Landlords from hell

Zulu

keithclancy wrote: »

If you've ever dealt with the PRTB then you'd know that those rights are hardly ever enforced in a proper manner.

Its the people that follow the process usually get screwed over and the ones that pretty much ignore all the rules get what they want in the end.

That cuts both ways. Try, as a landlord, evicting a tenant that refuses to pay rent, and see how you get on. The PRTB are an appalling waste of money & resources.

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

She is facilitating his tax fraud - that's probably why it is cheap. She doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

What do you mean she doesn't have a leg to stand on

His tax affairs are neither her liability nor responsibility; she's not 'looking for' a leg to stand on with the exception of her statutory rights under the Residential Tenancies legislation; i.e. potentially breaking the tenancy, which for now she chooses not to do, a right derived from the landlord's inability to provide her with peaceful & exclusive occupation of her flat.

Not really sure what you're talking about frankly.

Wade in the Sea

The perfect tennant/landlord relationship is one where there is no contact between either party.

I never had a problem in years of renting except in one case when I was too young to know better. The land"lady" was a horrible fat snob of a woman. The old Mare kept our deposit even though the place was as good as when I moved in, even cleaner! I learned then if the place isn't 100%...... take photographs when you move in!

I suspect she'll be well dead now. Ha! Probably died alone. Her husband would have left her, like her kids, by then. Probably something nasty that would have taken a few days to kill her. Oh at first she tried calling out but eventually she realised no one was coming.

As she lay, in agony, unable to even move out of her own filth and vomit she'll have been wondering.... What was it all for? What use was the money now, all alone in the end, in the dark. When the firebrigade eventually broke down the door they needed to use gas masks for the smell. It was only the bank that noticed she was missing weeks later. There was no open coffin as the undertaker couldn't do anything with what the rats left.

Anyway that was a long long time ago and I am over it now.

Hank Scorpio

Wade in the Sea wrote: »

Anyway that was a long long time ago and I am over it now.

Why don't you tell us how your really feel? :pac:

keithclancy

Zulu wrote: »

That cuts both ways. Try, as a landlord, evicting a tenant that refuses to pay rent, and see how you get on. The PRTB are an appalling waste of money & resources.

I completely agree, just merely pointing out that the PRTB are a waste of space.

On the other side of it, over here if you just move you without paying rent in lieu of your deposit, the landlord can pursue you for that money plus any other costs quite easily and its taken directly from your wages.

WoollyRedHat

Wade in the Sea wrote: »

The perfect tennant/landlord relationship is one where there is no contact between either party.

I never had a problem in years of renting except in one case when I was too young to know better. The land"lady" was a horrible fat snob of a woman. The old Mare kept our deposit even though the place was as good as when I moved in, even cleaner! I learned then if the place isn't 100%...... take photographs when you move in!

I suspect she'll be well dead now. Ha! Probably died alone. Her husband would have left her, like her kids, by then. Probably something nasty that would have taken a few days to kill her. Oh at first she tried calling out but eventually she realised no one was coming.

As she lay, in agony, unable to even move out of her own filth and vomit she'll have been wondering.... What was it all for? What use was the money now, all alone in the end, in the dark. When the firebrigade eventually broke down the door they needed to use gas masks for the smell. It was only the bank that noticed she was missing weeks later. There was no open coffin as the undertaker couldn't do anything with what the rats left.

Anyway that was a long long time ago and I am over it now.

When's the novel coming out? " My Fair Landlady" ballads and betrayal, a fiery and complicate love affair, that ended sour, spurned on by jealously and despair, a tale of love and lettings, ended by tragedy.

Jo King

OSI wrote: »

Soooo, if the Norwegians had better tenancy laws, should we not apsire to those either just because the Vikings made a mess of hundreds of years ago?

We should have the tenancy laws we want for ourselves, not wait for some other jurisdiction to show us how it is done. That mentality should have gone with the departure of Her Majesty's troops in 1922-1923.

keithclancy

Jo King wrote: »

We should have the tenancy laws we want for ourselves, not wait for some other jurisdiction to show us how it is done. That mentality should have gone with the departure of Her Majesty's troops in 1922-1923.

If someone else does it well you should just copy them rather than try to re-invent the wheel.

Jo King

keithclancy wrote: »

If someone else does it well you should just copy them rather than try to re-invent the wheel.

Tenancy laws, like any laws, have to suit a culture. Just because something is working somewhere else does not mean it would work here.

Monty Burnz

later12 wrote: »

What do you mean she doesn't have a leg to stand on

His tax affairs are neither her liability nor responsibility; she's not 'looking for' a leg to stand on with the exception of her statutory rights under the Residential Tenancies legislation; i.e. potentially breaking the tenancy, which for now she chooses not to do, a right derived from the landlord's inability to provide her with peaceful & exclusive occupation of her flat.

Not really sure what you're talking about frankly.

She is putting up with the antics of the landlord because the place is cheap. The place is cheap because the landlord is probably not paying tax. Her complaints ring a bit hollow if she is too happy there to bother moving.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

That cuts both ways. Try, as a landlord, evicting a tenant that refuses to pay rent, and see how you get on. The PRTB are an appalling waste of money & resources.

There's a shocking lack of protection for landlords. This is the other side of the rental market and it has been completely ignored because nobody likes those mean old landlords.

Of course the more protections that landlords have, the more people will be tempted to let out property, and tempted to let out property in better condition: net result - lower rent and better standards of property for tenants. Win-win.

Topper Harley

Wade in the Sea wrote: »

The perfect tennant/landlord relationship is one where there is no contact between either party.

I never had a problem in years of renting except in one case when I was too young to know better. The land"lady" was a horrible fat snob of a woman. The old Mare kept our deposit even though the place was as good as when I moved in, even cleaner! I learned then if the place isn't 100%...... take photographs when you move in!

I suspect she'll be well dead now. Ha! Probably died alone. Her husband would have left her, like her kids, by then. Probably something nasty that would have taken a few days to kill her. Oh at first she tried calling out but eventually she realised no one was coming.

As she lay, in agony, unable to even move out of her own filth and vomit she'll have been wondering.... What was it all for? What use was the money now, all alone in the end, in the dark. When the firebrigade eventually broke down the door they needed to use gas masks for the smell. It was only the bank that noticed she was missing weeks later. There was no open coffin as the undertaker couldn't do anything with what the rats left.

Anyway that was a long long time ago and I am over it now.

Yeah, sure you are.

HavingCrack

Jo King wrote: »

We should have the tenancy laws we want for ourselves, not wait for some other jurisdiction to show us how it is done. That mentality should have gone with the departure of Her Majesty's troops in 1922-1923.

Funny how someone mentioned Norwegian tenancy laws and you still managed to bring the UK into it.

Courtesy Flush

A number of landlords l have dealt with wanted to be paid in cash only. One guy would call when l was at work so asked that l leave it under the sink for him. So many obvious tax dodgers in that game

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

She is putting up with the antics of the landlord because the place is cheap. The place is cheap because the landlord is probably not paying tax. Her complaints ring a bit hollow if she is too happy there to bother moving.

Her complaints are not about the complicity or othrwise of this man with tax authorities.
She's putting up with his invasion of her privacy because the place is cheap, but as I said she has been issuing warnings over his behaviour, saying don't expect her to overlook it if it continues.

How on Earth you conclude that she "doesn't have a leg to stand on" is, well, baffling really.

pickarooney

Vojera wrote: »

Herself and her husband were always trying to get excuses to get into the house when we weren't around. We always managed to have someone home. They also refused to get any professionals in to do any work needed around the house, resulting in the husband nearly killing us all with fumes by incorrectly repairing the oil burner.

- Hi, this is your landlady. Sorry to bother you but we really need to gain access to the house so a repairman can fix the oil burner before it blows up.
- A likely story!

Vojera

pickarooney wrote: »

- Hi, this is your landlady. Sorry to bother you but we really need to gain access to the house so a repairman can fix the oil burner before it blows up.
- A likely story!

The gas part about the oil burner was that it wasn't actually broken in the first place - they just decided that we needed a smaller nozzle to use less oil (which WE were paying for and so they had no idea how often we were filling the tank).

We had a wasps' nest in the attic that was three foot long, refused to get Rentokil etc out but decided instead to lay down a slow acting poison, which meant one of the girls had to move out for two weeks as she was deathly allergic to wasp stings. She still had to pay rent, though, even though they could have had it dealt with much more quickly.

Oh, things like "Oh, my husband was around cutting the grass and noticed the kitchen light was on, but there didn't seem to be anyone home so he just let himself in to turn it off..." GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!

Monty Burnz

later12 wrote: »

Her complaints are not about the complicity or othrwise of this man with tax authorities.

Thanks for clearing up a point that absolutely nobody was confused about.

Courtesy Flush

HavingCrack wrote: »

They provide a service, eg. somewhere to live, just like all services. Do you hold the same view of every service provider-eg, the hotelier, the publican, the restaurant owner, the builder etc. They all earn money by 'living off the sweat of someone elses 40 hours hard work a week". Every service you purchase comes via money you earned working. I don't see why landlords are there to be villified in a way everyone else isn't.

They are in it to make money, not 'provide a service' . I am not saying theres anything wrong with that but lets cut the bull****
I hate the way people come up with this ****e, just like banks and developers who were also 'providing a service' here for years

HavingCrack

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

They are in it to make money, not 'provide a service' . I am not saying theres anything wrong with that but lets cut the bull****
I hate the way people come up with this ****e, just like banks and developers who were also 'providing a service' here for years

Fine, I have no problem with calling it making money but that's what providing a service is. Saying that they're preying on the "sweat of a working week" is just stupid. Under that criteria anybody who ever sells you anything is just preying on your hard earned money.

toexpress

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

They are in it to make money, not 'provide a service' . I am not saying theres anything wrong with that but lets cut the bull****
I hate the way people come up with this ****e, just like banks and developers who were also 'providing a service' here for years

Right I am a landlord, I have never seen it as providing a service but here is what this boils down to when you rent a hotel room for the night you are buying a service from the service industry and it is similar when you rent house.

I certainly never claimed to be a landlord for the good of my health, god knows it wouldn't have a positive effect on your health much of the time. But to go on a rant over the fact, I mean seriously just stand and think about it from the landlords point of view for a minute.

I am fully aware that there are dodgy landlords out there but there are plenty of good ones who will look after decent tenants when we get them and it is down to a tenant to report the dodgy ones.

lounakin

toexpress wrote: »

Right I am a landlord, I have never seen it as providing a service but here is what this boils down to when you rent a hotel room for the night you are buying a service from the service industry and it is similar when you rent house.

I certainly never claimed to be a landlord for the good of my health, god knows it wouldn't have a positive effect on your health much of the time. But to go on a rant over the fact, I mean seriously just stand and think about it from the landlords point of view for a minute.

I am fully aware that there are dodgy landlords out there but there are plenty of good ones who will look after decent tenants when we get them and it is down to a tenant to report the dodgy ones.

I'm the original poster of the thread and I just want to point out that I cannot report my landlord as he is not breaking the law. He's just being an utter asshole. Example, when we called him about the broken dishwasher (he keeps giving us second hand ones and we've had 3 in 9 months) two weeks ago he answered and said straight away: 'I'm busy, I'll call you in a couple of days' before we even said anything. Then it took almost 15 days for the problem to get solved, we'd get an appointment time for his guy to come in and everyday it would get cancelled just before the time agreed. There is a clause about doing things in a timely manner but in this case he can prove he 'tried' everyday and simply couldn't. We all know he just didn't think our problem was urgent. That's just one tiny example. I can hardly report him for being an asshole.

toexpress

Right well to address the issue of the dishwasher firstly, I assume it is stated in the contents on the lease agreement that there is a dishwasher, and he is therefore obliged to provide you with one unless he makes a gesture of reducing the rent and telling you he does not intend to.

Obviously from what you are saying there are wider issues involved in this tenancy that mean it is not working terribly well. So the first thing you need to do is write to the landlord at the address provided on the lease agreement, I recommend doing this by registered post. In the letter you need to outline each grievance that you have with him and state clearly that you wish to have these issues resolved within a certain time frame. Seven days is usually acceptable.

If he ignores this approach then I would suggest referring the matter to the PRTB. Without a full list of your issues I can't fully advise but it sounds very much to me like you have a few small issues and he sees you a problem tenant that he wants to get rid of.

Cuddlesworth

You can change the locks without the landlords permission. Nothing they can do either, as long as you provide them with keys when your leaving and replace the lock with something similar or simply put back the originals at the end.

I've done it in every place I've rented. You have no idea who still has keys to your apartment when you move in. Depending on the landlord I would give them a set.

lounakin

toexpress wrote: »

Right well to address the issue of the dishwasher firstly, I assume it is stated in the contents on the lease agreement that there is a dishwasher, and he is therefore obliged to provide you with one unless he makes a gesture of reducing the rent and telling you he does not intend to.

Obviously from what you are saying there are wider issues involved in this tenancy that mean it is not working terribly well. So the first thing you need to do is write to the landlord at the address provided on the lease agreement, I recommend doing this by registered post. In the letter you need to outline each grievance that you have with him and state clearly that you wish to have these issues resolved within a certain time frame. Seven days is usually acceptable.

If he ignores this approach then I would suggest referring the matter to the PRTB. Without a full list of your issues I can't fully advise but it sounds very much to me like you have a few small issues and he sees you a problem tenant that he wants to get rid of.

I doubt he wants to get rid of us, we are perfect tenants apart from insisting we had our appliances fixed, and we've only moved in 9 months ago. Initially we even refused his offer and he went out of his way to make sure we got the place. He's got loads of rentals, I genuinely think he doesn't have standards and doesn't care as long as he gets his money. The grievance registered post letter is a good idea though, really good idea.

toexpress

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You can change the locks without the landlords permission. Nothing they can do either, as long as you provide them with keys when your leaving and replace the lock with something similar or simply put back the originals at the end.

I've done it in every place I've rented. You have no idea who still has keys to your apartment when you move in. Depending on the landlord I would give them a set.

Landlord is entitled to retain keys to the property for the duration of the tenancy. Where you got this idea is beyond me

Miguel_Sanchez

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You can change the locks without the landlords permission.

The vast majority of leases I've signed in my time have specifically stated that the tenant does not have permission to do this.

Zulu

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You can change the locks without the landlords permission. Nothing they can do either...

Wow.
First off: no you can't.

Secondly: they can deduct an "arbitrary" sum from your deposit - cost of locksmith, duplicate keys, damages to door frame, damage to door, paint etc..

As a landlord, I'd be disgusted if a tenant decided to change the locks without my permission. An action like that would set off all sorts of alarm bells, and make me very uncomfortable about their intentions.

Frankly, I would be eager to get them out, and I would definitely change the locks again after they moved deducting the cost from their deposit.

Thankfully I've never had such a problem.

Rasmus

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is actually. Ill send you a pm!

And me please!!

Rasmus

keithclancy wrote: »

Have been living out of Ireland now for 5 years and have rented in Germany and the Netherlands.

Always rented in Ireland, but tbh my overall experience of it was that it was pretty unprofessional.

The best landlord I had in Ireland was when I was living in Cork. I never saw her unless there was a problem with something in the apartment, she never came unannounced either.

Some landlord were gas, I was living in a place out in Bray for a year and when we were moving out the 'agency' (if you could call them that) gave us a deposit in the form of a cheque after they had inspected the place and confirmed everything was up to scratch (place was spotless)

We said we wanted cash as we paid in cash. They said the didn't keep cash and it was all in the bank :rolleyes:

We said that was fine, they could just write us a letter stating that the property was in a deposit refundable state and that the cheque would be honored.

They went away, then called on the mobile saying that they had thought about it and there was some wear and tear around the house that would need to be taken out of the deposit.

I said fine, we'll be staying in the house until you give us back our deposit. They threatened calling the Gardai etc, I said fine then please call the Gardai, they'll tell you its a Civil matter and won't do anything without a Court Order.

So anyway a Garda called to the door, said that if we didn't leave that he'd have to take action, I asked him if he had an order from the court to do this, he said "Don't you get smart with me sonny jim"

I said where are you stationed

He said "That doesn't matter"

I took out my mobile and started to dial the local Garda station, he asked what I was doing. I said I was calling the Gardai because he hadn't identified who he was, what station he was operating from etc so as far as I was concerned he was a guy wearing a Garda uniform.

He became very flustered then, said that he was stationed down in Kildare and was doing a favor for X person in the Agency.

Then he scurried off to what what I assume was his car.

Got our deposit back a few days later.

Bloody cowboys.

That is insane - did you report them to the actual Gardai for impersonating one?

later12

Zulu wrote: »

Wow.
First off: no you can't.

Secondly: they can deduct an "arbitrary" sum from your deposit - cost of locksmith, duplicate keys, damages to door frame, damage to door, paint etc..

Absolutely not. Unless by putting "arbitrary" in inverted commas what you mean is in fact "not arbitrary at all"

The landlord must provide receipts establishing the cost of the repair work, and cannot charge for his own time or work; there is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it - including the magnitude of the repair work. He can only claim for what can be demonstrated as having been required to return any given furnishing or fixture to its original condition with due regard to wear and tear.

The PRTB are unlikely to entertain extravagant charges for replacing a simple door lock to the extent that it would substantially reduce someone's security deposit - in fact the landlord would probably need a good reason for not just accepting the tenants new keys instead of replacing anything.

However attitudes as per the above are precisely why the PRTB should be mandatorily holding deposits, and not landlords.

AeoNGriM

Jo King wrote: »

We should have the tenancy laws we want for ourselves, not wait for some other jurisdiction to show us how it is done. That mentality should have gone with the departure of Her Majesty's troops in 1922-1923.

Not sure if troll or just wearing Celtic jersey, can of Dutch Gold in left hand, John Player Blue in right, skoby stache on upper lip, dole slip in back pocket, 3 kids from 3 different mothers, no hope, no future, no clue.

Don't care either if you're posting sh!te like this.

:rolleyes:

Grudaire

Rasmus wrote: »

And me please!!

Can I get in on this as well?

Zulu

later12 wrote: »

Absolutely not. Unless by putting "arbitrary" in inverted commas what you mean is in fact "not arbitrary at all"

The reason I used inverted commas: you have just kicked off a dispute with the loandlord. They are fully entitled to remove said lock and replace it with their own, so...
Locksmith call out charge, lock & additional keys, repair of any damage = €x
Other boarderlline problems landlord finds (now you've lost any good will) = €y
I'd suggest that €x+y in this case can easily equate to a standard months rent.

...in fact the landlord would probably need a good reason for not just accepting the tenants new keys instead of replacing anything.

I doubt it. You've broken the lease, you've changed the security of the premises without notifying the landlord. Why should they have to accept what locks you've installed?
I certainly wouldn't entertain it; I wouldn't trust any tenant that did this.

later12

Zulu wrote: »

The reason I used inverted commas: you have just kicked off a dispute with the loandlord. They are fully entitled to remove said lock and replace it with their own, so...

Why? If it isn't required?

It still doesn't make sense as to why you've put "arbitrary" in inverted commas. Nothing arbitrary about receipts, and it seems unlikely that the example given would be accepted by the PRTB as a good reason for reducing the deposit in itself, unless there were some good reason as to why the tenant's new lock needed to be changed back again.

What you're suggesting doesn't make sense.

Zulu

later12 wrote: »

Why? If it isn't required?

Who determines if it's not required? You? Me? Certainly, I won't let a ex-tenant decide.

The purpose of a lock is security. If you (as a tenant) decide to change the locks without my permission, I would lose any trust in you. Therefore I wouldn't trust your intentions with keys etc., so I'd change the lock. Changing the lock would require that I get duplicate keys cut for myself (2 copies), a copy for the future tenants (2 copies), a copy for the management company in case of emergency. No problem getting receipts for that.

It still doesn't make sense as to why you've put "arbitrary" in inverted commas.

Whatever. You disagree; you think it's acceptable to change the locks on a landlord without first notifying them, that between you and your landlord.
As a landlord myself, I'm simply stating that it's not a good idea (for the reasons I've highlighted).

and it seems unlikely that the example given would be accepted by the PRTB as a good reason for reducing the deposit in itself, unless there were some good reason as to why the tenant's new lock needed to be changed back again.

Well, can you afford to pay a deposit on your next rental without your current deposit? If so, good for you, feel free to put your money where your mouth is. And maybe in a few months/year when the PRTB finally make a ruling, you'll get all your deposit back.

What you're suggesting doesn't make sense.

...to you perhaps. Look you think you're right - fair enough. Change the locks without the landlords permission, see how you get on.

Me? I'd be eager to get the tenants out, and they woudn't be getting the full deposit back. Simple.

lounakin

No way you can change the locks... for starters you might get a cheaper one and why would a landlord accept that?

ordinary_girl

I have yet to move out of home, and am planning to soon enough. One of my friends told me to avoid living in a house where there's a live-in landlord, I just want to see if this is the sort of advice you'd agree with?

Zulu

ordinary_girl wrote: »

I have yet to move out of home, and am planning to soon enough. One of my friends told me to avoid living in a house where there's a live-in landlord, I just want to see if this is the sort of advice you'd agree with?

Personally I wouldn't want to live with a Landlord, but each to their own.

Conall Cernach

ordinary_girl wrote: »

I have yet to move out of home, and am planning to soon enough. One of my friends told me to avoid living in a house where there's a live-in landlord, I just want to see if this is the sort of advice you'd agree with?

You would be mental to do that. They'd spend the whole time watching your every move in case you damaged something or were spending their rent money on drink etc.

Vojera

ordinary_girl wrote: »

I have yet to move out of home, and am planning to soon enough. One of my friends told me to avoid living in a house where there's a live-in landlord, I just want to see if this is the sort of advice you'd agree with?

I think it depends. Personally I know it's not for me but a few friends have done it and it worked out alright for them. They all said, though, that they always felt they were living in someone else's house and not their own. I wouldn't be comfortable like that but plenty do it. I think it depends on the landlord.

Zulu

...and what you can afford! People aren't paying a premium to live with a landlord.

pickarooney

It's perfectly acceptable, normal, advised even to change the locks when you move into a rented apartment in France. If a previous tenant decides to rob you using a key there's no comeback on the insurance, so it makes sense to do so. It's not surprising this logic doesn't apply in Ireland, though.

Aye Bosun

Conall Cernach wrote: »

You would be mental to do that. They'd spend the whole time watching your every move in case you damaged something or were spending their rent money on drink etc.

Don't be ridiculous, I'm a owner/occuiper and treat the place the same as I did with any house share I've live in, only difference between me and my housemate is that I pay the bills and he reburise me at the end of every 2 months. He's perfectly happy in our home and is not restricted in any manner.
It all depends on the person you're living with, trust me I've lived with some mentalist over the years in house share and I've lived with some lovely owner/occuipers too. It's all about finding the right fit for you and your needs, there are adventage and disadvantages to both private renting and owner/occuiper.

Zulu

@pickarooney

I think the key point here is "without the landlords permission". Changing the fixtures/fittings without the expressed permission of the landlord is unacceptable.

If a tenant approaches you and says they are concerned about security, would you consider changing the locks, you'd probably do it for them. Conversely, if you arrive to your property and your key no longer works because the lock has been changed, you are not going to be impressed (to put it mildly).

I'm aghast this comes as a surprise to some people.

Jo King

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—
(l) not alter or improve the dwelling without the written consent of the landlord which consent the landlord—

(i) in case the alteration or improvement consists only of repairing, painting and decorating, or any of those things, may not unreasonably withhold,

(ii) in any other case, may, in his or her discretion, withhold,17.—(1) In section 16 —

“alter or improve”, in relation to a dwelling, includes—

(a) alter a locking system on a door giving entry to the dwelling,

pickarooney

Zulu wrote: »

@pickarooney

I think the key point here is "without the landlords permission". Changing the fixtures/fittings without the expressed permission of the landlord is unacceptable.

If a tenant approaches you and says they are concerned about security, would you consider changing the locks, you'd probably do it for them. Conversely, if you arrive to your property and your key no longer works because the lock has been changed, you are not going to be impressed (to put it mildly).

I'm aghast this comes as a surprise to some people.

Here, there's no obligation to ask the landlord or inform him/her of the change. Also, the landlord is not allowed to keep a copy of the keys of a property he/she has rented out and of course is not allowed enter the premises without being invited in by the tenant. The mindset is very different between the two countries, I've noticed. In Ireland the property is still very much the landlord's during the lease whereas here the tenant is pretty much the proprietor for the duration.

The scenario you describe perfectly illustrates this - here, the landlord is no different to any Joe Soap wandering by. It would be totally inappropriate for him/her to put a key into a lock of a property where he/she is not the current tenant.

It's a significant cultural difference (along with the norm of rental properties being furnished in Ireland) and it would be interesting to know how the situation compares with other countries.

the_syco

later12 wrote: »

My sister is renting a property in Dublin where the landlord routinely enters without permission. He walked in on her last week while she was floating about in a bathtowel, apparently to do some work on the bathroom.

The landlord knows your sister is soft. Next time he does this, she should scream, run into the bedroom, lock the door, and ring the police. He won't be coming around without asking in future.

Jo King wrote: »

Tenancy laws, like any laws, have to suit a culture.

In which case the corrupt bastard laws we have fit our "celebrate the chancing ho'oer" culture.

later12 wrote: »

She's putting up with his invasion of her privacy because the place is cheap, but as I said she has been issuing warnings over his behaviour, saying don't expect her to overlook it if it continues.

He's probably laughing at all these warnings, as he's probably in no doubt that she'll never contact the authorities...

Vojera wrote: »

Oh, things like "Oh, my husband was around cutting the grass and noticed the kitchen light was on, but there didn't seem to be anyone home so he just let himself in to turn it off..." GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!

Jaysus. I'd leave the light on, and buns on the table filled with strong laxatives for the **** if someone kept coming into my house like that.

later12 wrote: »

Nothing arbitrary about receipts, and it seems unlikely that the example given would be accepted by the PRTB as a good reason for reducing the deposit in itself, unless there were some good reason as to why the tenant's new lock needed to be changed back again.

Simples; the landlord can just say that they don't have keys (and/or the keys they were given don't work) to enter into the house (after the tenant moved out), and only found this out on a Sunday morning. A locksmith on a Sunday morning would be pretty expensive.

=-=

Personally (after living in a student house where random people would walk into it), I'd demand the locks be changed when I moved into a house.

Retrovertigo

pickarooney wrote: »

Here, there's no obligation to ask the landlord or inform him/her of the change. Also, the landlord is not allowed to keep a copy of the keys of a property he/she has rented out and of course is not allowed enter the premises without being invited in by the tenant. .

So much bad information in this thread.

Of course a landlord will have a spare set of keys to his own property. You CANNOT change the locks on a property without his/hers consent. Truly is unreal that there are people that think otherwise.

pickarooney

Retrovertigo wrote: »

So much bad information in this thread.

Of course a landlord will have a spare set of keys to his own property. You CANNOT change the locks on a property without his/hers consent. Truly is unreal that there are people that think otherwise.

Here = France, as per my first post (and clearly implied by the rest of that one). Again, what seems logical to you would be antithetical to someone used to another system and vice versa.