensure that you are not renting from, or renting too, a total chancer

BostonB

Perhaps landlords need to ask for a bigger desposit if client are paid via RA a month in arrears, and not directly. Perhaps 2 or 3 months rent (+ how many months the local authority are are behind).