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

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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.

Slamming a door on somebody who is attempting to gain unlawful entry into your property is self defense. Paint it any way you like; the OP did exactly the same as any other person would do. Nobody in their right mind would stand by and watch someone unlawfully entering their property.

Gatling

Actually your wrong ,the op perceived the person gaining entry to where he and his family live,and used no aggression other than to make sure his family was safe from an intruder, he perceived a threat and there for was well within his rights to prevent unknown person gaining access to the family home ,

Ray Palmer

Gatling wrote: »

Actually your wrong ,the op perceived the person gaining entry to where he and his family live,and used no aggression other than to make sure his family was safe from an intruder, he perceived a threat and there for was well within his rights to prevent unknown person gaining access to the family home ,

The LL feared the tenants were in danger or incapcitated as he could hear the telly but nobody moving so he entered thinking there was an emergency. Legally allowed to enter.

You can twist it either way. You cannot attack somebody in Ireland for being on your property and call it self defense. It has a strict legal definition. "Equal and opposite force" comes into it

Note you changed what you thought the story was. He either knew who it was or didn't. Within seconds of slamming the door he could have explained why he slammed the door which he didn't do. BOTH WERE IN THE WRONG. Live your own life that way if you want but you won't be a balanced person if you make up your own events and just get mad.

I'm done, pointed out what needed to be pointed out. You can disagree but it won't make what you are saying legally correct.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The LL feared the tenants were in danger or incapcitated as he could hear the telly but nobody moving so he entered thinking there was an emergency. Legally allowed to enter.

Not a hope in hell would that stand up if a tenant took a case against you. Im in the shower with my TV on; landlord knocks on the door, gets no response and lets himself in? Not a chance that would be considered to be acceptable.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You can twist it either way. You cannot attack somebody in Ireland for being on your property and call it self defense. It has a strict legal definition. "Equal and opposite force" comes into it

Slamming the door on a potential intruder is not the same as attacking them. Nobody is suggesting that it is okay to hit them over the head with a frying pan or shoot them dead on the spot; however there is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to stop someone from gaining unlawful entry into the property, especially when the only measure being taken is slamming the door closed that they are attempting to open.

Gatling

Perceived threat that's all anybody needs especially in a Court case ,try spilt hairs up down left right your just confusing yourself

Kosseegan

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.

When did that happen? Thousands have been paid for illegal eviction. Breach of alleged right of peaceful occupation would not result in those levels of compensation. The o/p is clearly a chancer and would not attract much sympathy at a hearing. I would think any doubt would go in favour of the landlord. The landlord simply acknowledged a text. He did not agree with the contents of it. He called around when the o/p was in and was obviously ignored. If there was an agreement why didn't the o/p answer the door. The reality is that he knew that there was no agreement.

Gatling

Kosseegan wrote: »

When did that happen? Thousands have been paid for illegal eviction. Breach of alleged right of peaceful occupation would not result in those levels of compensation. The o/p is clearly a chancer and would not attract much sympathy at a hearing. I would think any doubt would go in favour of the landlord. The landlord simply acknowledged a text. He did not agree with the contents of it. He called around when the o/p was in and was obviously ignored. If there was an agreement why didn't the o/p answer the door. The reality is that he knew that there was no agreement.

And you can back this up with fact and not rambling conjecture and fill in your own blanks

djimi

At this point in this thread I think everone may as well make up their own version of events. Several posters already have, and the OP aint coming back to give us an update/fill in the full story.

Personally Im choosing to believe that on the day in question the OP was wearing a red jumper, had just finished a dinner of bangers and mash, and the whole incident was played out to a backdrop of Eastenders on a TV in the next room.