Landlord changed locks, what can I do?

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

If a landlord is not able to properly finance his business they should get out of the business.

Again Foggy, you've posted this a few times, is your learned advice that if a property owner cannot finance it, they should get out of the business? In other words, sell a property which is probably in negative equity? This is pure gold.

bajer101

davo10 wrote: »

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.

I probably am naive in the LL business and I did get burnt. But I am far from naive in other business and I know that you have to value clients. In all business terms of credit are extended and in nearly all cases, clients will default. If you were to go around "changing locks" or demanding immediate payment every time a client defaulted, you wouldn't be in business very long.

One of the reasons why I felt compelled to comment on this thread is because I felt I was in a good position to comment as I have been in both positions - a landlord who got screwed and a tenant who hit hard times and needed a landlord's understanding (as it happens, I had absolutely no problem with my landlord understanding my predicament, and I suspect most good landlords would be of a similar attitude).

You say that you have no interest in whether your tenant is having trouble with RA etc. That is their problem. The flip side of that coin is that a tenant has no interest in your negative equity mortgage that they are helping you with. The truth is - there should be a little bit of care on each side. A good LL will understand that most tenants will hit financial difficulty now and then (if they were so flush with money that they could avoid these pitfalls, they wouldn't have to rent!). A good tenant will also understand that rent is the number one bill that gets paid each month.

Paybel

beauf wrote: »

There almost a template to these threads.

1 Give a tip of the iceberg starter post with little detail
2 Few pages debating that.
3 Add some info that completely changes the story
4 More debate moving from specifics to generalities
5 Sprinkle more info not mentioned previously
6 Debate moves on broad sweeping generalisations.
7 Original issue is miraculously resolved
8 Mod closes thread as run its course.

Yes, would be helpful if all the information was given first

cerastes

foggy_lad wrote: »

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!

Thats a contradiction, I think you'll find you cant get out of the business when things go south.

You are misquoting the OP and their statement,
I clarified above with the OPs own post, its wrong to misquote it.

The OP speculated or knows the landlord owns a boom stick.

The OP never said the person threatened to shoot anything, just that they claim to know the landlord owns a riffle(sic)
The OP followed that with a claim the landlord threatened to kill (correction)the dog.

These claims may be true or they may not be true, but even the OP didnt say the landlord threatened to shoot the dog or that he threatened them with the rifle! as was stated by you.

foggy_lad

davo10 wrote: »

Again Foggy, you've posted this a few times, is your learned advice that if a property owner cannot finance it, they should get out of the business? In other words, sell a property which is probably in negative equity? This is pure gold.

I did mention in my first reply about this that they should cut their losses and sell up for as much as they can get.

If a person cant pay the mortgage should they just wait for the bank to take the property back or should they try to get what they can out of it and move on?

The_Morrigan

Folks, less of the off topic and sweeping generalisation posts please. The OP has a specific query and half of you have gone off on your usual tangent - take it to pm if you want to discuss the business plans of landlords in this country, it is not going to help the OP.

davo10

bajer101 wrote: »

I probably am naive in the LL business and I did get burnt.

You say that you have no interest in whether your tenant is having trouble with RA etc. That is their problem. The flip side of that coin is that a tenant has no interest in your negative equity mortgage that they are helping you with. .

A LLs bank manager also has no interest in a tenants RA. The tenant is not "helping" LL pay the mortgage, they are paying to rent a property.

If you extend unlimited credit lines to your clients, again more power to you, I think it's not going to be long before you also get burned with that.

beauf

The only advice anyone can give the OP is to go to the Garda and PRTB. Anything else is probably against the rules/charter.

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

I did mention in my first reply about this that they should cut their losses and sell up for as much as they can get.

If a person cant pay the mortgage should they just wait for the bank to take the property back or should they try to get what they can out of it and move on?

Sorry Morrigan, just one more because this has popped up on a number of threads, I thought he was messing at first.

So Foggy, you feel that LL's who rely on rental income for mortgage repayments are "cowboys" , have no place in the industry, are poor business people and should leave it? And the way to do so is by selling their property, at a loss? Can you see the irony in your business advice?

The_Morrigan

davo10 wrote: »

Sorry Morrigan, just one more because this has popped up on a number of threads, I thought he was messing at first.

So Foggy, you feel that LL's who rely on rental income for mortgage repayments are "cowboys" , have no place in the industry, are poor business people and should leave it? And the way to do so is by selling their property, at a loss? Can you see the irony in your business advice?

Take it to pm or start a relevant thread.

/Mod

bajer101

cerastes wrote: »

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

You obviously have no experience of Rent Allowance. I worked in the Civil Service for 10 years, but when I found myself needing to apply for RA, nothing prepared me for the bureaucracy that hoop jumping I had to perform to get it. I got lucky in that the Welfare Officer I was dealing with really helped me out i suspect it was because he saw that I have been gainfully employed for the the previous 20 years and that I just happened to hit a bit of a bump. But even still, I found myself wanting to throw in the towel! When you lose your job you are at a low enough ebb, but the nonsense you have to go through to get RA is incredible. On the advice of the Welfare Officer I gave up the application for the housing list with Dublin City Council because it was going nowhere (their advice to me was that I would have to engage a solicitor through FLAC with a 9 month waiting list to get a letter stating I made no profit from previous property sales), and reapply through Fingal.

davo10 wrote: »

Again Foggy, you've posted this a few times, is your learned advice that if a property owner cannot finance it, they should get out of the business? In other words, sell a property which is probably in negative equity? This is pure gold.

I think what Foggy is trying to say is that if property owners find themselves in negative equity and have to try their hand and being a landlord to make ends meet, they should realise that they are rank amateurs and ill suited to being landlords. They should also be a little less judgmental and a bit more understanding of their tenant's financial difficulties considering that they themselves have managed to land themselves in the mother of all financial difficulties and it will be the tenants who will ultimately bail them out.

bajer101

Apologies Mod. I didn't see your latest post as I was writing my reply at the time. It is unfortunate these threads do seem to degenerate into an us vs them theme. As a complete outsider who only dips in and out of this forum, I would suggest that a much heavier hand is wielded against the people who cast aspersions against OPs who are looking for help.

Back on topic and to the OP's original problem. PRTB and Gardai obviously. Gardai will probably try to dodge it and pass it off as a civil issue. IME in dealing with the Gardai with what they perceive to be civil issues, you need to approach them well prepared. Have chapter and verse of the law that is being broken printed off and challenge them with it. The gun violence threat will make that easier, but I wouldn't stop at that I would research every law that is being violated by the Landlord and print it off and present it to the Garda. If you are not getting satisfaction ask to see the Desk Sergeant.

If you still have no joy, go political and email your local reps. You can do this very quickly. I had a case a few years ago where the local Garda wanted to brush it off as a civil matter matter and the Sergeant told me - "What do you want me to do about it?". It took a phonecall from an MEP who quoted the laws that were being broken. Quoting chapter and verse of the laws being broken will force them to take action, They can't plead ignorance then. But do not go to the local Garda station and tell them your tell of woe and expect them to act - they will not. However naive I was in the business of landlording, I was much more naive in the way crimes are prosecuted. You will need to push this. But if someone had changed the locks on my home and was threatening me or even my dog, I would drop everything else and go out of my way to get that resolved.

My advice to you (or your friends you are dealing with this guy), is to meet this challenge head on do what it takes to stand up to him. I suspect the people involved are youngish, and it will stand them in good stead to meet this sort of adversity and triumph. Just make sure that they pay whatever rent is owed down to the last cent.

kerry4sam

dmrules wrote: »

As per title, is it legal? Called gards but was told thats not their problem...any ideas what to do?

Thanks

dmrules wrote: »

Unfortunately there is...the tenants missed 6 weeks payments due to loss of income...tried to give him some cash today but he wants the whole lot...no alternative accom...

It's been awhile since dmrules has posted in here, Hoping the tenants found some safe lodgings for the night.

homerno

pajopearl wrote: »

Get a locksmith out and get em to let ye in. Say you've lost the keys and will prove residency once the door is open, assuming you can't do it beforehand. Make sure somebody is in the property at all times tomorrow and buy a new barrel for the lock. You'll get a decent one at B&Q for about €20. How dare the landlord hold your stuff to ransom. No doubt he'll have it moved off to a storage facility ASAP pay the first month and let the storage facility do what they want with it after that. Don't give the landlord a key to the new lock.

or just pay the rent and say sorry i was such an ass

Murt10

We just don't have enough information here.

Maybe it was a mix up with SW. Maybe, it wasn't.

Suppose that the tenant was a lone parent on SW and in receipt of Rent All. Suppose working boyfriend moved in with her and SW found out about it.

SW would stop paying the rent all and it is unlikely that they would ever pay it while he had been living with tenant, even if he moved out (ie at least 6 weeks loss for the landlord).

If the tenant is on SW in the first place, it is a waste of time for the landlord to take her court for the rent that they didn't pay. They may have no assets, so the landlord loses every way. They might be awarded E3 pw for the next 20 years.

Didn't "Ivor the Engine" forcibly evict a tenant some years ago, from one of his properties, and was fined an amount equal to the outstanding rent by the PRTB.

Shadylou

It's very easy for everyone here to talk of paying rent but if the tenant does not have the money then you can't get blood from a stone. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that sometimes people fall behind on bills and landlords do need to have a contingency for this just like any other business.
I'm not saying that people should be allowed to live rent free but there is a procedure and the landlord has not followed this at all and is just as much in the wrong as the tenant.

dmrules

Hi all, just want to say thank you for all advises given on here, will call PRTB and Treshold first thing in the morning ,hopefully they will manage to do something...

and to clarify some facts:
-yes the landlord came to their house with the gun and showed them the bullets and threatened to kill their dog
-SW made a mistake by telling them that not all the correct papers were lodged but they have all of them for sure(they have copies)

thanks again,will update later when talk to PRTB

foggy_lad

dmrules wrote: »

Hi all, just want to say thank you for all advises given on here, will call PRTB and Treshold first thing in the morning ,hopefully they will manage to do something...

and to clarify some facts:
-yes the landlord came to their house with the gun and showed them the bullets and threatened to kill their dog
-SW made a mistake by telling them that not all the correct papers were lodged but they have all of them for sure(they have copies)

thanks again,will update later when talk to PRTB

If this is true then they need to go immediately to the gardai and make a statement and make sure this thug is disarmed before he gets to carry out his threat, or worse! Then they can worry about the prtb and threshold.

That the tenants have not already made statements about this makes it harder for me to believe it, if someone came to my door with a weapon and ammunition I would have them arrested and disarmed without any threat being made simply for carrying the gun around without good reason!

The Muppet

davo10 wrote: »

It isn't their property and it should be their home only as long as they abide by the terms of their contract, they are paying (or not in this case) to rent it, 6 weeks is a long time without paying rent. The owner should not be out of pocket because the tenants circumstances have changed. I understand that this may be an administrative error on SW's part and that rent "may" be paid but how long should this be allowed to go on for, a month? Two months? Six?. As others have said, a problem now exists that it is too difficult for LLs to evict tenants who can't/won't pay.

I assume landlords would make themselves fully aware of the law before becoming Landlords, there is no excuse for any landlord taking the law into their own hands and performing an illegal eviction.

derold

no rent for 6 weeks, they deserve to be thrown out! Not enough back story regarding if they let the landlord know but some people are struggling to keep onto their house and need to money to pay mortgages.
The eviction is illegal without the proper notice but if the tenants arent giving anything back feck them good luck

Ray Palmer

davo10 wrote: »

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.

I know the system very well. I can tell you that SW rarely make mistakes on this it is the customer who makes the mistakes. They fail to provide the requested information, fill in the forms correctly etc...

Every time you hear a tenant claim SW made a mistake read the tenant failed to apply on time or follow the process correctly. It isn't complicated people just think if they file it will happen anyway.

LL is wrong plain and simple and should follow procedure himself too. The current procedure is not fit for purpose as it is not a private LL responsibility to support a person struggling with their finance.

If you accept the LL finances are no concern of the tenants then the tenants' finances are of no concern of the LL. A LL has to plan for missed and slow payments but they shouldn't have to. A quick eviction method should exist as a LL can be financially ruined by one tenant when procedure is followed.

It is in some cases prudent to illegally evict a tenant due to the risk to your finances and take the hit on the fine. If you find yourself with a serial offender who stung previous LL I would certainly think about it. If a judge fined you for that I would be surprised but if they did it would be worth it.

derold

the SW are useless they always make mistakes. Try get on the phone to them itll take at least 40 min .....useless

beauf

The Muppet wrote: »

I assume landlords would make themselves fully aware of the law before becoming Landlords, there is no excuse for any landlord taking the law into their own hands and performing an illegal eviction.

This LL in this case is obviously unhinged. Seems a very extreme reaction.

The reason a LL might do a illegal eviction is because it might be thousands of euro cheaper than going the legal, even allowing for fitness. Which suggest the system doesn't work.

CruelCoin

dmrules wrote: »

Unfortunately there is...the tenants missed 6 weeks payments due to loss of income...tried to give him some cash today but he wants the whole lot...no alternative accom...

So he's supplying a service, and they didn't pay?

That's theft, and he has the right to stop theft.

"a bit of cash fer ye bud, be grand shure" doesn't really cover it.

beauf

CruelCoin wrote: »

So he's supplying a service, and they didn't pay?

That's theft, and he has the right to stop theft....

Actually no. The LL isn't on the LL side here.

D3PO

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.

until the tenant ignores the eviction notice and the LL has to take court proceedings to get them legally evicted.

six weeks my ass. 10 months plus more like.

Whilst the LL has broken the law and has put himself in a position where a hefty fine in the thousands for an illegal eviction are a very geniune threat to him.

Fact is financially its a good calculated risk. Acting the way he has means he can rerent and mitigate the losses by actually getting rent in.

If the tenant doesnt go to the PRTB perfect for him if they do the whole process will take significant time, any award made by the PRTB doesnt have to be paid without being enforced.

The PRTB are too resource poor to enfoce a judgement on behalf of a tenant so the tenant would have to get a solicitor and take court action to have the PRTB decision enforced. Something somebody who cannot afford to pay their rent is unlikely to be able to do.

Im not saying what the LL did is right but the facts are if your a LL your going to look after your interests and the way the whole system is setup (for both LL's and tenants) means both parties have the ability to take the piss and often get away with it.

beauf

I don't think its useful to keep failing back to generalisation of the current market.

In the OP it needs to go to the Garda first off. Then the PRTB.

OldNotWIse

rubberdiddies wrote: »

But that not protection for the landlord. That's no use to him when he hasn't been able to pay the mortgage for 3 months and and the bank initiates proceedings against him. Where's the protection there?

Yes of course he shouldn't have changed the locks but seriously the regulations need to change drastically. We all know that tenants don't have to pay rent these days if they decide not to.

Cant LL send a notice to quit if rent late? If the situation is not rectified in 14 days they can evict? (I reserve the right to be wrong!) I've seen both sides tbh, my ex didnt pay rent for a YEAR after I moved out and trashed the place. LL had to go through me to get to her in the end. I was more than happy to help him because she was a right layabout sponger, but also had bad experiences myself, attempted illegal eviction etc.

Ray Palmer

derold wrote: »

the SW are useless they always make mistakes. Try get on the phone to them itll take at least 40 min .....useless

And how many application and sw claims have you dealt with to be able to say that?

They don't really provide a phone support service it is not they primary way they deal with anything. The idea is you go into them or deal with them through mail.

I see the information coming in and 9 times out of 10 the information is not provided. They get a letter sent out saying information is missing and then take longer again to send it in. Then they ring up shouting their LL is angry and they claim they sent in everything. Then they get told what they are missing but they insist their application is processed now with or without the information. Of course loads claim they sent in the information but when you go through the list they suddenly realise they forgot something but can we just process it. That is the day in the life of RA processing.
The forms say file it as soon as possible but the standard return rate is a at least a month. Given most of these applications are for unemployed people it is amazing they don't have the time.

D3PO

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Cant LL send a notice to quit if rent late? If the situation is not rectified in 14 days they can evict? .

No they can start eviction proceedings. Theres a BIG difference. If the tenant ignores the notice to quit the LL has to go to court to get them evicted and it can take over a year in some cases.

given how the whole process can be manipulated by a tenant its no surprise illegal evictions happen.

5 - 10 k fine for an illegal eviction versus no rent for a year ... good business to illegally evict in some cases.

Im not saying its right Im just saying with the process in place in this country it actually favours illegal evictions in some scenarios.