Rent late - landlord over-reacting - what can I do?

djimi

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, things happen. However, rent (a roof over your head) would have to come pretty high in the list of priorities, would it not? However, even in such circumstances, there is no right to impose non-payment on a landlord who has his own bills to pay.

Im not sure youre getting my point. If you have no money then you have no money; it doesnt matter how high up the list of priorities rent might be. If your money is spent on (for example) urgent doctors visits or something of that nature (which could well be more of an urgent priority than rent), and there is no money in your account come rent day, then the landlord can kick and scream all he wants, but unless you have the ability to pull money out of your arse its not going to matter one iota!

Im not saying that its right not to be able to pay your rent. But sometimes these things happen. Its life; you have to deal with it. So long as its not an ongoing issue then there isnt one thing that the landlord can do about it without walking a fine line of breaking the law.

makeorbrake

djimi wrote: »

Im not sure youre getting my point. If you have no money then you have no money; it doesnt matter how high up the list of priorities rent might be. If your money is spent on (for example) urgent doctors visits or something of that nature (which could well be more of an urgent priority than rent), and there is no money in your account come rent day, then the landlord can kick and scream all he wants, but unless you have the ability to pull money out of your arse its not going to matter one iota!

Then that person needs to come to some sort of arrangement with the landlord (if two parties to such a scenario are pragmatic, you'd be amazed what solutions could be found). However, despite his plight, he has no right (morally) to stay in that property if the bill remains unpaid. That may seem callous - but a landlord is not to be used as some sort of financial punchbag. In that situation, the tenant needs to be looking at other options eg. an overdraft or loan, financial help from family or friends or moving in with family or friends as a temporary measure or whatever other option is deemed practical in their specific scenario.

I'm not sure if it's on this forum or another but I recall a thread where someone had lost their job, had concerns about paying rent and contemplated moving home. He was upfront with the landlord and the landlord (one would imagine seeing that he had a good honest decent tenant) offered to leave it rent free for a couple of months while that guy looked for work. Tenant subsequently got another job - and all resumed as before.
That's an example of a pragmatic approach - but you know there are scumbags out there also (be they landlord or tenant). You will also be aware that there are types out there that approach this with the premeditated intention of not paying the bill.
Clearly that pragmatic approach will not play out in terms of what the OP has described as either one or both of them is far from pragmatic. I would wager both - as there's no way this is about being only 2 days late with rent.

djimi

A solution like contacting the landlord to see if it is okay to pay the rent a couple of days late you mean?

Again I think youre overreacting to how serious (or not in this case) the sitation is. At face value its two days; for most people this would not be an issue, and provided the tenant informed the landlord and then actually paid the rent when they said they would it would not be an issue and nothing further would be made of it. All this talk of having no right to be in the property (when the law actually says otherwise), and talk of getting loans/overdrafts etc is massively excessive. For a one off situation anyway.

makeorbrake

djimi wrote: »

A solution like contacting the landlord to see if it is okay to pay the rent a couple of days late you mean?

We're going 'round the houses' now. The two days that the landlord agreed to - and thereafter major conflict erupted? Come on, there's more at play here than that.

djimi wrote: »

All this talk of having no right to be in the property (when the law actually says otherwise), and talk of getting loans/overdrafts etc is massively excessive. For a one off situation anyway.

You were talking in general terms about someone simply not having the means to pay their rent. I responded in general terms. We don't have all the detail in this specific case as a. we only have one side of the story and b. the OP has not come back and answered queries others have put to him on this thread. If any tenant no longer has the means, then they should be looking at the options I mentioned. That's what I was referring to.

djimi

makeorbrake wrote: »

You were talking in general terms about someone simply not having the means to pay their rent. I responded in general terms. We don't have all the detail in this specific case as a. we only have one side of the story and b. the OP has not come back and answered queries others have put to him on this thread. If any tenant no longer has the means, then they should be looking at the options I mentioned. That's what I was referring to.

Im talking about someone not having the means to pay their rent one month due to unforeseen circumstances. At no point have I been talking about someone who is having an ongoing issue paying their rent; obviously that is a very different scenario, but there is nothing in this thread to suggest that that is what we are talking about.

makeorbrake wrote: »

We're going 'round the houses' now. The two days that the landlord agreed to - and thereafter major conflict erupted? come on, there's more at play here than that.

Im taking it on face value. If you want to read more into it than we have been told then thats fine, but there is no point in discussing it any further because we are not talking about the same situation if you are filling in details that havent been provided and that the rest of the posters in the thread are not privvy to. I agree, its possible that there is more to the story than we have been told. But I can tell you from first hand experience its also more than possible that there is not, and everything happened exactly as the OP described it. Ive had a landlord with emotional issues in the past, so maybe Im just a bit more open to believing it as it has been written.

carpejugulum

What a messy thread ...

To get back on topic - a landlord cannot do this, you can defend your household if they do and you should always report it to the Guards.

Oh and pay on time.

hyperborean

Have you paid your rent yet OP?

Pawwed Rig

ted1 wrote: »

I would.

You couldn't as the 2004 act essentially allows rent to be upto 2 weeks late every month.

ted1 wrote: »

I would evict you as the mortgage for the property is due the same at every month and if the rent isn't I couldn't pay it. Selfish tenant

So by my post you have deciphered
1. My relationship with the landlord
2. Whether there is a mortgage with the property
3. The date I pay rent
4. The date the mortgage (if any) is due



Here is a link to the act for you. It is essential reading for any landlord. You can get yourself into all sorts of bother if you don't know what you're about.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/index.html

In particular read about notice of arrears and termination of tenancies which are vital reading for a landlord (if you are indeed one)

odds_on

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You couldn't as the 2004 act essentially allows rent to be upto 2 weeks late every month.



So by my post you have deciphered
1. My relationship with the landlord
2. Whether there is a mortgage with the property
3. The date I pay rent
4. The date the mortgage (if any) is due



Here is a link to the act for you. It is essential reading for any landlord. You can get yourself into all sorts of bother if you don't know what you're about.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/index.html

In particular read about notice of arrears and termination of tenancies which are vital reading for a landlord (if you are indeed one)

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other
enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—
(a) pay to the landlord or his or her authorised agent (or any
other person where required to do so by any enactment)—
(i) the rent provided for under the tenancy concerned on
the date it falls due for payment,

That is. pay the rent in full and on time.

The fact that there is provision for a 14 day notice of rent arrears does not negate Section 16 (a) (i). If a tenant does not pay the rent in full and on time, then the tenant will be in arrears of rent.

Some leases include a clause allowing a landlord to recover a cost (often 25 or 50 euros on each occasion) of sending a letter in respect of rent arrears. Furthermore, a landlord is unlikely to provide a tenant's reference if a tenant is habitually fails to pay in full and on time.

Pawwed Rig

My landlord does not mind. Is she did I wouldn't do it but thanks for missing my whole point wrt to the OP

wolfpawnat

I have had the same land agent for three and a half years, two different landlords, but same agent. 2 delayed part payments in that time. Once when I was in a part of the country where there was no Ulster Bank. After that I set up online banking so that would not happen again, the rent was three days late, but I explained everything and the agent was okay with it. I owed 50e last month because of a unexpected health bill, but again, one text message explaining and a promise to pay it two days later, and it was okay.

If the landlord said it was okay for two days, then for two days I would see no reason for him to get anal. As for attempting to get into the house, I would go insane. There are rules to protect the landlord and the tenant and both sides need to adhere to them. I personally would be leaving the house/apartment, and find somewhere else if I was treated like that.

No matter what transpired with you and the landlord OP, you still have to pay your rent. Unless you do, you lose the moral high ground. If you want to go a legal route with this, you have to be seen as reasonable, and paying your rent as promised is part of that.

And on the off-topic comment about rent allowance people not paying their rent :rolleyes: There is an option for the state to pay their portion (because contrary to the uneducated belief, they don't pay for it in full) directly to the land agent/landlord. It is the most recommended route.

Unregistered.

OP?

foggy_lad

daddyorchips wrote: »

just found out he reported us for not paying rent to the prtb and that he contacted a solicitor also what do I do now ?

You counterclaim as he forcibly entered your home without giving notice and without invitation. The prtb will take your claim very seriously.

foggy_lad

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is full of assumptions with no thought.

LL calls to door nobody answers sounds like telly is on. LL wonders if tenant is ok goes to check they are ok to have the door slammed on him. Then gets angry. People start shouting everyone is angry and unreasonable.

Slamming a door on somebody is an aggressive move. Doesn't matter if LL was wrong no need to be violent and I would consider it the same as pushing somebody.

Anytime I visit a property I bring the keys and it has nothing to do with intimidation. It's just practical and some keys are with me most of the time.

Some landlords have ended up paying thousands to tenants in compensation because they just walked in unannounced! Proper notice must be posted through the door and if that is not replied to by the tenant then it should be stuck to the door and should state that the LL will enter the property on a certain date and time.

foggy_lad

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's fundamentally relevant. Nobody has disputed the fact that the landlord should not have turned the key in the lock of what was/is the OP's home. However, it is NOT rational that he would have acted in this way unless he had a REAL tangible fear of this going beyond 2 days.

A real tangible fear of non payment of rent does not give any landlord any right to enter the tenants home. This is the only thing that is fundamentally relevant here!

makeorbrake

foggy_lad wrote: »

A real tangible fear of non payment of rent does not give any landlord any right to enter the tenants home. This is the only thing that is fundamentally relevant here!

How many times does this have to be stated. Nobody on this thread thus far (including me) have suggested the action he took was correct either legally or morally.

foggy_lad wrote: »

This is the only thing that is fundamentally relevant here!

No, it's not.

djimi

foggy_lad wrote: »

Some landlords have ended up paying thousands to tenants in compensation because they just walked in unannounced! Proper notice must be posted through the door and if that is not replied to by the tenant then it should be stuck to the door and should state that the LL will enter the property on a certain date and time.

Im not sure that a lack of reply from the tenant gives the landlord the right to leave a notice announcing a date and time that they will be letting themselves into the property; if for example the tenant is away for a week it does not give the landlord the right to let themselves in while they are gone.

To the best of my knowledge the only thing that gives the landlord any grounds to let themselves into a property unannounced is in an emergency situation (ie water/gas leak etc).

gaius c

OP must be having a right laugh at folks tearing each others throats out here while he's busy here.

10 pages... FFS

makeorbrake

gaius c wrote: »

OP must be having a right laugh at folks tearing each others throats out here while he's busy here.

10 pages... FFS

He can troll away. It still stands as a decent exchange of views on aspects of a subject that do come up all the time.

Ray Palmer

makeorbrake wrote: »

He can troll away. It still stands as a decent exchange of views on aspects of a subject that do come up all the time.

Don't know if you can call it a decent exchange of views.

Many seem to think they can attack a LL if he enters the property and treat him like a burglar. While LL is breaking the residential laws they cannot be considered a burglar.

The OP actually commited a violent act while the LL didn't which most have ignored and gone off about how they beleive they have the right to attack any individual who enters a rental property without their consent.

Nonsense, disagreements with somebody doing the wrong thing do not mean you can attack a person. No spin on it will make it legal. It is only very recent changes that allow you to defend yourself and property, a LL entering the property will never be seen that way. Slamming a door on somebody is a violent act.

djimi

It depends on the landlords manner. The OP said that he was banging on the door and shouting for the rent; I dont know about you but I certainly wouldnt somebody in that state of mind in my house, especially if I had previously sorted the issue with them. Im not suggesting that anyone has a right to batter the guy if he sets foot in the house, but slamming the door on someone who is acting in an agressive and unpredictable manner would almost certianly be considered to be an act of self preservation rather than a violent act.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

It depends on the landlords manner. The OP said that he was banging on the door and shouting for the rent; I dont know about you but I certainly wouldnt somebody in that state of mind in my house, especially if I had previously sorted the issue with them. Im not suggesting that anyone has a right to batter the guy if he sets foot in the house, but slamming the door on someone who is acting in an agressive and unpredictable manner would almost certianly be considered to be an act of self preservation rather than a violent act.

Read the OP again.
Even if you take it as stated no shouting started till the door was slammed. The "banging" on the door was no enough for him to go to the door untill he heard a key turning. The aggression didn't start till after the door was slammed and to be fair that is enough to set most people off not just a LL trying to contact a tenant.
If the issue was sorted as the OP suggested then why would the LL call anyway. It is only one side of the story and with the given details it is obviosuly not a full picture but with the given facts aggression started by the tenant not the LL.

djimi

Im aware its only one side of the story, but its all we have to go on.

And regardless of the circumstances I think youd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldnt slam the door closed if they saw someone letting themselves into their house. It doesnt matter if its the landlord or whoever; he had absolutely no right to turn the key in that door. The OP did not know of his intentions; why would you think they should have just allowed him to let himself into the house? Landlord or not, he was an intruder trying to gain unlawful entry into the house.

Gatling

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Read the OP again.
Even if you take it as stated no shouting started till the door was slammed. The "banging" on the door was no enough for him to go to the door .

so somebody banging and your door making demands despite having an agreement in place
Isn't aggression, add then the irate ll trying to gain access with a key /actually he gained access by opening the door so what would you call it ,op also had a right to defend himself regardless how people split hairs

Ray Palmer

Gatling wrote: »

so somebody banging and your door making demands despite having an agreement in place
Isn't aggression, add then the irate ll trying to gain access with a key /actually he gained access by opening the door so what would you call it ,op also had a right to defend himself regardless how people split hairs

Nobody was banging on the door making demands until AFTER the door was slammed. READ THE OP.
You can be sure if somebody was banging on my door I would go look not just ignore it. If somebody was knocking and I didn't feel like answering the door I wouldn't look. So unlikely that the LL was "banging" on the door from the first place.
Taking the story as stated the first aggressive act was by the tenant not the LL.

Unregistered.

OP, Troll. Ray Palmer, tenant bashing. Unfollowing thread.

djimi

The first aggressive act was the landlord putting his key the door. If he knocked and got no response then he should have turned around and gone home.

Gatling

The landlord gained access after banging on the door, that's aggression ,the op slammed their door closed as somebody was attempting to gain access ,

sweetie

we'll never know....<sobs>....

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

The first aggressive act was the landlord putting his key the door. If he knocked and got no response then he should have turned around and gone home.

I agree the LL shouldn't have opened the door but not opening a door is an aggresive act. It certainly isn't violent which slamming a door certainly is.

Just becasue one person does something wrong doesn't allow for violence as suggested here by many. Both were in the wrong and given normal reactions from people, shouting after a violent act is quite normal and to be expected. Ignoring "banging" at your door is not normal behaviour and pretty unbelivible so very doubtful.