Landlord entering house

BostonB

I've read many comments from Tenants and LL, and from people in RL, that the PRTB isn't working. For example if need your deposit back to move to another place, and you don't get it back, any delay by the PRTB process is a big problem. Likewise, if a tenant can run up big arrears or damages, due to the process'es that LL can't recover, then thats also a problem. There are a lot of disputes, on the PRTB website. Usually its the same issues over and over.

Saying you can go through a lengthy process with the PRTB and then court doesn't really help, if you are stuck for the money.

bunina

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have only got a licence to reside so the landlord can come and go as often as he wants. You are effectively in the same position as a guest in a hotel. If it bothers you, move!

Hi I dont want to get into a row online but it souds as if you may be a landlord urself. If so I dont wish to move cause it is too unsettling. we all pay our rent on a sunday that four of us and we have nothing signed., but surely when the house is spotless and there are no other problems the landlord should understand I need my privacy. I know he owns the house but I am renting of him and its just common decency not to be calling around and letting himself in just to go to the toilet. I agree with another reply that my landlord is just been an ass.

bunina

HI. I would just like to thank everyone for all their advice. Its greatly appreciated. If I had the money I would move but I dont, and I think there is no point in moving into another house share where things could be worse.
Thanking u all most sincerly again.

Bellamy

bunina wrote: »

Hi. I have been living at my rented house for nearly 4 years. there are 3 other tenents in the house. We all pay our rent on time to the landlord. MY issue is my landlord enters the house whenever he wants which is usually a few times a week. I finally plucked up the courage to say it to him nicely If he could only enter house when collecting rent once a week. He blew his top. He said to me that if I paid the rent for everyone everyweek that would be fine, otherwise he said "I will come and go whenever I please" He said cause we all are individual tenents that he has aright to enter whenever he chooses. Is this true?:(

Hi
I am a landlord and I can tell you that your landlord is not obeying the rules. Once rent is being paid and a tenancy agreement for a given term is in place the landlord cannot enter the dwelling and must respect the fact that this is your home. If the rent is being collected by him you are within your rights to hand it over at the door step and have him receipt your rent book. You should not allow him cross the treshhold - he is bang out of order. You should report him to the Private Residential Tenancy Board - phone number:016350600. This matter is clearly defined in law.

Milk & Honey

Bellamy wrote: »

Hi
I am a landlord and I can tell you that your landlord is not obeying the rules. Once rent is being paid and a tenancy agreement for a given term is in place the landlord cannot enter the dwelling and must respect the fact that this is your home. If the rent is being collected by him you are within your rights to hand it over at the door step and have him receipt your rent book. You should not allow him cross the treshhold - he is bang out of order. You should report him to the Private Residential Tenancy Board - phone number:016350600. This matter is clearly defined in law.

You obviously have not read this thread. The position in law is otherwise. The o/p asked was it true the landlord had a right to enter when he wanted. having had that answered he is now making emotional arguments.

Dublin_Gunner

BostonB wrote: »

I've read many comments from Tenants and LL, and from people in RL, that the PRTB isn't working. For example if need your deposit back to move to another place, and you don't get it back, any delay by the PRTB process is a big problem. Likewise, if a tenant can run up big arrears or damages, due to the process'es that LL can't recover, then thats also a problem. There are a lot of disputes, on the PRTB website. Usually its the same issues over and over.

Saying you can go through a lengthy process with the PRTB and then court doesn't really help, if you are stuck for the money.

I agree with you.

But there's no better option at the moment. I know from hearing many stories, and from people I know that it's happened to, the recouping deposits is one of the largest issues.

Unfortunately there really is not much to be done about that, apart from suing the LL when they don't pay up.

Maybe the PRTB should have a section that holds all deposits from registered landlords, and re-imburses the tenant on completion of their lease (subject the LL inspection of the premises etc).

WOuld require quite a bit of admin - but the PRTB could make money from thew interest paid on the account the deposits are held in.

Milk & Honey

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Unfortunately there really is not much to be done about that, apart from suing the LL when they don't pay up.

Maybe the PRTB should have a section that holds all deposits from registered landlords, and re-imburses the tenant on completion of their lease (subject the LL inspection of the premises etc).

WOuld require quite a bit of admin - but the PRTB could make money from thew interest paid on the account the deposits are held in.

A tenant can't sue a LL for the return of a deposit. The tenant has to make a complaint to the PRTB. Having the PRTB holding deposits would mean hardship for the majority of tenants. how long would it take after the end of the lease for the tenant to get a deposit back? How much would it cost? It would need several hundred staff and most likely increase the complaints about deposit being retained.

BostonB

Well if the LL or Tenant, ignores the PRTB then the other party has to go to court. The PRTB can't enforce anything itself, AFAIK.

Other countries have a 3rd party hold deposits and it seems to work much better. Though I kinda agree, if the PRTB are overwhelmed with their current workload, with long delays, then theres no much hope of them handling deposits quickly. A quick response time is essential, so tenants can move with their deposits. Or people can't overstay with impunity and run up large arrears. The PRTB seems to be flooded with disputes about deposits. The LL disputes like overstaying or damage, while fewer seems to involve much large sums.

With the reduction in Public services I can't see them expanding the PRTB.

Milk & Honey

BostonB wrote: »

Well if the LL or Tenant, ignores the PRTB then the other party has to go to court. The PRTB can't enforce anything itself, AFAIK.

That is not correct. If either the LL or the tenant ignores the PRTB the PRTB will make an order against them. The order has the same status as a court order and if ignored a criminal offence is committed and the usual sanctions for breach of a court order can be invoked. The PRTB brings proceedings for breach of its orders. There is no option for the tenant or landlord of going to court in most cases.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

182.—(1) On and from the commencement of Part 6, proceedings may not be instituted in any court in respect of a dispute that may be referred to the Board for resolution under that Part unless one or more of the following reliefs is being claimed in the proceedings—

(a) damages of an amount of more than €20,000,

(b) recovery of arrears of rent or other charges, or both, due under a tenancy of an amount, or an aggregate amount, of more than €60,000 or such lesser amount as would be applicable in the circumstances concerned by virtue of section 115 (3)(b) or (c)(ii).

(2) In this section “dispute” has the same meaning as it has in Part 6.

BostonB

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That is not correct. If either the LL or the tenant ignores the PRTB the PRTB will make an order against them. The order has the same status as a court order and if ignored a criminal offence is committed and the usual sanctions for breach of a court order can be invoked. The PRTB brings proceedings for breach of its orders. There is no option for the tenant or landlord of going to court in most cases.

Residential Tenancies Act 2004

182.—(1) On and from the commencement of Part 6, proceedings may not be instituted in any court in respect of a dispute that may be referred to the Board for resolution under that Part unless one or more of the following reliefs is being claimed in the proceedings—

(a) damages of an amount of more than €20,000,

(b) recovery of arrears of rent or other charges, or both, due under a tenancy of an amount, or an aggregate amount, of more than €60,000 or such lesser amount as would be applicable in the circumstances concerned by virtue of section 115 (3)(b) or (c)(ii).

(2) In this section “dispute” has the same meaning as it has in Part 6.

Maybe I have it wrong then. I took that to mean you have to go to the PRTB first, not that what the PRTB says is the same as a court order, or that the PRTB can enforce it. I was told you have to take it to court. (circuit court).

On the PRTB site...

11. What will the Enforcement Section do when I make a request?
The Enforcement Section will commence its enforcement process by writing to both parties informing them of the process and possible consequences of non compliance. If compliance is not obtained through communication with the non compliant party the PRTB may direct our solicitors to commence legal proceedings through the courts. This process may take several months however, priority is given in over-holding or serious anti-social behaviour cases; even then, the process is a lengthy one and you may wish to consider taking your own proceedings which, given current resource constraints within the PRTB, will be a faster process.

http://public.prtb.ie/disputesFAQs.htm#d8

Milk & Honey

All that says is that you can take your own enforcement proceedings, which might be quicker that waiting for the PRTB to do it. That is the same as any court order. The case is not heard again, the Court is simply concerned with forcing the delinquent to comply with the PRTB order.

As a general point too many people are relying on FAqs on websites. Those are for general guidance only and it is far to easy to misunderstand the law. Look at the text of the ACT itself

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0027.html

BostonB

I suspect the act use specific legal terms which I may mis-interpret. So am I qualified to read it? I assume the PRTB hasn't got its own FAQ wrong. Though you can't sure of anything. You said a tenant can't sue a LL, this would seem to suggest otherwise. Yes you have to go to the PRTB first. But then you can go to court.

Bellamy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You have only got a licence to reside so the landlord can come and go as often as he wants. You are effectively in the same position as a guest in a hotel. If it bothers you, move!

check it out! you are wrong. A landlord may NOT enter a property once rent is being duly paid

BostonB

Bellamy wrote: »

check it out! you are wrong. A landlord may NOT enter a property once rent is being duly paid

....

bath handle wrote: »

The key word is "dwelling". A room is not a dwelling. In order for the Act to apply there must be a lease of a dwelling.

Bellamy

BostonB wrote: »

....

... But a landlord must respect the fact that this is the tenants living space even if it is only a room.:P Nobody has the right to walk into another persons home without being invited - that includes the landlord. How would you like it if someone just walked into where you live?

Mr. Loverman

Bellamy wrote: »

... But a landlord must respect the fact that this is the tenants living space even if it is only a room.:P Nobody has the right to walk into another persons home without being invited - that includes the landlord. How would you like it if someone just walked into where you live?

Your emotions and sense of right or wrong do not override the law.

BostonB

You may not like, it, but the Landlord isn't breaking any law here. Threads like this are interesting you find out quirky things about the law.

Bellamy

BostonB wrote: »

You may not like, it, but the Landlord isn't breaking any law here. Threads like this are interesting you find out quirky things about the law.

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

CiaranC

Bellamy wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

You have clearly not read the thread.

the_syco

Bellamy wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

You do understand that different landlords give different leases? As well as that, are you renting rooms in the house to different people, or are you renting the entire house to a group of people?

BostonB

Bellamy wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree. I am a landlord and as far as I am aware I have no right to enter the property once the rent is being paid. This is stated clearly on the lease. With all due respect I do appreciate that rent is being paid to me and I in turn respect my tenants and treat them as I myself would like to be treated.

We're not talking about your situation.

You're all mixed up, because you haven't read this thread from the start.

Why you'd create a lease that doesn't allow you to enter makes no sense to me. But thats a discussion for a different thread.

dermot_sheehan

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The landlord stated he collects rent from people at different times. This would suggest seperate leases i.e not a dwelling being rented.

I suggest you check your definition of "dwelling" and note the term "dwelling house" is not used.

“dwelling” means, subject to subsection (2), a property let for rent or valuable consideration as a self-contained residential unit and includes any building or part of a building used as a dwelling and any out office, yard, garden or other land appurtenant to it or usually enjoyed with it and, where the context so admits, includes a property available for letting but excludes a structure that is not permanently attached to the ground and a vessel and a vehicle (whether mobile or not);

“self-contained residential unit” includes the form of accommodation commonly known as “bedsit” accommodation;

And regardless of the Residential Tenancies Act, a tenant is entitled at common law to the quiet enjoyment of their tenancy

Dublin_Gunner

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I suggest you check your definition of "dwelling" and note the term "dwelling house" is not used.



And regardless of the Residential Tenancies Act, a tenant is entitled at common law to the quiet enjoyment of their tenancy

With all due respect, you obviously have not read the thread - the discussion on what is accepted as a 'dwelling' has already taken place, and indeed there has been a tribunal decision which defines it.

A room rented in a house, does not qualify as being a 'dwelling'. Simple.

"Tribunal Reference Number TR10/DR532&589/2006.
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”. "

And yes, everyone is entitled to quiet enjoyment of their 'rented accommodation'. There is nothing here to suggest the landlord entered the room, just the house - which the LL is more than entitled to do in this case.

Unless the specifics of the lease(s) suggest otherwise, the LL can enter the house at his/her leisure.

Kosseegan

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I suggest you check your definition of "dwelling" and note the term "dwelling house" is not used.



And regardless of the Residential Tenancies Act, a tenant is entitled at common law to the quiet enjoyment of their tenancy

A room is not a self contained dwelling. A bedsit normally has coooking facilities and often its own bathroom facilities and has an independent supply of utilities.