Rental property trashed

jobless

Hey,

a friend of mine recently had to evict a tenant from his rental property.... the tenant had left the property in an awful state after only 5 months..... broken beds, doors toilets etc....
Is their recourse to press criminal charges as regards the damages?...I'm just wondering if anyone has ever done this?.... the deposit doesnt nearly cover the damage

edellc

no recourse as what it costs to pre sue the tenant will be more than what it costs to fix the property

I am a firm believer that a landlord gets the tenant they deserve so maybe next time you "friend" vets their tenants better.

murphaph

edellc wrote: »

no recourse as what it costs to pre sue the tenant will be more than what it costs to fix the property

I am a firm believer that a landlord gets the tenant they deserve so maybe next time you "friend" vets their tenants better.

Are you also a firm believer that the tenant gets the landlord they deserve edel, or is it only a one way street?

murphaph

jobless wrote: »

Hey,

a friend of mine recently had to evict a tenant from his rental property.... the tenant had left the property in an awful state after only 5 months..... broken beds, doors toilets etc....
Is their recourse to press criminal charges as regards the damages?...I'm just wondering if anyone has ever done this?.... the deposit doesnt nearly cover the damage

Unfortunately the law says that the tenant is basically the owner of the property during the tenancy so they are not breaking any laws by smashing the toilet up!

It's strictly a civil matter and the law is such a joke, your friend would be throwing good money after bad trying to recoup anything from these erm, "people".

edellc

murphaph wrote: »

Are you also a firm believer that the tenant gets the landlord they deserve edel, or is it only a one way street?

what a stupid comment

obviously its a two way street, like attracts like

kkelliher

edellc wrote: »

what a stupid comment

obviously its a two way street, like attracts like

I would have to say I think its far from stupid given your initial response

pwurple

edellc wrote: »

no recourse as what it costs to pre sue the tenant will be more than what it costs to fix the property

I am a firm believer that a landlord gets the tenant they deserve so maybe next time you "friend" vets their tenants better.

Edellc, sometime's you just get unlucky. Over the years, I have always had great tenants, checked references carefully etc. I had one couple in 5 years years ago, who at the end of their 4th month had some kind of domestic... someone was sleeping with someone else on the side, they were breaking up, blah blah, this was their excuse. The front door was smashed down by the bloke, he completely wrecked the place with a hammer, trying to attack the girl. Gardai were called by the neighbours, but I never got anywhere with the damage done to the walls/doors etc, which obviously went way above the deposit. They had both been perfect tenants previously, and to my knowledge, since.

You can vet and revet, but it's never a guarantee of their future behaviour. Only a best guess.

goodie2shoes

jobless wrote: »

Hey,

a friend of mine recently had to evict a tenant from his rental property.... the tenant had left the property in an awful state after only 5 months..... broken beds, doors toilets etc....
Is their recourse to press criminal charges as regards the damages?...I'm just wondering if anyone has ever done this?.... the deposit doesnt nearly cover the damage

Just a few questions that might shed some light on the topic.

were these tenants students, working, young, old, singles, couple?
were they in receipt of Rent allowance or were they private tenants?
what method of vetting if any, did the you employ?
how many month's rent did you demand?
how often did you visit the property?
do you collect the rent personally, or by bank transfer?
how soon into the tenancy did you notice issues/problem?
was the property of a good standard to start with?

leonidas83

jobless wrote: »

Hey,

a friend of mine recently had to evict a tenant from his rental property.... the tenant had left the property in an awful state after only 5 months..... broken beds, doors toilets etc....
Is their recourse to press criminal charges as regards the damages?...I'm just wondering if anyone has ever done this?.... the deposit doesnt nearly cover the damage

if hes registered with Private Residential Tenancies Board (which he should be) he could take the previous tenant to a small claims court within that organisation. He'd have a good chance of reclaiming some expenses at relatively little risk & cost

edellc

of course you can get unlucky and the place can get trashed due to a unforeseen domestic

but the reality is that most landlords in this country are small operations, or should I say bought in the boom as they thought they could make a quick buck....regardless, its up the landlord to make sure they vet the tenant properly and actually seek and ring references, if they dont then they get what they deserve, likewise if your viewing a property and the LL wants cash in hand, or the property is a bit below par well then you know that dont give a crap....more often than not this is obvious

yes there are exceptions to the rules which we really only hear about on the internet but most of the time like does find like

murphaph

edellc wrote: »

what a stupid comment

obviously its a two way street, like attracts like

So when a tenant gets screwed over by a landlord, they have deserved it also? Yeah? (I only ask because your previous posts wouldn't lead me to believe you think this way)

For the record, I don't agree. I think good tenants can find bad landlords and vice-versa. I wish like would find like, but it isn't the case.

murphaph

leonidas83 wrote: »

if hes registered with Private Residential Tenancies Board (which he should be) he could take the previous tenant to a small claims court within that organisation. He'd have a good chance of reclaiming some expenses at relatively little risk & cost

There's no small claims court in the PRTB. If you mean he could seek to have an adjudication made against the tenant, sure he could, but it's worthless. The PRTB have no legal power to enforce their orders. They won't run off to court to get a court order in this case (they will of course if a landlord evicts somebody who is not paying rent or wrecking their property) so you'll have to go to court anyway and then when you get your court order the tenant will be made to pay some paltry amount like €5 a month from their dole, so all in all, a complete waste of time and effort.

2rkehij30qtza5

edellc wrote: »

I am a firm believer that a landlord gets the tenant they deserve so maybe next time you "friend" vets their tenants better.

Absolute rubbish. A lot of landlords use agencies to get them tenants, the agrncy vets them and the landlord still end up with terrible tenants. There is no way of knowing. Someone can come with a good reference from their employer and previous residence...doesn't mean they are going to keep your house in good shape. You have no guarantees. Everything I have said comes from experience.

edellc

murphaph wrote: »

So when a tenant gets screwed over by a landlord, they have deserved it also? Yeah? (I only ask because your previous posts wouldn't lead me to believe you think this way)

For the record, I don't agree. I think good tenants can find bad landlords and vice-versa. I wish like would find like, but it isn't the case.

Read my post a bad tenant deserves a bad landlord and vise versa...no one deserves to screw the other, exceptions happen but from my experience like finds like

Most people don't go suited and booted to an interview and turn into a nutter 5mths later, and trash their home

goodie2shoes

RULES FOR HAPPY LETTING

Never accept SW tenants.
Never accept tenants who hand you cash.
Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away..
Never accept tenants who are overly conscious of their rights.
Always insist on at least 2 months deposit.
Always interview all prospective tenants.
Google their names, especially using search words such as "charged", "convicted", "court", "gardai"
Check out their FB page. Look for pics of house-parties.
Always call to their place of work.
Always insist on references.
Ascertain their previous 3 tenancies and check with previous landlords.
Check all references.
Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated.
Observe your property, or have a neighbour do so.

Elvis_Presley

goodie2shoes wrote: »

RULES FOR HAPPY LETTING

Never accept SW tenants.
Never accept tenants who hand you cash.
Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away..
Never accept tenants who are overly conscious of their rights.
Always insist on at least 2 months deposit.
Always interview all prospective tenants.
Google their names, especially using search words such as "charged", "convicted", "court", "gardai"
Check out their FB page. Look for pics of house-parties.
Always call to their place of work.
Always insist on references.
Ascertain their previous 3 tenancies and check with previous landlords.
Check all references.
Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated.
Observe your property, or have a neighbour do so.

Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away - what's wrong with that? People often move cities unexpectedly for work.

Always insist on at least 2 months deposit - not a f*cking chance will I ever give a landlord 2 months deposit. Hard enough to get one month back.

Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated - I think you'll find that's illegal.

You haven't a chance of getting a tenant. No good tenant is going to comply with your list of demands.

djimi

goodie2shoes wrote: »

RULES FOR HAPPY LETTING

Never accept SW tenants.
Never accept tenants who hand you cash.
Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away..
Never accept tenants who are overly conscious of their rights.
Always insist on at least 2 months deposit.
Always interview all prospective tenants.
Google their names, especially using search words such as "charged", "convicted", "court", "gardai"
Check out their FB page. Look for pics of house-parties.
Always call to their place of work.
Always insist on references.
Ascertain their previous 3 tenancies and check with previous landlords.
Check all references.
Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated.
Observe your property, or have a neighbour do so.

Will all due respect, a lot of this is complete nonsense.

There are plenty of decent RA tenants; the number of good ones far outweight the number of bad ones Im sure and Im also sure there are just as many bad non-RA tenants.

Most people are anxious to move into a place straight away (or near enough to it) as they will be serving notice in their current accomoadation which will be running down.

Overly conscious of their rights? This would only be an issue if you plan on somehow going against those rights...

Very few tenants will be willing or able to provide 2 months deposit. Expect the vast majority to tell you to go jump.

If you look on my FB page there are plenty of pictures of houseparties. The majority are not from my house, and those that are caused no damage whatsoever. Do you want to rent only to tenants who have no social life?

Its illegal to call unexpectedly to your tenants; if you knew the tenancy laws you would know this. You can request an inspection, but it must be at the tenants convenience, and with a minimum of 24 hours notice.

Likewise observing your property; do so with extreme caution, because the tenant is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their residence, which means they can expect to not have the landlord watching over their shoulder 24/7.

djimi

edellc wrote: »

of course you can get unlucky and the place can get trashed due to a unforeseen domestic

but the reality is that most landlords in this country are small operations, or should I say bought in the boom as they thought they could make a quick buck....regardless, its up the landlord to make sure they vet the tenant properly and actually seek and ring references, if they dont then they get what they deserve, likewise if your viewing a property and the LL wants cash in hand, or the property is a bit below par well then you know that dont give a crap....more often than not this is obvious

yes there are exceptions to the rules which we really only hear about on the internet but most of the time like does find like

In fairness its not exactly hard to fool someone with bogus references if you put enough effort into it. Its entirely possible to be completely fooled by a tenant, even if you have made every effort to check into their background. Theres only so much vetting that you can do; eventually you have to take a leap of faith in a tenant, and sometimes that will come back to haunt you. Its far too simplistic to say that a landlord gets what they deserve when it comes to a bad tenant.

goodie2shoes

Elvis_Presley wrote: »

Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away - what's wrong with that? People often move cities unexpectedly for work.

Always insist on at least 2 months deposit - not a f*cking chance will I ever give a landlord 2 months deposit. Hard enough to get one month back.

Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated - I think you'll find that's illegal.

You haven't a chance of getting a tenant. No good tenant is going to comply with your list of demands.

tenants who wish to move in straight away are, from my experience disorganized and problematic. often they are being evicted or "asked to leave" their existing accommodation and therefore need somewhere quick.

i always get 2, and on occasions 3 months rent from tenants. 1 month's rent wont go very far, if as in this case someone trash's a place.

there's nothing illegal about calling to a property unexpectedly, if a neighbour has reported a leak which needs immediate attention. in fact it would be negligent not to do so.

i have many excellent tenants thankyou.

djimi

goodie2shoes wrote: »

there's nothing illegal about calling to a property unexpectedly, if a neighbour has reported a leak which needs immediate attention. in fact it would be negligent not to do so.

You will not get away with this if the tenant is at home at the time, and if they are not then you would want to be extremely careful about how you proceed with such a stunt, because if you cannot prove that the property was in real threat (and it would require some real evidence from the neighbour to back up their claim) then you will find yourself in a world of trouble with a probable tresspassing charge against you. Most tenants are not stupid.

Procrastastudy

I make room for exceptions but I have to agree that tenants frequently get the Land Lord they deserve. The amount of people that haven't done the most basic things out of nothing more than naivety or sheer laziness astounds me. As we're doing lists for Land Lords here's one for a tenant;

Gut feeling is a wonderful thing - if someone seems dodge they probably are dodge - go somewhere else. Question 1 should be are you registered with the PRTB?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. View the property properly and more than once. Turn on the taps, flick the light switched open the oven. If the LL has an issue with this go somewhere else.

When you do move in take photos. I know of one person in my, not particularly small, circle of acquaintances that doesn't have a camera phone. Thats because he doesn't have a phone. Her has several cameras. If there is damage write a letter (this seems to be a lost art!) to the LL and keep a copy.

With rights come responsibilities. Don't take the piss, think about your neighbors, treat the place with respect. If you break something (including the lease) don't get all p!ssy because you're expected to pay for it.

Know your rights but don't be an asshat about them. Give and take.

AND for the love of God don't leave it until you're 3 days from moving out to find another place.

Arsehole landlords only manage to keep making a living because people keep renting off them. There are pleanty of excellent LL's out there.

goodie2shoes

djimi wrote: »

You will not get away with this if the tenant is at home at the time, and if they are not then you would want to be extremely careful about how you proceed with such a stunt, because if you cannot prove that the property was in real threat (and it would require some real evidence from the neighbour to back up their claim) then you will find yourself in a world of trouble with a probable tresspassing charge against you. Most tenants are not stupid.

it's never been a problem, and can be most revealing.
when you're a tenant you learn to accept that the property is not yours.

goodie2shoes

djimi wrote: »

In fairness its not exactly hard to fool someone with bogus references if you put enough effort into it. Its entirely possible to be completely fooled by a tenant, even if you have made every effort to check into their background. Theres only so much vetting that you can do; eventually you have to take a leap of faith in a tenant, and sometimes that will come back to haunt you. Its far too simplistic to say that a landlord gets what they deserve when it comes to a bad tenant.

find out where they work and call them there. it's fairly easy tbh.

Procrastastudy

@djimi - your posts are frequently excellent so I just wanted that sucking up there before I disagree with you!

References should be taken from official sources. Work and alike. If the reference turns out to be bogus then the Landlord should look to join that person in any action recover damages.

That said I do realise for that exact reason employers are reluctant to give out detailed references.

goodie2shoes

Procrastastudy wrote: »

@djimi - your posts are frequently excellent so I just wanted that sucking up there before I disagree with you!

References should be taken from official sources. Work and alike. If the reference turns out to be bogus then the Landlord should look to join that person in any action recover damages.

That said I do realise for that exact reason employers are reluctant to give out detailed references.

i agree, but the least you can do is to ascertain if they work where they say they do. if you call and they are not there, then there's a problem.
always call previous landlords, as often a landlord will issue a reference just to get shut of a problematic tenant, but may be more than willing to "dish the dirt" once they are rid of the problem.
FB is an invaluable source of info., as is GOOGLE.
one guy that wanted to rent from me was a convicted drug dealer, but he wasn't gonna tell me that in an interview. was he?

dearg lady

Procrastastudy wrote: »

@djimi - your posts are frequently excellent so I just wanted that sucking up there before I disagree with you!

References should be taken from official sources. Work and alike. If the reference turns out to be bogus then the Landlord should look to join that person in any action recover damages.

That said I do realise for that exact reason employers are reluctant to give out detailed references.

Work references are grand, but that says nothing about whether the person will trash the place or not. They could be a very diligent employee and still wreck your gaff. And when you're calling their 'ex landlord' you don't know who you're calling, could be their mate. It's incredibly easy to fake references for a rental.

djimi

Procrastastudy wrote: »

@djimi - your posts are frequently excellent so I just wanted that sucking up there before I disagree with you!

References should be taken from official sources. Work and alike. If the reference turns out to be bogus then the Landlord should look to join that person in any action recover damages.

That said I do realise for that exact reason employers are reluctant to give out detailed references.

The problem is that with any reference you have no idea who you are talking to. Even with a work reference whats to say the persons "boss" that you spoke to isnt just one of their colleagues who was willing to take the call?

Youre not wrong; the majority of the time an official reference will check out and be genuine. I just think its a bit unfair to say that a landlord "gets what they deserve" or whatever because a tenant was able to fool them with dodgy references. Ive seen it happen first hand!

djimi

goodie2shoes wrote: »

it's never been a problem, and can be most revealing.
when you're a tenant you learn to accept that the property is not yours.

And your problem seems to be that as a landlord you have to accept that for the duration of a tenancy the property is not yours. Do your checks prior to signing a lease, but at some point you have to take a punt on the tenant and actually sign them to the lease, at which point you have no legal right to watch them or the property night and day. You must respect that the property is their home for the duration of the tenancy, and that they have a legal right to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of the property.

If you do not wish to place some trust in the tenant and respect their right to privacy then do not get involved with letting property. You sound far too paranoid and its not fair on your tenants (who could be and probably are perfectly good tenants) that you should treat them with such a level of distrust.

goodie2shoes

djimi wrote: »

And your problem seems to be that as a landlord you have to accept that for the duration of a tenancy the property is not yours. Do your checks prior to signing a lease, but at some point you have to take a punt on the tenant and actually sign them to the lease, at which point you have no legal right to watch them or the property night and day. You must respect that the property is their home for the duration of the tenancy, and that they have a legal right to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of the property.

If you do not wish to place some trust in the tenant and respect their right to privacy then do not get involved with letting property. You sound far too paranoid and its not fair on your tenants (who could be and probably are perfectly good tenants) that you should treat them with such a level of distrust.

i agree with some of what you say about privacy etc. but i do not like taking "punts" as you call it.
i see nothing wrong with an initial period (first 6 months) of "observation" until the tenants have proven themselves to be reliable. to do otherwise is irresponsible imo.
also cultivate good relations with neighbours, give them your mobile number and ask them to report any suspicious coming and goings, any anti-social or problematic behaviour.
that way the neighbours will act as your eyes and ears.
there's nothing paranoid about this. it just good common sense.

finally use any and every excuse to call to the property. with your tenant's permission of course!

djimi

I dont mean taking a punt in the sense of a gamble; what I mean is that there are only so many checks etc that you can run before you have to just decide one way or another on a tenant. Once you make up your mind to go with a tenant then you have to put a certain amount of trust in them.

Theres also nothing wrong with having the neighbours on your side (in reality they will be on to you if there are any problems either way), but the way you are talking youd swear you have a commando team on a 24/7 stakeout...

Maybe you just come across more paranoid than you acually mean to but it sounds like you want to have far too much of a grip on the property. You have no right to use every and any excuse to call to the property; in reality the tenant should not see you from one of the lease to the other unless there is an emergency or for the very occasional organized inspection (no more than once a year is acceptable in my eyes), and as a tenant if my landlord was around any more than once uninvited during the tenancy then I would start to get very annoyed. You either trust the tenant or you dont; if you dont want to trust them and are prepared to invade their personal privacy in the property repeatedly then you really have no business renting out property.

Marcusm

murphaph wrote: »

Unfortunately the law says that the tenant is basically the owner of the property during the tenancy so they are not breaking any laws by smashing the toilet up!

It's strictly a civil matter and the law is such a joke, your friend would be throwing good money after bad trying to recoup anything from these erm, "people".

On what planet do you live? They do not have permission to cause property damage merely because they ave rented the property. If the damage appears deliberate, intentional or reckless the person committing the damage may be guilty of an offence under s2(1) Criminal Damage Act 1991. Section 12(3) od that Act permits a civilian to arrest a person in respect of criminal damage and I think a non lawyer may seek to prosecute for this offence.

Of course, this will never happen.

murphaph

Marcusm wrote: »

On what planet do you live? They do not have permission to cause property damage merely because they ave rented the property. If the damage appears deliberate, intentional or reckless the person committing the damage may be guilty of an offence under s2(1) Criminal Damage Act 1991. Section 12(3) od that Act permits a civilian to arrest a person in respect of criminal damage and I think a non lawyer may seek to prosecute for this offence.

Of course, this will never happen.

Why has nobody I know ever had the Gardai follow up on complaints of criminal damage in rental accommodation? I had the Guards down at some commercial property we rent out which was damaged by a tenant during a stand off over the ESB meter. The Guards said they accepted the tenant had deliberately broken (expensive) locks belonging to us, but that it was a civil matter. I've never heard of any tenant being prosecuted for criminal damage to a property they were renting tbh. Have you?

goodie2shoes

murphaph wrote: »

Why has nobody I know ever had the Gardai follow up on complaints of criminal damage in rental accommodation? I had the Guards down at some commercial property we rent out which was damaged by a tenant during a stand off over the ESB meter. The Guards said they accepted the tenant had deliberately broken (expensive) locks belonging to us, but that it was a civil matter. I've never heard of any tenant being prosecuted for criminal damage to a property they were renting tbh. Have you?

you're right the gaurds wont bother with this. they're too busy protecting their fat allowances for turning up, but that's a different thread ....

you're only option is a civil prosecution for damages. good luck with that.
otherwise put it down to being an expensive lesson and move on.

Marcusm

murphaph wrote: »

Why has nobody I know ever had the Gardai follow up on complaints of criminal damage in rental accommodation? I had the Guards down at some commercial property we rent out which was damaged by a tenant during a stand off over the ESB meter. The Guards said they accepted the tenant had deliberately broken (expensive) locks belonging to us, but that it was a civil matter. I've never heard of any tenant being prosecuted for criminal damage to a property they were renting tbh. Have you?

No personal experience and I doubt any have. What you have described is certainly a criminal matter (as is the OP's example) although in your case it is likely the ESB's property which has suffered the damage. The likelihood of the guards getting on an prosecuting I bet will depend on(1) how persistent you are, (2) whether you have personal contacts with a senior guard or (3) if the other person is "known" to them.

Follow this link for a description of the complaint and summons procedure.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/summons.html

Milk & Honey

Marcusm wrote: »

On what planet do you live? They do not have permission to cause property damage merely because they ave rented the property. If the damage appears deliberate, intentional or reckless the person committing the damage may be guilty of an offence under s2(1) Criminal Damage Act 1991. Section 12(3) od that Act permits a civilian to arrest a person in respect of criminal damage and I think a non lawyer may seek to prosecute for this offence.

Of course, this will never happen.

What planet do you live on?

2) Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person—

( a ) having lawful custody or control of it,
( b ) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest), or
( c ) having a charge over it.(1)

A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

the tenant has lawful custody and control of the property.
The offence is only made out when the property belongs to another.
It is a civil matter if a tenant damages property over which he has lawful custody or control.

Marcusm

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What planet do you live on?

2) Property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as belonging to any person—

( a ) having lawful custody or control of it,
( b ) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest), or
( c ) having a charge over it.(1)

A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

the tenant has lawful custody and control of the property.
The offence is only made out when the property belongs to another.
It is a civil matter if a tenant damages property over which he has lawful custody or control.

I agree I shouldn't use hyperbole! I don't think, however, that the tenant would get out by claiming it belongs to him as that deeming provision does not go ao far as to deem it not to belong to another person. Inter alia, this is why co-owners can be prosecuted. The. UK CPS guidelines on the identical law make it clear that just because it "belongs" to the damager does not preclude a prosecution under subsection 1 where the belonging condition is satisfied for another party (eg a mortgagee even in the absence of an intent to defraud). Tenants in the UK seem to have, occasionally, been jailed for criminal damage to rented property (in extreme cases). I think it should be extreme before it should be considered but a deposit/civil sanction is not sufficient for extreme damage or cases of malice (ie beyond recklessness).

I can't see this ever happening

murphaph

CPS guidelines are obviously meaningless to the DPP Marcus.

Are you a solicitor or something? No offence, but I'm sick of the legal profession harping on about equity and the law this and that. The law in Ireland is mostly there to keep legal types in work as far as I can see and is not really concerned with equity at all.

It is like pulling teeth having to engage in it.

As I said, the tenant is basically the owner during a tenancy. That fact alone (whether or not UK courts take a different view) seems enough to ensure you will NEVER get a tenant convicted of criminal damages in an Irish court. Case closed.

Milk & Honey

This is not the UK. The Irish Constitution requires that criminal statutes be construed with all ambiguities resolved in favour of the Defendant. The landlord has no right to the property while the tenant is in possession.
Even in the UK prosecutions are only in extreme cases where it is possible to prove malice. Any question of the innocence of the tenant i.e. the damage was accidental or caused by third parties outside of his control would have to be negatived by the prosecution.
Not surprisingly the guards and the Dpp are not going to put resources into prosecutions for criminal damage against tenants or former tenants.

darrcow

no rent allowance i find this comment disgusting. im on rent allowance for the last 2 years and rented our property for the last 6 years. we are moving into a new house next week. the house we rent now is being left in a better condition than when we moved in. so all people on rent allowance are not scum. i suppose landlords shouldnt rent to me as im english, because years ago the english f**ked the irish nation over. or maybe dont rent to blacks because there ancestors might have been slaves

Marcusm

murphaph wrote: »

CPS guidelines are obviously meaningless to the DPP Marcus.

Are you a solicitor or something? No offence, but I'm sick of the legal profession harping on about equity and the law this and that. The law in Ireland is mostly there to keep legal types in work as far as I can see and is not really concerned with equity at all.

It is like pulling teeth having to engage in it.

As I said, the tenant is basically the owner during a tenancy. That fact alone (whether or not UK courts take a different view) seems enough to ensure you will NEVER get a tenant convicted of criminal damages in an Irish court. Case closed.

I fully agree that in the absence of the three factors I cited above it is highly unlikely that the OP could get the guards to take a case which is why I showed him the pathway towards taking a criminal case himself. It sounds like the OP wants justice (or perhaps retribution is a tester word) and he could try fr a private prosecution which would certainly discommode the person who caused the damage. Again, I provide information,nothing else.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

This is not the UK. The Irish Constitution requires that criminal statutes be construed with all ambiguities resolved in favour of the Defendant. The landlord has no right to the property while the tenant is in possession.
Even in the UK prosecutions are only in extreme cases where it is possible to prove malice. Any question of the innocence of the tenant i.e. the damage was accidental or caused by third parties outside of his control would have to be negatived by the prosecution.
Not surprisingly the guards and the Dpp are not going to put resources into prosecutions for criminal damage against tenants or former tenants.

I am not a lawyer.

The reason for citing the UK was to show that law with identical language didn't have the effect you've suggested; Ireland and the UK have similar principles (not identical) on means of construing aws and tese have developed thryvh the courts. Bunreacht na hEireann does not contain any guidance on statutory construction (unless you know of articles with which I am unfamiliar) but it does invoke protection against unjust attacks on property rights.

As you'll see from my posts, I do not believe the guards or any ther prosecuting authority will take it forward absent special circumstances but this does not preclude the OP doing so via the criminal jurisdiction of the DC.

I think the country needs fewer arsehole landlords and fewer arsehole tenants, if that requires court action, so be it.

dahamsta

I pity goodie2shoes' tenants.

murphaph

Marcusm wrote: »

I think the country needs fewer arsehole landlords and fewer arsehole tenants

Amen to that anyway!

Unfortunately bad landlords and tenants can't be publicly outed anywhere for fear of slander or defamation or whatever. I'd love if I, as a landlord, could quickly check if a prospective tenant is an arsehole and I'm sure tenants would love the opposite, but there is no list of wrongdoers anywhere

It would cut out 90% of the messing overnight if you could check what your prospective landlord/tenant was like. The PRTB should be doing this, but they are gimps.

(speaking of which, sent an online query to them about 6 weeks ago asking how to renew tenancy online when I couldn't find the original (which they had never uploaded!) and got a response yesterday to say "sorry we're only getting back to you now, we see you have managed to resolve your problem, goodbye". Hard to believe this crowd are still there-utterly useless.)

murphaph

dahamsta wrote: »

I pity goodie2shoes' tenants.

I don't know, better a landlord who cares about their property than one who doesn't? I presume his/her tenants stay with him/her or goodie2shoes would have changed their system by now. If tenants are staying, maybe they're happy.

ted1

goodie2shoes wrote: »

RULES FOR HAPPY LETTING

Never accept SW tenants
Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight

What's wrong with sw tenants?
This is my target, single.mum with 2 kids. I know the ra they are entitled too. I know they will always have it and won't have to worry about them losing there jobs.

Some tenants do leave it last minute. I prefer someone who can move in straight away as it leaves the property less empty.

As for you comment about reminding them they don't own the house, that too is nonsense. I encourage them.to think of it as there's. That way they will treat it better and be less likely to move.

The_Conductor

Guys- the vitriol behind statements in this thread are vile.
There is nothing inherently wrong with most landlords.
There is nothing inherently wrong with social welfare tenants.
People's experiences do not entitle them to tar entire groups of people based on their experiences.

Edellc and goodie2shoes- behave.

Milk & Honey

Marcusm wrote: »

I fully agree that in the absence of the three factors I cited above it is highly unlikely that the OP could get the guards to take a case which is why I showed him the pathway towards taking a criminal case himself. It sounds like the OP wants justice (or perhaps retribution is a tester word) and he could try fr a private prosecution which would certainly discommode the person who caused the damage. Again, I provide information,nothing else.



I am not a lawyer.

The reason for citing the UK was to show that law with identical language didn't have the effect you've suggested; Ireland and the UK have similar principles (not identical) on means of construing aws and tese have developed thryvh the courts. Bunreacht na hEireann does not contain any guidance on statutory construction (unless you know of articles with which I am unfamiliar) but it does invoke protection against unjust attacks on property rights.

As you'll see from my posts, I do not believe the guards or any ther prosecuting authority will take it forward absent special circumstances but this does not preclude the OP doing so via the criminal jurisdiction of the DC.

I think the country needs fewer arsehole landlords and fewer arsehole tenants, if that requires court action, so be it.

The consent of the DPP is needed to try criminal damage in the District Court.

another question

goodie2shoes wrote: »

RULES FOR HAPPY LETTING

Never accept SW tenants.
Never accept tenants who hand you cash.
Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away..
Never accept tenants who are overly conscious of their rights.
Always insist on at least 2 months deposit.
Always interview all prospective tenants.
Google their names, especially using search words such as "charged", "convicted", "court", "gardai"
Check out their FB page. Look for pics of house-parties.
Always call to their place of work.
Always insist on references.
Ascertain their previous 3 tenancies and check with previous landlords.
Check all references.
Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated.
Observe your property, or have a neighbour do so.

What's wrong with people on SW, that is discrimination and furthermore, have you your head stuck in a hole? Because 'people on sw' count as a big portion of the population at the moment and there are as entitled to rent as anyone else and it is an insult to suggest the 'people on sw' make for bad tenants.

Ray Palmer

another question wrote: »

What's wrong with people on SW, that is discrimination and furthermore, have you your head stuck in a hole? Because 'people on sw' count as a big portion of the population at the moment and there are as entitled to rent as anyone else and it is an insult to suggest the 'people on sw' make for bad tenants.

It isn't discrimination unless inability to pay is discrimination.
As a portion of the population it isn't actually big.
As a LL I can say not all SW tenants are bad but there is a higher amount that is troublesome. This is a reality not an insult and to ignore it as a LL you are increasing your risk. Why should they take the risk? They are entitled to rent just as anybody else but the choice is up to the LL.

StillWaters

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It isn't discrimination unless inability to pay is discrimination.
As a portion of the population it isn't actually big.
As a LL I can say not all SW tenants are bad but there is a higher amount that is troublesome. This is a reality not an insult and to ignore it as a LL you are increasing your risk. Why should they take the risk? They are entitled to rent just as anybody else but the choice is up to the LL.

Also it leaves the LL at the whim of the government. RA is only going down, so it makes little sense to take tenants who are going to be asking for a rent cut within 12 months.

ABajaninCork

darrcow wrote: »

no rent allowance i find this comment disgusting. im on rent allowance for the last 2 years and rented our property for the last 6 years. we are moving into a new house next week. the house we rent now is being left in a better condition than when we moved in. so all people on rent allowance are not scum. i suppose landlords shouldnt rent to me as im english, because years ago the english f**ked the irish nation over. or maybe dont rent to blacks because there ancestors might have been slaves

That's me ******* then! I am English, on RA AND the descendant of slaves!!:D

goat2

goodie2shoes wrote: »

RULES FOR HAPPY LETTING

Never accept SW tenants.
Never accept tenants who hand you cash.
Never accept tenants who are anxious to move in straight away..
Never accept tenants who are overly conscious of their rights.
Always insist on at least 2 months deposit.
Always interview all prospective tenants.
Google their names, especially using search words such as "charged", "convicted", "court", "gardai"
Check out their FB page. Look for pics of house-parties.
Always call to their place of work.
Always insist on references.
Ascertain their previous 3 tenancies and check with previous landlords.
Check all references.
Call unexpectedly to see how your property is being treated.
Observe your property, or have a neighbour do so.

i see nothing wrong with people on sw, so many people these days who cannot help being out of work,
i like tenants who know their rights, they then know the landlords rights.
not everyone has a deposit of two months and then a month in advance,
in an intervies or meeting and if you sit with them for long enough you can judge,
checking with previous landlords can be iffy, sometimes landlords can be wrong, but yes contacting them is fine to find out if these people kept up payments and let their property in the way it was given anong with not annoying neighbours with loud music and lots of parties during late nights early morning.
if you spent enough time at intervies and gotten good references, why have someone stalk the house that these people rent or ask a neighbour become a stalker