I can't get tenants out

Samba

You should lease out the spare room to the boards.ie smoking forum for a few months

hobochris

I would rent the second bedroom out as a short term practice space for a band.

senordingdong

Treehouse72 wrote: »

The posters saying these people are in the house "illegally" are talking off the top of their heads and would be better off not contributing at all than giving such facile and likely incorrect advice to OP.

How do you figure?
Their lease has expired and they are living there well after the date of their eviction notice, and they're not paying any rent.

Are they living there legally?

ztoical

senordingdong wrote: »

How do you figure?
Their lease has expired and they are living there well after the date of their eviction notice, and they're not paying any rent.

Are they living there legally?

Under current tenancy laws yes they are. Once the lease expired they fell under a 4 part tenancy and are now covered by that. Once they stopped paying rent the LL has to wait x number of days from when the rent was due, and if it is not paid they must apply to the courts to have the tenants removed. It might not sound fair but that is the current law.

senordingdong

ztoical wrote: »

Under current tenancy laws yes they are. Once the lease expired they fell under a 4 part tenancy and are now covered by that. Once they stopped paying rent the LL has to wait x number of days from when the rent was due, and if it is not paid they must apply to the courts to have the tenants removed. It might not sound fair but that is the current law.

I'm sure that only applies if the tenant is still paying rent.

ztoical

senordingdong wrote: »

I'm sure that only applies if the tenant is still paying rent.

Nope....if they aren't paying rent it is grounds to evict but the LL can't just show up and chuck them out and change locks, they have to follow the correct procedure or end up in court and fined. Plenty of stories of tenants who'd stopped paying rent being illegally evicted getting 10,000euro out of the LL.

senordingdong

And what is the correct procedure?

the_syco

If the place is a hole, get child services involved. Not so much as from a landlords view, but as an anonymous person whose worried about the babies welfare...

And if they need to fill out any forms to show that they have a stable house for the baby, refuse. Tell them to f**k off.

upinthesky

well I know if you were in local authority housing you would not get away with it they would bring you to Court and you would get evicted so i say bring them to Court are they Irish btw?

ztoical

senordingdong wrote: »

And what is the correct procedure?

As per the PRTB : They must give the tenants a valid notice of termination and if they aren't moving after the date on the notice the LL must refer a dispute to the PRTB.

not even wrong

So what you're telling us is that you attempted to illegally* evict a couple for no reason other than they had a baby? I'm absolutely amazed that some people are actually sympathising with this kind of cowboy landlord behaviour.


* they have security of tenure after six months regardless of the lease.

Laisurg

not even wrong wrote: »

So what you're telling us is that you attempted to illegally* evict a couple for no reason other than they had a baby? I'm absolutely amazed that some people are actually sympathising with this kind of cowboy landlord behaviour.


* they have security of tenure after six months regardless of the lease.

I don't think you read his post properly, they are NOT paying rent the lease is up and they're just flat out refusing to pay it, i wouldn't be surprised if they're getting the rent allowance anyway and just not paying rent, he has every right to throw them out.

not even wrong

Laisurg wrote: »

I don't think you read his post properly, they are NOT paying rent the lease is up and they're just flat out refusing to pay it,

From my reading of the original post the refusal to pay the rent came after the attempt at illegal eviction -- "2 months ago I gave them 2 months notice for eviction as they now have a baby".

The lease being up is irrelevant as once you are a tenant for more than 6 months you have security of tenure regardless of leases.

Yes the tenant is legally in the wrong for not paying rent but I have absolutely zero sympathy for the kind of scumbag slumlord who would evict a family for no reason other than the presence of a baby, as far as I'm concerned it's karma catching up with them.

CK2010

i got the impression they had said that they would be looking for somewhere more suited rather than renew the lease agreement, and so, when the lease was up he gave them their notice, as was discussed, and only then did they stop paying rent and didnt actually search for somewhere more suited to their needs like they had said they would. maybe im wrong??

Scotty #

not even wrong wrote: »

"2 months ago I gave them 2 months notice for eviction as they now have a baby but are only renting one room in the house.".

You conveniently left out the bit in red above when you quoted the OP. He rented the room to a couple! They now have a third person in the room. He was/is entitled to ask them to leave. Apart from the fact that a baby in the house makes renting the second room more or less impossible.

not even wrong wrote: »

I have absolutely zero sympathy for the kind of scumbag slumlord who would evict a family for no reason other than the presence of a baby,

Scumbag slumlord? LMAO!! Are you for real? That's a grossly unfair accusation. He didn't lease to a family! He leased to a couple. What if they moved their parents in next and maybe a couple of siblings... would he still be a slumlord?

ztoical

not even wrong wrote: »

So what you're telling us is that you attempted to illegally* evict a couple for no reason other than they had a baby? I'm absolutely amazed that some people are actually sympathising with this kind of cowboy landlord behaviour.


* they have security of tenure after six months regardless of the lease.

The LL runs a business not social services. They have stated their other tenants in the property moved out as a result of the baby being there so they are down that rent as well and it will be hard to rent it out again. Few people want to rent a house with a couple and even less with a couple with a child.

Jo King

If they are only renting a room and are sharing kitchen facilities they are not tenants and are not covered by the PRTB. The PRTB has given a decision to this effect. The owner can lock the supposed tenants out.

Mr. Loverman

Laisurg wrote: »

Well if you've given them notice and they lied to you then you have every right to kick them out, btw if they're not paying any rent and are refusing to leave just call the guards, they'll get them out of there.

Christ the advice in this thread is awful.

Why are people talking so brazenly about things they don't understand?

ztoical

Jo King wrote: »

If they are only renting a room and are sharing kitchen facilities they are not tenants and are not covered by the PRTB. The PRTB has given a decision to this effect. The owner can lock the supposed tenants out.

Thats only for rent a room schemes were the owner lives in the property as well. That is not the case here [covered in the first page of the thread]

Meeoow

Poor you.
Don't let them walk over you. You need to send them a notice to pay their arrears in 14 days.
Then if they have not paid, you can serve them a 28 day notice to vacate.
Send all letters by registered post.
Do not attempt to change locks or cut off utilities, as they will take you to the cleaners.
Register with PRTB if you have not already done so.

Jo King

ztoical wrote: »

Thats only for rent a room schemes were the owner lives in the property as well. That is not the case here [covered in the first page of the thread]

That is not correct. Look at the decision of the PRTB. The fact the owner is not living there is irrelevant.


Tribunal Reference Number TR10/DR532&589/2006.
Case Reference Number DR532&589/2005
Date of Hearing
27 April 2006

"Reasons for Decision of the Tribunal

On the facts agreed by the Parties the Tenant was not entitled to occupation of a “self-contained residential unit”.

Under the agreement entered into in December 2003 the Tenant is merely entitled to exclusive occupation of one bedroom and he shares other facilities including the kitchen, bathroom facilities and reception area facilities with other occupants.

The Landlord was of the view that the Tenant was not entitled to put a new lock onto the bedroom door. The Tenant contested this.

It is clear from the evidence that the letting does not come within the definition of “dwelling” as set out in section 4 of the Act of 2004. The shared facilities afforded to the Tenant could not be considered to be a “bed-sit” or any other form of “self-contained residential unit”.

It follows that the relationship between Landlord and Tenant is outside the scope of application of the Act of 2004 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute."

The above is a direct quote from the decision of the board. The PRTB only deals with leases of dwellings.

goat2

CK2010 wrote: »

i love how when its a situation like this everyone says 'the tenants have all the rights here',however in our case (noisy neighbours that keep making our lives hell and waking up our three year old at 5,6,7 o clock with their music every night) we're told 'you've no rights as tenants to break the lease and still get your deposit back'!

your paragraph there where you say you cannot greak a lease,, yes yes you can, just give one month notice and and cite why, such as the disturbances, and make sure you have someone with you when you hand in that notice to quit get them to sign it and sign a copy that you will keep

Victor

The OP needs to talk to a solicitor who is familiar with landlord and tenant law. Talking to Threshold and the PRTB might also be useful.

Jo King wrote: »

If they are only renting a room and are sharing kitchen facilities they are not tenants and are not covered by the PRTB. The PRTB has given a decision to this effect. The owner can lock the supposed tenants out.

AFAIK, the act was changed to bring renting rooms (with landlord not on the premises) under the act.

In any case, Tribunal Reference Number TR10/DR532&589/2006 only refers to the ability of the PRTB to get involved.

CK2010

goat2 wrote: »

your paragraph there where you say you cannot greak a lease,, yes yes you can, just give one month notice and and cite why, such as the disturbances, and make sure you have someone with you when you hand in that notice to quit get them to sign it and sign a copy that you will keep

we can break the lease, i know that, but we may be obliged to pay the remaining months (6 months left) rent and we may lose our security deposit which we cant afford. thats why we cant leave- if we could leave with our deposit intact we would.

Jo King

Victor wrote: »

AFAIK, the act was changed to bring renting rooms (with landlord not on the premises) under the act.

I presume you have a link to the amending act?
No amending act that I have ever seen had any such change.

goat2

CK2010 wrote: »

we can break the lease, i know that, but we may be obliged to pay the remaining months (6 months left) rent and we may lose our security deposit which we cant afford. thats why we cant leave- if we could leave with our deposit intact we would.

no you do not pay out the 6 months, and you get your deposit back, just look it up in tenants rights

Victor

kranky wrote: »

I didnt know she was pregnant when she moved in and she lied about her due date.

Its not a lot of your business as to whether someone is pregnant or not.

Victor

Jo King wrote: »

I presume you have a link to the amending act?
No amending act that I have ever seen had any such change.

Have a poke here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0002/index.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0022/index.html

Fol20

Victor wrote: »

Its not a lot of your business as to whether someone is pregnant or not.

It is when it affect his business + he only taught 2 people were moving in,not 3...Like others have said they could just bring in their whole family and all just stay in that room if that were the case.

goat2

whatever way you turn this, the landlord is in for a long expensive haul, and the tenants will be the only winners, go get advice from a solicitor asap