Eviction of tenant

djh2009

Worst case scenario please. Can anyone tell me roughly from start to finish how long it might take to go through the whole court process of evicting a tenant who has been served a valid Termination Notice but who just refuses to move.

Pkiernan

djh2009 wrote: »

Worst case scenario please. Can anyone tell me roughly from start to finish how long it might take to go through the whole court process of evicting a tenant who has been served a valid Termination Notice but who just refuses to move.

12 to 18 months worst case.

The tenant may or may not continue paying rent as well.

djh2009

Pkiernan wrote: »

12 to 18 months worst case.

The tenant may or may not continue paying rent as well.

Thanks for that. Do you have direct experience of same in Ireland ?

Pkiernan

Tenant in Dublin was only paying 80% of the rent.

He ignored all letters (14 days arrears and 28 days to terminate tenancy) and eventually refused to sign for and registered mail.

Fortunately for me he just left one day and never came back, just leaving a text that I could keep his deposit. He left in arrears of €2500+ and of course left the place damaged and dirty.

PTRB is worse than useless. They force decent LL's to pay a registration fee, and do nothing to help when a dirtbag tenant won't pay his rent.

Villa05

Amazing how everything is done (using renters tax money) for the person who wont pay the mortgage, while a tenant paying 80% of the rent is kicked out at the first available opportunity.

I guess we have learned nothing from our history with landlords.

If we can throw out the tenant for paying the vast majority of the rent, surely we can throw out the 45,000 landlords who are not paying their full mortgage and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the shortfall.

If this happened as it does in every other sane market, prices and rents would probably drop to the 80% this particular tenant can appear to afford. In effect his taxes are being used to keep his rent inflated

athtrasna

If the landlord could afford to only charge 80% of the rent I'm sure they would have. Sounds to me like tenant was on RA and not paying their own portion. Thus breaking a legal contract they signed and defrauding the state (RA is paid on the basis that the tenant pays a portion of the rent)

leeomurchu

Villa05 wrote: »

Amazing how everything is done (using renters tax money) for the person who wont pay the mortgage, while a tenant paying 80% of the rent is kicked out at the first available opportunity.

I guess we have learned nothing from our history with landlords.

If we can throw out the tenant for paying the vast majority of the rent, surely we can throw out the 45,000 landlords who are not paying their full mortgage and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the shortfall.

If this happened as it does in every other sane market, prices and rents would probably drop to the 80% this particular tenant can appear to afford. In effect his taxes are being used to keep his rent inflated

That sounds entirely logical :rolleyes:

He signed an agreement and I'm sure was fully aware of the date/amount of rent due.

If he can't pay it of course LL is within is rights to evict him. Why should the LL have to make up the shortfall.

Op how much was the deposit he left you with?

Pkiernan

Pkiernan wrote: »

Tenant in Dublin was only paying 80% of the rent.

He ignored all letters (14 days arrears and 28 days to terminate tenancy) and eventually refused to sign for and registered mail.

Fortunately for me he just left one day and never came back, just leaving a text that I could keep his deposit. He left in arrears of €2500+ and of course left the place damaged and dirty.

PTRB is worse than useless. They force decent LL's to pay a registration fee, and do nothing to help when a dirtbag tenant won't pay his rent.

Your location says you are in Arizona - maybe he was deducting withholding tax?

Villa05

athtrasna wrote: »

If the landlord could afford to only charge 80% of the rent I'm sure they would have. Sounds to me like tenant was on RA and not paying their own portion. Thus breaking a legal contract they signed and defrauding the state (RA is paid on the basis that the tenant pays a portion of the rent)

So in 2 posts a renter who was paying 80% of the rent has been described as a "dirtbag" and a "fraudster".

Imagine if a bank described its mortgage customers who were not fulfilling their end of the contract in the same terms.

If the 45,000 defaulting BTL mortgages were repossessed and sold. Prices and rents would collapse and our friendly renter paying the current 80% would have no problem meeting the true rental price, not the existing government supported inflated price.

Who is the real fraudster?

Villa05

leeomurchu wrote: »

That sounds entirely logical :rolleyes:

He signed an agreement and I'm sure was fully aware of the date/amount of rent due.

If he can't pay it of course LL is within is rights to evict him. Why should the LL have to make up the shortfall.

Fair enough, so did all the mortgage holders in arrears, why should the taxpayers makeup the difference. If you are not paying move out and find a place more affordable.

As stated if this happened house prices and rents will collapse meaning everyone will have cheaper housing and our friend paying 80% of current rent will be getting change back from the future rent.

Is this not an ideal scenario considering taxes have to be increased to deal with the disaster caused by Irish peoples obsession with property?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Villa05 wrote: »

Fair enough, so did all the mortgage holders in arrears, why should the taxpayers makeup the difference. If you are not paying move out and find a place more affordable.

As stated if this happened house prices and rents will collapse meaning everyone will have cheaper housing and our friend paying 80% of current rent will be getting change back from the future rent.

Is this not an ideal scenario considering taxes have to be increased to deal with the disaster caused by Irish peoples obsession with property?

What the hell does any of that have to do with this case or the original post?

Your stance is ludicrous, by that theory I should go into Sony today and pick out a TV, tell them I only have 80% of the price of it so that's the price they'll need to sell me it at.
That'll be grand then, looking forward to my TV later.

leeomurchu

Villa05 wrote: »

Fair enough, so did all the mortgage holders in arrears, why should the taxpayers makeup the difference. If you are not paying move out and find a place more affordable.

As stated if this happened house prices and rents will collapse meaning everyone will have cheaper housing and our friend paying 80% of current rent will be getting change back from the future rent.

Is this not an ideal scenario considering taxes have to be increased to deal with the disaster caused by Irish peoples obsession with property?

Do you honestly think that if those in arrears in their mortgage with houses they can't afford want to be in that position? :eek:

Of course if they could up sticks to a more affordable position they would.

As for the tax payer bearing the burden of mortgage arrears you may want to dig a lil deeper on that I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of residential arrears is minuscule compared to failed investments, failed commercial ventures not to mention the failings of a previous government and our present one that seems to thing it makes sense to pay unsecured bonds on a failed bank.

In this case the tennant buggered off knowing he'd have no burden to bear and would more than likely be fixed up with another house.

As another poster suggested he's more than like receiving a rent allowance so would he not be more of a burden on the tax payer?

I pay my taxes and I am more than willing to help out any person that is in difficulty in the times that are in it. My arguement would be that our taxes are not apportioned to the right depts and far to much of our taxes are squandered by our government.

In any case that'd be moving away form the original post.

Scortho

Villa05 wrote: »

Amazing how everything is done (using renters tax money) for the person who wont pay the mortgage, while a tenant paying 80% of the rent is kicked out at the first available opportunity.

I guess we have learned nothing from our history with landlords.

If we can throw out the tenant for paying the vast majority of the rent, surely we can throw out the 45,000 landlords who are not paying their full mortgage and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the shortfall.

If this happened as it does in every other sane market, prices and rents would probably drop to the 80% this particular tenant can appear to afford. In effect his taxes are being used to keep his rent inflated

If a tenant takes it upon himself not to pay the full rent and I can rent it out to someone else at the full rent or higher, then why wouldn't I? He's broke his contract, not me.
However if the rent in the area had fallen to 80% of the original amount, I'd consider letting him to continue rent there, so long as he was paying on time. But if I can rent it out higher, then why not?

On the issue of btl landlords who are in arrears, yes they should be repossessed and the properties sold to the highest bidder! I don't know if it'd bring down rents substantially however, as most if not all of these properties would be rented anyway. Well in dublin at least.

Op to answer your question it can take over a year. Hopefully it doesn't as it's an awful situation to put any LL into. I hope it works out ok for you.

djimi

Villa05 wrote: »

Amazing how everything is done (using renters tax money) for the person who wont pay the mortgage, while a tenant paying 80% of the rent is kicked out at the first available opportunity.

I guess we have learned nothing from our history with landlords.

If we can throw out the tenant for paying the vast majority of the rent, surely we can throw out the 45,000 landlords who are not paying their full mortgage and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the shortfall.

If this happened as it does in every other sane market, prices and rents would probably drop to the 80% this particular tenant can appear to afford. In effect his taxes are being used to keep his rent inflated

World of difference between a landlord replacing a tenant and a bank repossessing and trying to sell a house that is almost certainly in NE. Im sure if the banks thought that they could repossess and sell quickly at no loss or even a profit then they would be far quicker to act.

goat2

is the person alone in the house, you are not giving us much information,
has the person got an illness in the last while which would have effected their income,
does the person have a partner with them,
does the person have a child,

do the person give a reason as to why they cannot pay,
how long is this person living at the property, and when did things start go downhill when it came to payment,
what reason does the person give for not leaving the premises,
you have told us very little.
it is hard to give an answer if we dont know the details.

Villa05

Tenant does not abide by the contract - there out
Mortgage holder does not abide by the contract - there out

I would suspect there are far more defaulting Landlords than there are defaulting tenants and I as a renter will not label a landlord a "dirtbag" or a "fraudster" because they found themselves in such a situation

My post is about equality or more to the point the lack off

Banks are not foreclosing because the taxpayer is backing them up, those banks not covered by the guarantee are foreclosing and getting the hell out. This has been a factor in 50% + fall in prices, Imagine if the main banks had to do the same

djimi

Villa05 wrote: »

Tenant does not abide by the contract - there out
Mortgage holder does not agree to contract - there out

I would suspect there are far more defaulting Landlords than there are defaulting tenants and I as a renter will not label a landlord a "dirtbag" or a "fraudster" because they found themselves in such a situation

My post is about equality or more to the point the lack off

Banks are not foreclosing because the taxpayer is backing them up, those banks not covered by the guarantee are foreclosing and getting the hell out. This has been a factor in 50% + fall in prices, Imagine if the main banks had to do the same

Banks are not foreclosing because to do so is going to cost them money, never mind time and effort that they dont want when they have to sell a house that they have repossessed.

Youre not comparing like with like.

whippet

goat2 wrote: »

is the person alone in the house, you are not giving us much information,
has the person got an illness in the last while which would have effected their income,
does the person have a partner with them,
does the person have a child,

do the person give a reason as to why they cannot pay,
how long is this person living at the property, and when did things start go downhill when it came to payment,
what reason does the person give for not leaving the premises,
you have told us very little.
it is hard to give an answer if we dont know the details.

actually all the above is totally irrelavant to the OP's question. I have been though the process from a LL point of view and it is painful.

Landlords have zero rights in this country - the PRTB which is funded by the LL is totally pro-tenant and the process takes for ever. As this tenant is refusing to fulfil his side of the contract you have no legal recourse except to refer the matter to the PRTB - where you will get a hearing in about 8 weeks, they will probably rule in your favour which will be meaningless as if the tenant decides to stay you will have to go through the court process (at your own expense) which could take about 12 months. All the while not getting a penny from the tenant who has free accommodation.

I would caution you to ensure that you follow the process religiously with regards to notice of terminiation etc .. as should you make one false move or miss a step the PRTB will probably rule in favour of the tenant accusing you of either an illegal eviction of failing to allow the person in arrears enjoy exclusive use of the property .. landing you with a five figure compensation claim.