Landlord changed locks, what can I do?

The_Conductor

itsirishfarmer wrote: »

go back in change the locks

its an illegal eviction

Its also illegal for the tenants to change the locks without the landlord's approval. Two wrongs don't make a right.

OK- so you have a valid notice to pay arrears, but an invalid notice to vacate the premises.

Pay the rent- and start looking elsewhere- no matter what the story is, the writing is on the wall.

fash

Looks like someone told him the consequences of evicting someone. You can still bring him to prtb for the illegal eviction- it merely reduces the award a little.
As said he mangled the procedure- at best the 14 day notice is valid.

CruelCoin

davo10 wrote: »

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

Indeed. And then they go onto the NAMA books and quietly sit there and rot.

Ever see the damage casued by 3 months of damp while NAMA sort out the paperwork?

That's not a real solution.

davo10

CruelCoin wrote: »

Indeed. And then they go onto the NAMA books and quietly sit there and rot.

Ever see the damage casued by 3 months of damp while NAMA sort out the paperwork?

That's not a real solution.

Not so, only loans above five million Euro go into Nama, repossessed houses are sold by the banks/receivers who want them off the books asap as they become responsible for upkeep/property tax.

Ray Palmer

dmrules wrote: »

They were always paying on time...just the SW situation made them short with money...

No that is what your friends told you. 90% of claims for RA come in incomplete. Given probability your friends didn't file their application correctly and/or on time.

D3PO

so as suspected the OP who isnt the tenant is drip feeding information that has been shown to be inaccurate. I think this thread is done I really cant see how we can rely on the OP to provide information that can be relyed on and as such the whole discussion is pointless as there is no basis of information that can be relyed on.

gaius c

housetypeb wrote: »

The landlord seems to have fcuked up again, first comes the notice of arrears,giving the tenants 14 days to pay the outstanding rent-then the notice to evict can be delivered after that time if rent has still not been paid, can't deliver both at the same time.
One must follow procedure,old chap.

He's probably reading this thread and learning as he goes along.

The Spider

gaius c wrote: »

He's probably reading this thread and learning as he goes along.

Those damn landlords, whatever will they do next?
club some seals, and buy 6 litre petrol cars?

P. Breathnach

D3PO wrote: »

so as suspected the OP who isnt the tenant is drip feeding information that has been shown to be inaccurate.

It's a bit much to say that it has been shown to be inaccurate. Its accuracy has been questioned by some people. It might be that the tenant messed up his RA application; it might be that the SW office slipped up on processing it. We don't actually know.

Whatever happened, if it is sorted without undue delay, the reasonable thing is that things get back on track: the landlord should not lose his rent, and the tenants should not lose their home.

I think this thread is done I really cant see how we can rely on the OP to provide information that can be relyed on and as such the whole discussion is pointless as there is no basis of information that can be relyed on.

We don't actually know if anything happened. The OP might have invented a story just to keep us occupied. But I'm quite willing to take things at face value, as I'm sure that nearly everybody who posts here is truly interested in addressing real problems. So I believe that the tenant was late with the rent due to a problem with the RA application, and that the landlord attempted an illegal eviction. I believe that the landlord backed off after an intervention from Threshold, but is still keen to evict the tenant and is getting the procedure wrong.

I don't see that the story is done. If the tenant manages to get the rent paid within the 14 days, there is a notice to quit to be dealt with.

D3PO

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a bit much to say that it has been shown to be inaccurate. Its accuracy has been questioned by some people. It might be that the tenant messed up his RA application; it might be that the SW office slipped up on processing it. We don't actually know.

Whatever happened, if it is sorted without undue delay, the reasonable thing is that things get back on track: the landlord should not lose his rent, and the tenants should not lose their home.

We don't actually know if anything happened. The OP might have invented a story just to keep us occupied. But I'm quite willing to take things at face value, as I'm sure that nearly everybody who posts here is truly interested in addressing real problems. So I believe that the tenant was late with the rent due to a problem with the RA application, and that the landlord attempted an illegal eviction. I believe that the landlord backed off after an intervention from Threshold, but is still keen to evict the tenant and is getting the procedure wrong.

I don't see that the story is done. If the tenant manages to get the rent paid within the 14 days, there is a notice to quit to be dealt with.

If its not inaccurate its at the very least misleading.

Based on the OP's posts can you really say you have confidence that the facts as they actually exist have been presented here.

Thoe whole gun thing for one not mentioned then thrown out like it happened yesterday then said it happened a long time ago.

How true is it, what exactly happened I wonder and even if it is true what is the abckstory behind it tennant late on their rent previous perhaps or so on (not that Im condoing a gun threat if it happened)

theres significantly more to this than meets the eye.

ShaShaBear

D3PO wrote: »

If its not inaccurate its at the very least misleading.

Based on the OP's posts can you really say you have confidence that the facts as they actually exist have been presented here.

Thoe whole gun thing for one not mentioned then thrown out like it happened yesterday then said it happened a long time ago.

How true is it, what exactly happened I wonder and even if it is true what is the abckstory behind it tennant late on their rent previous perhaps or so on (not that Im condoing a gun threat if it happened)

theres significantly more to this than meets the eye.

If I remember correctly, OP said the landlord arrived at the house waving a loaded gun and threatened to shoot the dog if they didn't pay the rent. Which seems really silly and downright bizarre unless this is not the first time they have been late on the rent.
I'd be more inclined to think that that story was made up in the hopes that it would make them look more innocent in not paying the landlord any money for 6 weeks. And that's only the time we know about. There's clearly another instance of this happening.

SW making a mistake with the claim/tenants making a mistake with the claim does not excuse them not paying rent - nor is it a "loss of income". Rent allowance DOES NOT cover the entire of the rent. As a couple (presumably), they were required to pay €35 per week, and as of January, this was increased to €40. So if the rent allowance was stopped, they still would be getting their SW payments (keep in mind that SW and HSE are not the same thing, SW does not deal with rent allowance) and would be well fit to at least pay the €40 per week they are required to pay themselves.

Now, if it was actually their SW payment that was disrupted by whomever's mistake, they would have been able to go to the Community Welfare Officer who would (most likely) have awarded them a weekly payment equal to that of the SW one that they were supposed to be getting and they STILL would have been able to pay the rent on time. SW mistakes do not go unrectified for 6 weeks unless tenants are not supplying information.

TL;DR?

• The tenants have been late with their rent at least twice, once for a period of 6 weeks.
• The tenants were not receiving the correct amount of money from SW/HSE and did not apply to the relevant authority to have SWA paid in place of the SW payment.
• The tenants made no effort to at least pay the minimum contribution out of their money to the landlord.
  
• The tenants told the OP they were threatened in their home with a loaded gun, which now comes out as having absolutely nothing to do with the incident of being locked out.
  

jmayo

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?

3 months.
Please don't make us laugh. It is probably more like 3 years.
There are mortgages out there (residential and investment) that haven't been paid for multiple of three months and nothing is happening.
Anyway hasn't the poor landlord gotten Irish Mortgages Holders Association, New Beggings, stephen donnelly, gerry calahan, jerry beades, etc to fight his cause.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

Yes of course he shouldn't have changed the locks but seriously the regulations need to change drastically.

Agreed.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

We all know that tenants don't have to pay rent these days if they decide not to.

A bit like some landlords and homeowners don't have to repay loans.

davo10 wrote: »

Just pay the rent or move out, people should stop expecting others to give them a hand out (free roof over your head), this kind of thing really pisses me off, the tenants have more rights than the guy who owns the property and isn't being paid.

They should change the law to allow deadbeat tenants to have their asses kicked out if they don't pay the rent they are contracted to pay. This guy admits that no rent has been paid for six weeks and then feels hard done by when the owner denies him use of the service he isn't paying for, the law truly is an ass.

I bet if I posted this in one of those threads about repossessions I would be labbelled an a**hole or an unfeeling bast*** for not pitying some poor people who would be homeless and on the road.

Oh wait I was labelled as such for posting way less insulting references to people who refuse to pay their way.
And I bet I wouldn't get as many thanks either.

Why is ok to label tenants as deadbeats looking for freebies and it is not ok to label homeowners or property owners as such ?


And before some get on their high horses, I think landlords need protection from fly by night dodgy tenants who ride the system, just like I think tenants need protection from dodgy greedy incompetent landlords.
As with most things in this country, it just displays our incompetence in formulating properly thought out and functional solutions to problems.

Anyway back to thread topic.
Tenant should be paying their rent and landlord should not be bullying tenant.

The_Morrigan

jmayo wrote: »

Why is ok to label tenants as deadbeats looking for freebies and it is not ok to label homeowners or property owners as such ?

It's not ok here. /Mod

jmayo

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's not ok here. /Mod

I wasn't labelling either, but it was very noticable how many thanks that post about kicking out deadbeat tenants got.
And you have to admit if someone wrote the same about property owners there wouldn't be half the thanks and every subsequent post would be condemnation.

As is often stated here there is a vastly different mindset out there when it comes to property owners in comparison to tenants.

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

I wasn't labelling either, but it was very noticable how many thanks that post about kicking out deadbeat tenants got.
And you have to admit if someone wrote the same about property owners there wouldn't be half the thanks and every subsequent post would be condemnation.
.

I dont think thats a fair statement. Personally I dont care if your a tenant a mortgage holder or the man on the moon I expect everybody to pay what they owe or face the appropriate sanctions (eviction, repossession)

Id strongly suggest thats a relatively communal thought process. with the only deviations being vested interests either side (delinquent tenants or delinquent mortgagees)

jmayo

D3PO wrote: »

I dont think thats a fair statement. Personally I dont care if your a tenant a mortgage holder or the man on the moon I expect everybody to pay what they owe or face the appropriate sanctions (eviction, repossession)

Id strongly suggest thats a relatively communal thought process. with the only deviations being vested interests either side (delinquent tenants or delinquent mortgagees)

Ah come on how many times have we seen posts lambasting those who demand repossessions as heartless so and sos who want to kick families out onto the road.

And yes I agree if you don't pay what you owe then feck off.

3DataModem

The Spider wrote: »

So basically what can be taken from this thread is, never ever take on tenants with rent allowance, way more hassle than it's worth and judging by some of the comments here, either have a chip on their shoulder, or feel entitled, and are more than likely to try and batten down the hatches without paying rent for a long time.

Always rent to professionals in very good jobs, and look for at least two months deposit as well as the first months rent. Always be aware that professionals are less likely to go to court and have a conviction, if they lose their job will be more likely to get a new job quickly or leave to another jurisdiction, freeing up the property.

You nailed it.

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

Ah come on how many times have we seen posts lambasting those who demand repossessions as heartless so and sos who want to kick families out onto the road.

And yes I agree if you don't pay what you owe then feck off.

Yes there are some people whos views cant be seen as anything other than contradictory in that regard but its also fair to say they are the exception rather than the rule. There are also people defending not paying 6 weeks rent.

I dont agree with either view tbh.

Id also add many of the people who are against mass reposessions are not taking that view based on any sympathy for the person involved but rather looking at the general implication of such a measure from a number of different angles including how to house said people, the implicaiton to banks balance sheets etc.

It doesnt make it right but at least its based on more than a view that people should be entitled to freebies.

its kind of getting off topic though would id say make an interesting debate as a seperate thread though one that hasnt actually been address on A&P as a stand along topic.

Claw Hammer

foggy_lad wrote: »

I do understand that people have bought rent to buy properties and the bottom has fallen out of the market now so they are left with bigger than expected payments on properties worth less than they paid. 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.

What about tenants keeping a slush fund to cover reduced income? The landlords finances are none of the tenant's business but the tenant has undertaken in a legally binding contract, to pay his rent, in full and on time.
Ifb a tenant stays in accommodation and knows that he is never going to be able to pay his rent he is committing criminal offences. Why should a landlord have to put up with criminality?

P. Breathnach

Claw Hammer wrote: »

... Ifb a tenant stays in accommodation and knows that he is never going to be able to pay his rent he is committing criminal offences. Why should a landlord have to put up with criminality?

What criminal offence?

Claw Hammer

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What criminal offence?

Obtaining services by deception.
Availing of a service knowing that payment on the spot is expected and failing to pay.
Later, failing to pay on foot of a PRTB determination.

dmrules

D3PO wrote: »

so as suspected the OP who isnt the tenant is drip feeding information that has been shown to be inaccurate. I think this thread is done I really cant see how we can rely on the OP to provide information that can be relyed on and as such the whole discussion is pointless as there is no basis of information that can be relyed on.

As a long time reader but not frequent poster on Boards, I thought that it was correct place to ask the fellow Boardies for advice...especially on this forum...
I was just trying to help them(tenants), maybe the information I was providing here was not very accurate(English is not my first language, the tenatns have none) but that's what they were telling me...
also why would I made up this kind of story? do some people do this? anyway...thanks again for good advises, they are back home and that's the most important thing for now...

D3PO

i wasnt accusing you of making up the story.

My point was and still is that we dont not have the full facts so its impossible for a coherant debate with proper solid advise to be given to you to pass back to them.

dmrules

fair enough...

P. Breathnach

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Obtaining services by deception.
Availing of a service knowing that payment on the spot is expected and failing to pay.
Later, failing to pay on foot of a PRTB determination.

You're pushing it. A rental agreement is subject to civil law, not criminal law.

It seems likely to me that tenants generally sign leases in good faith, fully intending to pay the agreed rent. Then, either because they had miscalculated their ability to pay or, probably more often, because of a change in their circumstances, they fall behind with their payments. It's excessive to tar all tenants with the brush that can be used for the relatively small proportion who intend to game the system.

In the case we are discussing in this thread, the rent is overdue mainly because somebody (quite possibly the tenant) screwed up some paperwork. That's hardly criminal intent.

Claw Hammer

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're pushing it. A rental agreement is subject to civil law, not criminal law.

It seems likely to me that tenants generally sign leases in good faith, fully intending to pay the agreed rent. Then, either because they had miscalculated their ability to pay or, probably more often, because of a change in their circumstances, they fall behind with their payments. It's excessive to tar all tenants with the brush that can be used for the relatively small proportion who intend to game the system.

In the case we are discussing in this thread, the rent is overdue mainly because somebody (quite possibly the tenant) screwed up some paperwork. That's hardly criminal intent.

I said if the tenant stayed on knowing he could not pay the arrears he would be committing offences. Not obeying an adjudication of the PRTB is a criminal offence.

rubberdiddies

D3PO wrote: »

Personally I dont care if your a tenant a mortgage holder or the man on the moon I expect everybody to pay what they owe or face the appropriate sanctions (eviction, repossession)

exactly. i feel the same. this thread however happens to be about a tenant not paying their rent and not a homeowner not paying a mortgage

OldNotWIse

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I said if the tenant stayed on knowing he could not pay the arrears he would be committing offences. Not obeying an adjudication of the PRTB is a criminal offence.

Civil, no?

Claw Hammer

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Civil, no?

It is a criminal offence. The award may also be enforced by the court making an equivalent order.

OldNotWIse

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is a criminal offence. The award may also be enforced by the court making an equivalent order.

Enforcement of orders is done via civil proceedings in the Circuit.