Tracking down a mystery landlord

athtrasna

All searches have turned up a blank so far, it looks like he's returned to his native country - I've been slow to post any details as we are treading carefully on the race issue but he (and the tenants) are from the continent of Africa, and their country people would have a name (rightly or wrongly) for abusing the system here. But their race isn't the issue, the anti social behaviour of the tenants and the non lease compliance of the landlord is.

Have searched all social media, a very kind person also checked a lot of subscription databases they had access to and no trace. Name is very distinctive. Have checked medical databases, nothing yet but we can only search in Europe & the US.

All post currently going to unit (and has done for several years) but to no effect.

Still working on solicitor who handled purchase, our solicitor investigating forfeiture.

username123

Change the bin locks, let them dump. Take dumped bags to the litter warden, allow the council to prosecute.

Also search dumped bags for identifying information and speak to HSE or social welfare or whoever provides the rent.

Try a private detective in his own country - although why would he bother coming back to deal with this?

RATM

Lantus wrote: »

Do they have an aireal or sat dish. obvisouly these are on the common buildings and as you dont have any permission from the landlord you will unfortuantley have to remove them along with any common aerial conne .

I might be worng but I think I heard something about a case (I think it was an EU court) where by immigrants from outside the EU were permitted to erect satellite dishes on the basis of human rights. The ruling went along the lines of them being allowed access to their own culture and satellite and radio was a large part of that.

I'm not sure how it would apply vis a vis private property but it came across to me that the EU case was against some sort of mgmt co who were taking down immigrants satellite dishes. If it played out how I think it did then mgmt companies would want to be very careful about dismantling dishes as if there is a non-Eu immigrant in the apartment they could find themselves on the end of a very costly human rights case where the tenant already has a case precedent and therefore a slam dunk win.

Still working on solicitor who handled purchase, our solicitor investigating forfeiture.

Forfeiture sounds like it might be an option here. Keep us posted as I'd be interested in how it works and how long it takes.

Given that you've done extensive searches for this guy online and he hasn't showed up I think you might have to start thinking along the lines that he could either have changed name or else he has one name for his home country and another for here ? I know it sounds bizarre but it is also strange that someone with a distinctive name doesn't show up anywhere online, especially as he is a doctor. Even people who think they are not online really are- something as simple as a mention in a newspaper, a college photo, etc can get you online forever, often without your permission. Or could it be possible that there is more than one way to spell his name ? Maybe do a search for alternative spellings ?

Either way it also sounds like this guy doesn't want to be found. The main way of flushing him out would be forfeiture proceedings, if he gets a solicitors letter outlining how they intend to seize the apartment if he doesn't play ball then you'll soon find he plays ball. Your only problem is that more than likely any notice served during forfeiture proceedings will have to be by registered and signed post to prove he got it, sending it to his apartment address may not cut the mustard with a judge.

Best of luck with it OP and keep us posted

djimi

RATM wrote: »

I might be worng but I think I heard something about a case (I think it was an EU court) where by immigrants from outside the EU were permitted to erect satellite dishes on the basis of human rights. The ruling went along the lines of them being allowed access to their own culture and satellite and radio was a large part of that.

I'm not sure how it would apply vis a vis private property but it came across to me that the EU case was against some sort of mgmt co who were taking down immigrants satellite dishes. If it played out how I think it did then mgmt companies would want to be very careful about dismantling dishes as if there is a non-Eu immigrant in the apartment they could find themselves on the end of a very costly human rights case where the tenant already has a case precedent and therefore a slam dunk win.

I suspect that there might be ways around this, such as saying that while a dish is permitted, no permission was given to drill holes in the complex walls and as such the tenant will be pursued to repair the structure or face a charge of criminal damage (or something to that effect).

peter_dublin

The satellite can be removed as they don't own the building the management company does and just as you can't out your dish on your neightbours house, a tenent can't place and importantly a landlord can't give approval for a dish on a building they don't own.

Next, OP, you have two destinct issues here, the Landlord and the tenants and I'd suggest you tackle the tenants headon through your agents if you have some, we as a management company have had similarly troublesome tenants and if one thing is true they will only become more destructive over time. It's no good leaving your solicitor to search for the owner while the tenents run wild, dumping, reselling your waste facilities, criminally damaging the management companies property and seemingly doing as they want. It's your responsibility to the other owners to put an end to this ASAP.

gline

RATM wrote: »

Either way it also sounds like this guy doesn't want to be found.

This seems to be the main point. What would his reason be for not wanting to be found? Is the property fully paid for or a mortgage in place (in arrears?) ?

username123

gline wrote: »

This seems to be the main point. What would his reason be for not wanting to be found? Is the property fully paid for or a mortgage in place (in arrears?) ?

Probably doing a runner on a negative equity situation.

OP - what about contacting the medical council? Surely they have addresses of doctors allowed to practice in Ireland?

Lantus

good idea re locking doors and dumping. any letters or names in there can be gold to the litter warden. Any cctv footage to back it up would make a good case. Its a small job to you to reap rewards. even in the short term it could be worth it. Dont let them get wind of what you are doing like going through the rubbish where they can see you or they will surely leave a nasty surprise in there you dont want. (I would.)

re the sat dish or aerial just send a letter saying you are doing maintenance and need to take down the equipment for safety reasons as you believe the fixings may be unsecure and represent a health and safety issues or something along those lines. some jobs takes years dont you know whilst 5 minutes without TV can seem like a lifetime.

if they want to mount an expensive case on the hidepous human rights basis then as tenants I doubt they could as they dont even own the unit. The landlord may be able to which would be a good way to meet him possibly?

Is there a doctors registration database in the persons country of origin? Might be a start as they tell you where they practice generally.

dt: do you ned the owner to be appointed rent receiver?? or can it be made against the property and then filed against the tenants to make them pay you direct

gline

Lantus wrote: »

Is there a doctors registration database in the persons country of origin? Might be a start as they tell you where they practice generally.

This is a good idea, you can say you were treated by him and need to contact him?

username123

gline wrote: »

This is a good idea, you can say you were treated by him and need to contact him?

Yeah I was thinking about this. It might be worth going to his last place of work and asking for some information.

Lantus

gline wrote: »

This is a good idea, you can say you were treated by him and need to contact him?

You shouldn't need to say anything as its generally public information but wouldn't hurt to say it.

MonaPizza

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

If he was no longer living in the area there is a chance the rent is being paid to a third party agency/estate agent who should be looking after any maintenance to the property. Google the property address and see if any old rental ads turn up Daft, MyHome etc and contact the advertising estate agent to see if they are still looking after the property or have contact details for the owner.

You could also do a land registry search to see what that pulls up. Presumably the house wasn't bought as an investment property so the bank could be interested to know that the mortgagee isn't paying interest rates applicable to a rental property.....it's a bit of a dirty tactic but if he's not playing ball and his tenants are a nuisance then tough sh*t.

You could also go one even dirtier. Report the landlord to the Revenue Commissioner. I'd bet the farm he's not paying a dime in taxes on the rental income from the property. The RC would have him flushed out in no time wherever he's hiding.

Marcusm

athtrasna wrote: »

Still working on solicitor who handled purchase, our solicitor investigating forfeiture.

The threat of forfeiture generally works well in the UK to get payment provided there are no genuine disputes on the lessees side. The forfeiture threat is most strong against the mortgagee (ie the bank) as if the lease becomes forfeit, they are entitled to the net proceeds arising from the grant of a new lease but that's after lots of legal fees and the management charges. Plus as they are not the ones arranging the sale, it will not necessarily produce the best value for them. In the UK, banks will generally establish whether the lessee/householder has a genuine reason to withhold or is disputing (lots of rules for OMCs to screw up on). If they are not actively disputing it, the banks will generally pay some or all of the management charges and add them to the mortgage amount in order to protect their first claim - generally they want to control any sale not leave it to a management company.

gline

MonaPizza wrote: »

You could also go one even dirtier. Report the landlord to the Revenue Commissioner. I'd bet the farm he's not paying a dime in taxes on the rental income from the property. The RC would have him flushed out in no time wherever he's hiding.

This was mentioned above. Though that could be one reason he is hiding. Maybe he has friends living in the property.
Also I think it still might be hard for the RC to get a hold of him if he is back home, do they have jurisdiction in Africa?, if thats where he is now.

username123

Oh even better. If he isnt in the country it is actually the responsibility of the tenants to pay the tax on the rental to the revenue - so thats an angle. Report them.

ork1

It might be worth trying scientific/ medical journals to see if he published anything. An example is www.scirus.com. Try entering the variations of his name in the "author's name" field. they give contact addresses/ details.

the_syco

If they're on social, make sure they're not working more than allowed. If they are, report them, and when the rent stops coming in, the landlord may make moves to kick them out.

Lantus

the_syco wrote: »

If they're on social, make sure they're not working more than allowed. If they are, report them, and when the rent stops coming in, the landlord may make moves to kick them out.

Revenue, good call. If they are not Prtb registered then would that be a red flag to revenue if you provided them with all that info? Plus the tenants not paying the tax as he's out the country? Revenue could probably 'force' an agent or tenant to cough up that information if needed by applying pressure.

athtrasna

MonaPizza wrote: »

You could also go one even dirtier. Report the landlord to the Revenue Commissioner. I'd bet the farm he's not paying a dime in taxes on the rental income from the property. The RC would have him flushed out in no time wherever he's hiding.

Done about three years ago. Reported to prtb and revenue. No progress

valleyoftheunos

athtrasna wrote: »

All searches have turned up a blank so far, it looks like he's returned to his native country - I've been slow to post any details as we are treading carefully on the race issue but he (and the tenants) are from the continent of Africa, and their country people would have a name (rightly or wrongly) for abusing the system here. But their race isn't the issue, the anti social behaviour of the tenants and the non lease compliance of the landlord is.

Have searched all social media, a very kind person also checked a lot of subscription databases they had access to and no trace. Name is very distinctive. Have checked medical databases, nothing yet but we can only search in Europe & the US.

All post currently going to unit (and has done for several years) but to no effect.

Still working on solicitor who handled purchase, our solicitor investigating forfeiture.

If he has left the jurisdiction, particularly if he has returned to Africa there is essentially no chance that you will ever find him. You have a difficult path a head of you trying to remove his tenants and seek judgment against him in his absence.

the Management Company should seek legal advice in relation to obtaining judgment against the Owner for the unpaid fees with a view to registering a Judgment Mortgage against the property.

Cuddlesworth

You seem to assume that the tenant's pay rent. With the attitude described and a errant landlord, I would be surprised.

McCloskey_A

Report them to the local community welfare officer for non payment of rent, hopefully the rent allowance goes directly to tenant- some cwo's will stop a payment if there is a complaint until they get confirmation from the landlord that there is no problem,

ameee

McCloskey_A wrote: »

Report them to the local community welfare officer for non payment of rent, hopefully the rent allowance goes directly to tenant- some cwo's will stop a payment if there is a complaint until they get confirmation from the landlord that there is no problem,

the cwo would only take a complaint of non payment from the landlord. In most cases the rent gets paid direct to the landlord and if that's the case the case the cwo Will know you are lying. If that's not the case the tenant need only bring down lodgement receipts to prove themselves

Gatling

ameee wrote: »

the cwo would only take a complaint of non payment from the landlord. In most cases the rent gets paid direct to the landlord and if that's the case the case the cwo Will know you are lying. If that's not the case the tenant need only bring down lodgement receipts to prove themselves

Actually the majority of RA tenants get paid the rent allownce first and they pass it on to the LL

foggy_lad

Gatling wrote: »

Actually the majority of RA tenants get paid the rent allownce first and they pass it on to the LL

I was told before by someone working in the CWO office in Carlow that they will not pay directly to the LL due to data protection legislation.

RATM

djimi wrote: »

I suspect that there might be ways around this, such as saying that while a dish is permitted, no permission was given to drill holes in the complex walls and as such the tenant will be pursued to repair the structure or face a charge of criminal damage (or something to that effect).

You're looking for grey areas where there aren't any. If there is a ruling that satellite dishes are legal then a fundamental part of that is that it is legal to erect them and that a bracket is needed to secure it to a wall or balcony. Courts do deal in common sense and most judges don't take very kindly to people who try to come up with clever ways to avoid their legal obligations.

Lantus wrote: »

re the sat dish or aerial just send a letter saying you are doing maintenance and need to take down the equipment for safety reasons as you believe the fixings may be unsecure and represent a health and safety issues or something along those lines. some jobs takes years dont you know whilst 5 minutes without TV can seem like a lifetime.

if they want to mount an expensive case on the hidepous human rights basis then as tenants I doubt they could as they dont even own the unit. The landlord may be able to which would be a good way to meet him possibly?

They could not only mount a legal case they could get it done on a no win no fee basis because they would be virtually assured of a victory in a court of law. The original case on satellite dishes happened in Sweden over a landlord evicting two tenants because they wouldn't take a satellite dish down. The Swedish courts found against them so they brought it to the European Court of Human Rights which found that satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the reason being that people must be allowed to access religious communications and tv/radio is a fundamental part of doing so. European law supercedes both Swedish and Irish law so even an Irish judge would have to refer to that Swedish case and allow the satellite dish to remain. The costs would be borne by the management company and my guess is that the amount would be in the tens of thousands, on top of compensation to the tenants.

No doubt during the case in the ECHR arguments were put forward by the building owners/management company. They would have been coming from a strong position as property ownership rights are a central part of all EU legal systems. The Swedish courts held that property rights trumped the rights of tenants to access religious services. When it got to Europe the European Court of Human Rights found that human rights trump property rights. As this has come from the highest court in the continent anyone taking a case against tenants with a satellite dish better have their chequebook ready as it's going to be a very expensive outing in court for them.

djimi

RATM wrote: »

You're looking for grey areas where there aren't any. If there is a ruling that satellite dishes are legal then a fundamental part of that is that it is legal to erect them and that a bracket is needed to secure it to a wall or balcony. Courts do deal in common sense and most judges don't take very kindly to people who try to come up with clever ways to avoid their legal obligations.

Its entirely possible to erect a dish without needing to make any alterations to the building. I dont see any issue with a management company seeking to prevent a tenant from making a half arsed job of drilling and erecting a dish on the side of the building, potentially causing damage in the process. The tenant/leaseholder does not own any part of the external building, and as such Im not sure how a court could say that the owner of said building is not allowed to have the say over who may or may not make alterations to the building.

RATM

djimi wrote: »

Its entirely possible to erect a dish without needing to make any alterations to the building. I dont see any issue with a management company seeking to prevent a tenant from making a half arsed job of drilling and erecting a dish on the side of the building, potentially causing damage in the process.

Well if it is possible to erect a dish without having to drill then I suppose that'd be the best way to do it. I think you can get free standing ones too which can be placed on a balcony. The solution for some management companies has been to allow Sky install a communal dish on the roof but I'm not so sure that would suffice if an immigrant wanted to receive a specific service in his own language and to do with his own religion.

djimi wrote: »

The tenant/leaseholder does not own any part of the external building, and as such Im not sure how a court could say that the owner of said building is not allowed to have the say over who may or may not make alterations to the building.

I doubt the tenants in Sweden owned any part of the external building either but the court found in their favour, effectively what the court ruled was that a tenant could ride roughshot over the property rights of their landlord/mgmt co because at the end of the day their right to access religious services in more important that the landlord's property rights. It might sound bizarre but that's the way it is.

Furthermore the EU ruling also goes on to refer to management companies standing in the way of people trying to exercise this human right. Part of the ruling was this

"Moreover, as the Court of Justice has repeatedly pointed out, it is not only the actions of public authorities which must not restrict this fundamental freedom, but the same principle also applies to other kinds of rules aiming to regulate service provision collectively. In fact, removing obstacles to the free movement of services, a fundamental objective of the European Union, would be compromised if the obstacles to be removed were only those set by the state and did not include those resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organisations which are not governed by public law"


It seems to me from that judgement that they are saying nobody can stand in the way of an EU resident exercising their right to satellite tv, not the State, not the management company, not the landlord. Otherwise their rulings would be totally futile if management companies could just change the rules to ban new EU law, which is supreme over our own national laws.

Anyway this is off topic so I'll leave it there. The OP has got some good advice on thread about ways to track down the LL, hopefully it'll work out for them

SpaceTime

Actually, the tenants are completely within their rights to not give you any bank details as it's personal data belonging to a third party.

Also, they'll be absolutely useless to you as no bank in their right mind would give you the contact details of a customer based on a bank account number. It would be a huge violation of Data Protection legislation and they could wind up in court / subject to a big fine.

Perhaps find out the last time it was rented out, and check for adverts? You might find old DAFT listings or maybe old newspaper ads online somewhere if you Google the address of the property.

A mobile number or something might lead you to the landlord.

RATM

SpaceTime wrote: »

Actually, the tenants are completely within their rights to not give you any bank details as it's personal data belonging to a third party.

Also, they'll be absolutely useless to you as no bank in their right mind would give you the contact details of a customer based on a bank account number. It would be a huge violation of Data Protection legislation and they could wind up in court / subject to a big fine.

.

You're right, there is no way a bank would give out personal details on a client. But as the OP said the landlord here has a very distinctive name I'm wondering if it would be possible to go into his bank and ask to lodge €5 to his account. In doing so there is a message facility where by the OP could request the LL to contact them re:tenants. The message would then show up on his bank statement next to the €5 deposit. He might not read his bank statements. Or he might but choose to ignore it. Even if he doesn't answer it still serves a purpose if the management company instigate forfeiture proceedings. This is because the judge is going to want proof of several attempts to contact this person and the more methods you use the better, he will need to be satisfied that you have done absolutely everything in your power to make contact with them. You'll need evidence of phone calls, emails, post returned unopened, etc.If it is possible to lodge money just on a persons name then doing so and leaving a message directly on his bank statement could be the cherry on top.