Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Landlord changed locks, what can I do?

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Tazz T
    Registered Users Posts: 3,202 ✭✭✭Tazz T


    Some real double standards on this thread from the landlords (I've been one myself). They say that the tenant shouldn't be allowed to stay rent-free - he should 'just pay the rent'.

    Because the landlord can't pay his/her mortgage.?

    That works both ways. The tenant isn't responsible for the landlord's mortgage, the landlord is.

    By that rationale, he landlord should be allowed to keep the property rent-free, if he can't afford it without the tenant.


  • Options
    #123
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Tazz T wrote: »
    ...By that rationale, he landlord should be allowed to keep the property rent-free, if he can't afford it without the tenant.

    I don't get your point at all.


  • Options
    #124
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    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...

    The landlord acted illegally. There is a provision in law that he/she can follow for non payment of rent. It's the usual story of someone taking the law in to their own hands. Of course for every bad landlord there is an equal bad tenant. Check PRTB and Threshold


  • Options
    #125
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Tazz T wrote: »
    Some real double standards on this thread from the landlords (I've been one myself). They say that the tenant shouldn't be allowed to stay rent-free - he should 'just pay the rent'.

    Because the landlord can't pay his/her mortgage.?

    That works both ways. The tenant isn't responsible for the landlord's mortgage, the landlord is.

    By that rationale, he landlord should be allowed to keep the property rent-free, if he can't afford it without the tenant.

    How do you know who on here is a landlord and who isnt ?

    Believe it or not somepeople just dont like defaulters and cheats, weather that be a tenant not paying rent a homeowner not paying their mortgage or somebody not paying their taxes.

    just because people say the tenant should pay their rent (and they should) doesnt make them a landlord.

    just to add your who post it complete incoherant and has no point at all.


  • Options
    #126
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    The landlord acted illegally. There is a provision in law that he/she can follow for non payment of rent. It's the usual story of someone taking the law in to their own hands. Of course for every bad landlord there is an equal bad tenant. Check PRTB and Threshold

    Really you think its usual to threaten someone with a gun?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Does everyone actually believe this story ,to me its sounds a little fantastical for my liking
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #128
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Gatling wrote: »
    Does everyone actually believe this story ,to me its sounds a little fantastical for my liking

    I wouldnt take it for gospel thats for sure. Seems from the posts that the OP isnt the actual tenant either so its second hand info at best.


  • Options
    #129
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Gatling wrote: »
    Does everyone actually believe this story ,to me its sounds a little fantastical for my liking

    Like not mentioning being threatened with a gun in the first post ;) or not paying rent.


  • Options
    #130
    statss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,802 ✭✭✭statss


    How is this award of 5k-10k enforced? What happens if the landlord simply refuses to pony up?


  • Options
    #131
    njs030
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    Op if it was sw that messed up were your friends paying the additional €30 that every ra tenant has to pay from their own money each week?

    I ask because what you have written happened to me recently too, my ra was stopped due to sw ineptitude and between people being off work and general messing it took 4 weeks to sort out.

    Instead of just stopping payment I kept my landlord in the loop and payed half rent for 4 weeks (which was agreed with them), I also kept on top of social welfare and daily sent my landlord proof of such. Back pay was logged into their account as soon as it arrived of course.

    Most landlords are reasonable if you explain but from what you are saying it doesn't sound like anything was paid at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    statss wrote: »
    How is this award of 5k-10k enforced? What happens if the landlord simply refuses to pony up?

    tenant would have to get it enforced in court.

    Like I said its a calculated risk by some LL's a tenant that cant pay rent for 6 weeks is unlikely to be able to afford to chase this through the courts.


  • Options
    #133
    statss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,802 ✭✭✭statss


    D3PO wrote: »
    tenant would have to get it enforced in court.

    Like I said its a calculated risk by some LL's a tenant that cant pay rent for 6 weeks is unlikely to be able to afford to chase this through the courts.

    that's what I was thinking, they'd hardly hand over the cash willingly. Not sure how effective the PTRB would be be for tenants in such cases.


  • Options
    #134
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    D3PO wrote: »
    tenant would have to get it enforced in court.

    Like I said its a calculated risk by some LL's a tenant that cant pay rent for 6 weeks is unlikely to be able to afford to chase this through the courts.

    Just so we are all clear, you are not actually advocating this illegal course of action? despite mentioning it as a solid option which will benefit a landlord in your last few posts.


  • Options
    #135
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    D3PO wrote: »
    tenant would have to get it enforced in court.

    Like I said its a calculated risk by some LL's a tenant that cant pay rent for 6 weeks is unlikely to be able to afford to chase this through the courts.

    If the tenant already has a judgement from the PRTB and has been awarded an amount then surely chasing it through the court is a formality? The money awarded would cover legal costs, no?


  • Options
    #136
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    djimi wrote: »
    If the tenant already has a judgement from the PRTB and has been awarded an amount then surely chasing it through the court is a formality? The money awarded would cover legal costs, no?

    Awards are not made by a court but by a tribunal set up by the PRTB, tenants are advised that most proceedings will not require solicitors or barristers which will save on any costs incurred. Costs in a case where a judgement is made against a landlord for illegal eviction and turning up to threaten the tenants with a gun would most likely be awarded against the landlord.

    Where anyone fails to pay within the timeframe laid out they can be further fined in the district court or even jailed for failing to comply.


  • Options
    #137
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Awards are not made by a court but by a tribunal set up by the PRTB, tenants are advised that most proceedings will not require solicitors or barristers which will save on any costs incurred. Costs in a case where a judgement is made against a landlord for illegal eviction and turning up to threaten the tenants with a gun would most likely be awarded against the landlord.

    Where anyone fails to pay within the timeframe laid out they can be further fined in the district court or even jailed for failing to comply.

    My understanding of the system is that the PRTB will rule on the tribunal, but they have no power to actually enforce the ruling, so if a tenant/landlord wants to pursue the money that they have been awared and that has not been paid, or if a tenant is still refusing to vacate a property even after the PRTB have ruled that they must do so etc, then the next step is to take it to the courts who can legally enforce the ruling.

    So in this case, if the tenant were to be awarded damages and the landlord refuses to pay then the tenant would take them to the courts, who would then be able to legally enforce the payment. Im sure there will be a cost involved in doing so, but its not like the tenant has any fear that they will lose the case (as the PRTB have already ruled in their favour), so money should not be an issue for them.


  • Options
    #138
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    djimi wrote: »
    If the tenant already has a judgement from the PRTB and has been awarded an amount then surely chasing it through the court is a formality? The money awarded would cover legal costs, no?

    should be yes, but its still a timely process, im no legal expert but Im sure there are ways to drag this out a long long time.


  • Options
    #139
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    statss wrote: »
    that's what I was thinking, they'd hardly hand over the cash willingly. Not sure how effective the PTRB would be be for tenants in such cases.


    PRTB determinations are legally binding on parties. Much like any order for payment, you're not just going to hand over a lump of cash, but payment can be pursued and enforcement orders can be obtained.


  • Options
    #140
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Where anyone fails to pay within the timeframe laid out they can be further fined in the district court or even jailed for failing to comply.

    and you can get a massive fine for not having a tv licence too .... these things are idle threats.


  • Options
    #141
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    D3PO wrote: »
    tenant would have to get it enforced in court.

    Like I said its a calculated risk by some LL's a tenant that cant pay rent for 6 weeks is unlikely to be able to afford to chase this through the courts.
    Is this really how it works for residential tenancies? I was under the impression that the PRTB would take up the case and chase it to court themselves if a LL ignored their determination. Would like to know more about the reality of the above.

    In commercial letting it's a different ballgame of course. No PRTB to run to so the tenant has to pursue the whole thing through the courts themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    Is there any protection for the landloard? If they're not getting paid the rent what steps can they take?
    They can issue a notice of arrears. There's no point in whining about the unfairness of legislation unless it changes. Right now, both sides need to comply.
    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    Seems the guards he called did not know they law. But that is no surprise in Ireland.
    Lot of landlords in the guards.
    rubberdiddies wrote: »
    The other side to that coin is that if the "pension landlords" didn't exist there would be thousands of people homeless
    So the house would just sit there and not be bought by somebody else? Nonsense argument really.

    What this thread is an excellent illustration of is just how different folks' standards are regarding not paying for the family home depending on whether they pay the bank or a landlord.


  • Options
    #143
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    murphaph wrote: »
    Is this really how it works for residential tenancies? I was under the impression that the PRTB would take up the case and chase it to court themselves if a LL ignored their determination. Would like to know more about the reality of the above.
    .

    Look at the PRTB's own website they clearly state that they do not have the resources to chase their determinations in court (they do take some cases on but very very few)

    Im aware of somebody waiting over 2 years for the PRTB to initiate proceedings on their behalf. Add to that the time to raise a dispute in the first case. It could be easily 3 plus years later when something actually happens.

    from their own site.
    Can I request the PRTB to initiate enforcement proceedings on my behalf?Yes. Requests may be made in writing to the PRTB or by email to enforceorder@prtb.ie and must give the Case Reference number; the date of issue of the Determination Order; details of the term(s) of the Order which have not been complied with; and what steps you have taken to recover monies due.

    Due to limited resources and the significant volume of cases currently being processed, considerable delays can be expected in the processing of your request for enforcement by the PRTB

    The Board may pursue court proceedings where parties fail to comply with its Order. Decisions on whether or not to pursue legal enforcement are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the Board’s own limited resources, the cost of taking legal proceedings and the likely success of achieving a favourable outcome for the requester.


    the above underlines tells me that the PRTBs decision clearly hasnt a legal standing. If it were then there would be no need for them to look at weather they are likely to achieve a favourable outcome in the courts .....


  • Options
    #144
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    D3PO wrote: »
    should be yes, but its still a timely process, im no legal expert but Im sure there are ways to drag this out a long long time.

    Im sure there is, but my point is that the tenant/landlord already knows that they have been awarded the money, so if its gets dragged out in the courts then what of it? Youre not going to walk away from a sum of money that you know you are entitled to and that can be legally enforced to be paid to you.


  • Options
    #145
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    djimi wrote: »
    Im sure there is, but my point is that the tenant/landlord already knows that they have been awarded the money, so if its gets dragged out in the courts then what of it? Youre not going to walk away from a sum of money that you know you are entitled to and that can be legally enforced to be paid to you.

    the underlined part in my previous post muddies the water there though. If the PRTB look at their enforcements and make a decision on weather to assit in pursuing via the courts depending on weather they think they will get a favourable outcome makes me wonder.

    If they have to review the likelyhood of a favourable outome clearly it isnt as simple as turning up in court and having it enforced. Makes me wonder if there is any legal standing in their determinations ....

    dragging it out via the courts costs money too. Something that in this instance wouldnt be awarded back to the pursuer so it would cost the tenant money to get the order add in a countersuit for owed rent its not as easy as I got locked out ca ching windfall time.


  • Options
    #146
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    D3PO wrote: »
    The Board may pursue court proceedings where parties fail to comply with its Order. Decisions on whether or not to pursue legal enforcement are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the Board’s own limited resources, the cost of taking legal proceedings and the likely success of achieving a favourable outcome for the requester.


    the above underlines tells me that the PRTBs decision clearly hasnt a legal standing. If it were then there would be no need for them to look at weather they are likely to achieve a favourable outcome in the courts .....

    By favourable outcome Im guessing they mean whether or not the other party actually has the means to pay (in other words, if the landlord/tenant has gone bankrupt and/or has fled the country then there isnt a hope in hell of getting a penny from them and the time and expense of chasing it through the courts might be a wasted exercise.

    I dont think it means that the PRTB ruling is not legally enforceable. I would find that very odd, considering the court will not entertain a tenancy dispute until the PRTB has ruled on it first, so why insist on the PRTB ruling if it is not going to be upheld legally?


  • Options
    #147
    statss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,802 ✭✭✭statss


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    PRTB determinations are legally binding on parties. Much like any order for payment, you're not just going to hand over a lump of cash, but payment can be pursued and enforcement orders can be obtained.

    Does that happen in reality though is what I am wondering...what level does the costs of doing so negate the award....I've seen organisations pursue commercial court judgements without getting paid, even after sending in the sheriff...curious as to how this is different in a landlord/private individual dispute....


  • Options
    #148
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    I would have to agree with notjustsweet. That is what most people would do and that is also what most landlords would accept. It is reasonable, honest and forthright, and the sign of a healthy relationship between tenant and LL. There appears to be more going on here and I cant help but suspect that this isnt their first run in. There is a lot of condemnation of the LL, and what he did was wrong, but they are clearly the actions of a very frustrated person, someone who has just had enough - the same person who is in the 1% of landlords who actually accepts rent allowance, let us not forget. That doesnt fit in with this uber-unreasonable caricature that is being presented. Im not taking one side or the other, but there are two sides to every story, and for my money we are missing an sizeable chunk of this one as regards how tings became so heated.

    Also people saying the bills of the LL isnt the issue of the tenant, and if he cant pay them then he should 'get out of the business'. Surely the same applies to someone who cant afford to rent? Why are they renting a house they cannot afford? And that is the bottom line, they cannot afford this house at present.

    What should happen here is the tenant should explain their case to the landlord and come to an arrangement similar to the one outlined in notjustsweet's post. If they cannot fulfill it then they should agree to move elsewhere. Once they have paid up give their notice and leave. Let the guards deal with the threat to the dog and move on. That is the honest thing to do.


  • Options
    #149
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    djimi wrote: »
    By favourable outcome Im guessing they mean whether or not the other party actually has the means to pay (in other words, if the landlord/tenant has gone bankrupt and/or has fled the country then there isnt a hope in hell of getting a penny from them and the time and expense of chasing it through the courts might be a wasted exercise.

    I dont think it means that the PRTB ruling is not legally enforceable. I would find that very odd, considering the court will not entertain a tenancy dispute until the PRTB has ruled on it first, so why insist on the PRTB ruling if it is not going to be upheld legally?

    You could well be right I dont know I guess the point is though a LL desperate enough to evict illegally is likely to

    a) be doing so due to money stress's and theres then a good chance they dont have the means to pay

    b) Is a total scumbag with no respect for the law as proved by their actions. Very easy for somebody like that to do a job of moving their assests beyond the reach of the court like many in this country have done over the past few years and then declaring bankruptcy.

    My point is that whilst yes its possible you could go to the PRTB get a determination and get a payout theres also a high chance that things will be made so difficult to the point you never get it.


  • Options
    #150
    irishmover
    Registered Users Posts: 4,746 ✭✭✭irishmover


    Miss a weeks rent in Australia you get a warning and required to pay said rent within a week (giving you two weeks to pay that rent).

    Miss two weeks rent in a row and you're looking at eviction.

    This person didn't pay rent for 6 weeks in Ireland. 3 times what the legal contract is in Australia.

    I have little pity for the tenant. If he was foreseeing financial hardship he should have went forward to the landlord from week one explaining the situation.

    The landlord however hasn't gone the correct path in eviction proceedings which is foolish.

    https://www.rta.qld.gov.au/Renting/During-a-tenancy/Rent-and-other-payments/Non-payment-of-rent-and-rent-arrears

    It might seem harsh but the landlord has a lot more rights here than in Ireland. I didn't realize it was so bad back home.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    rubberdiddies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 717 ✭✭✭rubberdiddies


    it's a little more complex in Australia and different in different territories, but yes for example in New South Wales if a tenant is 2 weeks in arrears, a LL can give them 2 weeks notice.

    Personally I believe a little more leeway should be given, however the current situation here in Ireland is unacceptable where realistically a tenant can squat rent free for months on end of they so desire with zero repercussions.

    I was a landlord a few years ago by way of being a joint beneficiary of a house. To the poster who said that being a landlord was a business, it certainly wasn't for me and we sold up as soon as was feasible. I would not like to be one again as I feel that landlords have no real rights.

    I was a tenant much longer than I was a landlord over the years though.
    I was the type of person that would have been mortified if the rent was even 1 day late. If I was a month or 6 weeks late I would have had no business in the houses I was in.

    The regulations have gone way too far in favour of tenants in my opinion. There needs to be a review to ensure that problem tenants and tenants that do not pay their rent, can be removed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that happening.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement