Landlord changed locks, what can I do?

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

Many of these people should not be landlords as they do not understand the business and do not have the financial means to provide a proper service to their tenants. the best they can do now is to sell up for as much as they can and let real businesses take over the rental market

The landlords need to keep a slush fund available to cover things like repayment of deposits and the occasional late rent payment or missing rent payments or even for when tenants trash a house/apartment.

This is not any concern of any tenants in those properties.

Oh dear God, that's your business model? The "cowboys" should sell the property if you can't pay the mortgage?

Ever heard of "negative equity" it's a pretty commonly used phrase these days, it's means the house is worth less than what was paid for it

"Slush Funds" dry up pretty quickly when the rental income is below mortgage payment and you have tenants who don't pay rent.

Surely there is more to your business model?

Also, the tenants circumstances are not the concern of the LL, only that they pay rent on time.

bajer101

I have been both a tenant and a landlord and in both cases there were instances of rent being late. It is an unavoidable fact of life that circumstances arise that cause direct debits to be missed. Every time a topic in A&P catches my eye and I pop in, I see the same comments from the cohort of landlords who frequent this forum; "Pay your rent; No excuse to miss rent; Landlord has a mortgage; lowlife tenant trying to live rent free;" etc. etc.

As I said, I was a landlord and my tenant missed rent and I had problems (probably more than most of the landlords here), but I would never take the attitude that I constantly see being portrayed on this forum. This thread is a perfect example. OP said that rent wasn't paid for 6 weeks. That means that the rent is two weeks late! Two weeks late and still we had people jumping in talking about scum tenants.

Some people seem to think that being a landlord is effectively just an investment vehicle where you put down a bit of a deposit and get someone to pay your monthly installments and then cash out at the end of 20 years. They view tenants as little more than instruments to help them reach that objective, and if the tenant doesn't cut the mustard in that regard, then they are regarded as some sort of low-life. I really wonder what planet these people live on. They seem to ignore the fact that a huge amount of people miss mortgage payments, and that nearly everyone misses direct debits at some time. If these people have never experienced the problems of job losses or unexpected financial emergencies that result in missing payments - then they must be so financially secure that a tenant being late with a payment should cause them no problem.

davo10

Bajer, OP said in second post that tenant "missed 6 weeks payments", so not 2 weeks late, 6 weeks late and there is no mention of when payments will re commence, how long should that situation be allowed to continue?

As for "cutting the mustard" do you mean "pay the rent"? , if you are happy to allow someone to live rent free in your house, more power to you, you would be a dream LL for FoggyLad.

The_Morrigan

OK folks, please do not have this thread descend into a them vs us situation.

Thanks

jdooley28

bajer101 wrote: »

I have been both a tenant and a landlord and in both cases there were instances of rent being late. It is an unavoidable fact of life that circumstances arise that cause direct debits to be missed. Every time a topic in A&P catches my eye and I pop in, I see the same comments from the cohort of landlords who frequent this forum; "Pay your rent; No excuse to miss rent; Landlord has a mortgage; lowlife tenant trying to live rent free;" etc. etc.

As I said, I was a landlord and my tenant missed rent and I had problems (probably more than most of the landlords here), but I would never take the attitude that I constantly see being portrayed on this forum. This thread is a perfect example. OP said that rent wasn't paid for 6 weeks. That means that the rent is two weeks late! Two weeks late and still we had people jumping in talking about scum tenants.

Some people seem to think that being a landlord is effectively just an investment vehicle where you put down a bit of a deposit and get someone to pay your monthly installments and then cash out at the end of 20 years. They view tenants as little more than instruments to help them reach that objective, and if the tenant doesn't cut the mustard in that regard, then they are regarded as some sort of low-life. I really wonder what planet these people live on. They seem to ignore the fact that a huge amount of people miss mortgage payments, and that nearly everyone misses direct debits at some time. If these people have never experienced the problems of job losses or unexpected financial emergencies that result in missing payments - then they must be so financially secure that a tenant being late with a payment should cause them no problem.

I'd say they pay the rent weekly, not monthly though, if it just 2 weeks late these things happen but no payment for 6 weeks on weekly basis is taking the piss

Shadylou

davo10 wrote: »

Bajer, OP said in second post that tenant "missed 6 weeks payments", so not 2 weeks late, 6 weeks late and there is no mention of when payments will re commence, how long should that situation be allowed to continue?

OP has stated that social welfare hope to resolve this and also that the landlord was understanding before suddenly having an about-face

d9oiu2wk07blr5

Was this the first and only occasion that the tenant was unable to pay the rent on time or where there any other problems with the tenancy?

Shadylou

The_Morrigan wrote: »

OK folks, please do not have this thread descend into a them vs us situation.

Thanks

Oh definitely not, especially when we know you're firmly in the us (landlords) category!!

The_Morrigan

Shadylou wrote: »

Oh definitely not, especially when we know you're firmly in the us (landlords) category!!

Shadylou you may want to read the charter if you wish to post on this forum. You can find it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52883

It is against the charter to post in a them vs us manner trying to get a rise out of tenants/landlords/homeowners, it is also against the charter to question a mods instruction on thread.

If you can't abide by the rules you will find yourself incurring infractions or a forum ban.

/Mod

davo10

Shadylou wrote: »

OP has stated that social welfare hope to resolve this and also that the landlord was understanding before suddenly having an about-face

No, OP said he hopes SW will sort it out as he thinks they made a mistake, that is not to say SW hope to resolve it.

Aka Ishur

Is there any chance we can agree that;

1- the tenants should have paid their rent
2- the landlord is an idiot who has left himself open to a 10-15k payout, and confiscation of his gun.
3- the PRTB is a waste of space that fails both the landlord and tenant due to inability to act in a timely fashion

and then just end the thread?

davo10

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Is there any chance we can agree that;

1- the tenants should have paid their rent
2- the landlord is an idiot who has left himself open to a 10-15k payout, and confiscation of his gun.
3- the PRTB is a waste of space that fails both the landlord and tenant due to inability to act in a timely fashion

and then just end the thread?

I think if tenants are 2 weeks late with rent they should get a written warning, after another two weeks the LL should be able to give 2 weeks notice. Six weeks from start to finish.

foggy_lad

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Is there any chance we can agree that;

1- the tenants should have paid their rent
2- the landlord is an idiot who has left himself open to a 10-15k payout, and confiscation of his gun.
3- the PRTB is a waste of space that fails both the landlord and tenant due to inability to act in a timely fashion

and then just end the thread?

Agreed that the tenants should have paid their rent but we are not all living in some utopia where bad things never happen!

Agreed that the landlord is an idiot but will add that he is breaking the law by evicting the tenants and by holding their property to ransom, He should also be arrested for threatening the tenants with a firearm and should have any firearms in his possession removed and any licences revoked immediately!

The PRTB works well and is a massive improvement on what was there before! If landlords don't like it they should get out of the business.

bajer101

davo10 wrote: »

Bajer, OP said in second post that tenant "missed 6 weeks payments", so not 2 weeks late, 6 weeks late and there is no mention of when payments will re commence, how long should that situation be allowed to continue?

As for "cutting the mustard" do you mean "pay the rent"? , if you are happy to allow someone to live rent free in your house, more power to you, you would be a dream LL for FoggyLad.

Well, in my case when I realised that the tenant was lying about not receiving rent allowance cheques that I engaged a solicitor and initiated proceedings. It was about three months of non-payment and obvious lies.

But that's life and that's business. If landlords here confined themselves to commenting on those cases I wouldn't have felt compelled to comment. It's the attitude of viewing a tenant as nothing more than a rent machine. Comments here constantly mention LLs not being interested in tenants ability to pay rent - that is their problem etc. When I was a tenant I lost my job and had to apply for rent allowance. Anyone who has gone through that process knows what a pain it is and how long it takes.

I think I will just avoid this forum in future. If I was a tenant in trouble, I certainly wouldn't post a question here as I would not only have to deal with the trouble I was in, but I would also have to deal with the amateur negative equity landlords who would undoubtedly take the opportunity to insult me.

seb65

davo10 wrote: »

I think if tenants are 2 weeks late with rent they should get a written warning, after another two weeks the LL should be able to give 2 weeks notice. Six weeks from start to finish.

Pity the banks cannot do the same when repossessing property from those that cannot pay their mortgages. A few landlords in that mix as well I'd bet.

Hootanany

Why did you not pay your rent it could all be avoided, sorry for your trouble but the landlord has to pay why won't you especially when its from Social welfare?

davo10

seb65 wrote: »

Pity the banks cannot do the same when repossessing property from those that cannot pay their mortgages. A few landlords in that mix as well I'd bet.

Seb you are right, that would free up huge numbers of houses.

foggy_lad

Hootanany wrote: »

Why did you not pay your rent it could all be avoided, sorry for your trouble but the landlord has to pay why won't you especially when its from Social welfare?

This is a case of the social welfare stopping payments rather than the tenant not paying.

Hootanany

foggy_lad wrote: »

This is a case of the social welfare stopping payments rather than the tenant not paying.

Why was it stopped?

foggy_lad

Hootanany wrote: »

Why was it stopped?

No idea.

davo10

bajer101 wrote: »

It's the attitude of viewing a tenant as nothing more than a rent machine. Comments here constantly mention LLs not being interested in tenants ability to pay rent - that is their problem etc. When I was a tenant I lost my job and had to apply for rent allowance. Anyone who has gone through that process knows what a pain it is and how long it takes.
.

I think you are naive. Tenants do not want their LLs coming in to their house or trying to be best buds with them. Most LLs and tenants meet only twice, the day the deposit is paid and the day it is given back. In between a business contract/relationship exists, it's impartial, LL provides a property of good standard, tenant pays the rent and abides by the terms of the lease. The tenant is not a "rent machine" they are however the party in the relationship who pays the rent.

And again, I'm sorry but whether you apply for RA or not is your business, I just saw on Prime Tine that less than 1.2% of LLs will accept RA and this is why.

cerastes

Zillah wrote: »

There are rules in place for this sort of thing. You cannot lock someone out of their home and hold all of their possessions ransom because you have a grievance with them. It is outlandish behaviour and the landlord should be punished for it, even if he has a valid grievance, he isn't allowed to arbitrarily turn someone's life upside down. That can have drastic and immediate consequences.

I agree the landlord has made a mistake changing the locks, but couldnt all highlighted equally apply to the tenant??
Or is it just one sided. There are no details to this, 6 weeks without a word, or 6 weeks and constant updates? or the latter but going no where, landlord should have started the formal process of dislodging tenant.

[QUOTE=pajopearl;89286377]The landlord has threatened them with violence??? Time to get the law involved, especially considering it involves firearms.[/QUOTE]
The OP said the landlord threatened to kill their dog, not them, also the OP said it, maybe its true, maybe it isnt?

foggy_lad wrote: »

They should immediately report this threat to the Gardai and make a statement and ensure that the Gardai visit this thug and remove any weapons in his possession! He should not be allowed hold any firearms licence if making threats like that!

If is a big word, or its a false allegation?? maybe, a serious one if so.

pajopearl wrote: »

Which.is where social housing comes into play.

You might want to look into that, the authorities are backing away from that for a long time.

foggy_lad wrote: »

They should also make a statement at their local Garda station about the landlord threatening to shoot their dog with a rifle he owns, they should follow this up and have any firearms owned by this clown removed ASAP. He is not fit to hold a dog licence never mind a gun licence!

You are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 56,
The OP , claimed the landlord threatened to kill their dog, maybe he did, maybe he didnt? even the OP never said he threatened to shoot the dog, the OP jumped to the assumption he even owns a riffle(sic).

foggy_lad wrote: »

Agreed that the tenants should have paid their rent but we are not all living in some utopia where bad things never happen!

Agreed that the landlord is an idiot but will add that he is breaking the law by evicting the tenants and by holding their property to ransom, He should also be arrested for threatening the tenants with a firearm and should have any firearms in his possession removed and any licences revoked immediately!

The PRTB works well and is a massive improvement on what was there before! If landlords don't like it they should get out of the business.

A few posts previous you were suggestion the opposite and that anyone foolish enough to foolishly own property should have a huge slush fund somewhere to cover tenants reluctant to pay.
AND
Jumping to conclusions about the threat of use of a firearm, that was never even said, you're making that bit up, either in your own mind or otherwise, it was never said, check the post.

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

This is a case of the social welfare stopping payments rather than the tenant not paying.

Did OP say that? I thought he said it was due to loss of income.

Still waiting on that business model Foggy, do you think tenants should have a "slush fund" incase a situation arises where they can't pay rent or it just the "cowboys" who should have one?

Engine No.9

Hootanany wrote: »

Why was it stopped?

I've seen people in this position every January when they don't return their rent allowance review forms on time.

cerastes

pajopearl wrote: »

I've seen people in this position every January when they don't return their rent allowance review forms on time.

The simple solution to that is to return them on time then, avoid causing the problem in the first place.

foggy_lad

pajopearl wrote: »

I've seen people in this position every January when they don't return their rent allowance review forms on time.

Maybe they return the forms on time but the welfare don't process them in a timely manner?

foggy_lad

cerastes wrote: »

A few posts previous you were suggestion the opposite and that anyone foolish enough to foolishly own property should have a huge slush fund somewhere to cover tenants reluctant to pay.
AND
Jumping to conclusions about the threat of use of a firearm, that was never even said, you're making that bit up, either in your own mind or otherwise, it was never said, check the post.

The difference is one is supposed to be running a business renting out one or more properties while the other is just a tenant. If a landlord is not able to properly finance his business they should get out of the business.

As for the firearm, the op posted that a threat was made to shoot a dog belonging to the tenants, Making such a threat is a criminal offence whether the thug actually shoots the dog or even produces the rifle!

Engine No.9

foggy_lad wrote: »

Maybe they return the forms on time but the welfare don't process them in a timely manner?

In my experience the HSE are actually fairly timely with Rent Allowance. It's usually a case where information or documents are incomplete or missing.

beauf

pajopearl wrote: »

In my experience the HSE are actually fairly timely with Rent Allowance. It's usually a case where information or documents are incomplete or missing.

I envy your experience. I've seen them 4 or 5 months backlogged.

cerastes

dmrules wrote: »

they thought about locksmith but landlord is a nut case... he owns a riffle and already told them that he will kill their dog if he sees him on his property again( landlord lives next door) they just afraid...

For clarification
Unless the person is medically qualified in the right speciality, not sure the tenant is qualified to call the guy nuts, he's probably going nuts because the tenant isnt paying the rent.

He owns a riffle(sic) out on its own, no suggestion of a threat to use it against the tenant or even the dog.
OP says, landlord says he will "kill" the dog, or so OP claims.

If such a thing were true, it'd be serious
if its not, its pretty serious to make a false accusation against someone, especially when you aren't paying your rent, makes it look like you'd be willing to say anything to drop the landlord in it.
If I was a tenant in that situation, Id get out of there and deal with the issue from afar, as in outside the range of a rifle, which I find a bit implausible.

Maybe they have no permission for a dog??? Is this an urban, rural area?? OP?