Tenant won't leave & filed dispute with PRTB

The_Conductor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are they still in arrears or did they get back on track when they approved for their welfare payments? If they are claiming rent suppliment and not paying it on, maybe make a complaint to an garda siochana

Without any disrespect intended to An Garda Síochána- they have bigger fish to fry than social welfare recipients in dispute with their landlords- and will normally either try to get you to resolve it between yourselves- or more likely- advise you contact the PRTB- both options of which have been in hand and continue to be.

Also- the OP already answered your other question further up- the protagonists paid approximately 1/3 of the outstanding arrears- and then failed to pay for the additional month the OP, out of the goodness of their heart (naïveté) decided to extend them........

So- 2/3 of the original arrears are outstanding- along with another month's rent, for the further month the OP allowed them to stay.

MouseTail

D3PO wrote: »

such a bad bad idea. You start this and where does it stop ?

Any encouragement for this kind of behaviour has to be shot down immediatly.

Id rather kick them out and take my chances with an illegal eviction fine, which id make the toerags go to court to get enfoced a few years down the line and then when done wait for the bailiffs before paying a portion of the sum out and keep repeating to drag things out as long as possible than give them cash to move out.

encouraging tenants to behave like this just cannot be allowed.

That is all fine and dandy when it is not your property they are over holding in, and you are paying a monthly mortgage whilst people sit pretty in your property not paying a penny.

I know LLs who went through an agonising 2 years through the official channels, were awarded the rent arrears and of course never seen a penny of it, and I know LLs who took a pragmatic approach to mitigate their losses and paid off tenants to leave, drew a line under it, and had new (paying) tenants in within weeks. Its not palatable, and it is not spoken of much but it is a way to avoid an overlong officious process weighted against the LL.

D3PO

MouseTail wrote: »

That is all fine and dandy when it is not your property they are over holding in, and you are paying a monthly mortgage whilst people sit pretty in your property not paying a penny.

I know LLs who went through an agonising 2 years through the official channels, were awarded the rent arrears and of course never seen a penny of it, and I know LLs who took a pragmatic approach to mitigate their losses and paid off tenants to leave, drew a line under it, and had new (paying) tenants in within weeks. Its not palatable, and it is not spoken of much but it is a way to avoid an overlong officious process weighted against the LL.

Given what the mods have warned against im not going to take this discussion any further. I take your point but id rather go another way to reclaim my property. Paying somebody off to leave encourages the toerags to go and repeat the feat over and over.

If everybody was to take that approach then no tenants would ever pay their rent.

geeksauce

Why don't you tell the tenant that you are going to inform Social Welfare that the Rent Supplement they are receiving is not being used to pay the rent, which will result in the rent supplement being stopped and they will have to pay back everything to SW. As well as that it will make it extremely difficult for them to get Rent Supplement in the future, if I were you I would try this and tell them you will be informing SW at the end of next week if they are still in the house.

This may encourage them to hurry up and leave.

Michael D Not Higgins

Beaner1 wrote: »

For good reason. Civil law is a lot looser and is open for debate. We are not dealing with crimes which are bad but individual disputes. The mods have taken it on themselves to act like judges without any real knowledge.

We all know illegal evictions will end in thousands in fines to the landlord and you've admitted as such. "It may be cheaper in the long run for a landlord to change the locks".

If boards is seen as tolerating or even encouraging this behaviour, it will get sued. We don't want boards sued all the time, so stop.

Nekarsulm

geeksauce wrote: »

Why don't you tell the tenant that you are going to inform Social Welfare that the Rent Supplement they are receiving is not being used to pay the rent, which will result in the rent supplement being stopped and they will have to pay back everything to SW. As well as that it will make it extremely difficult for them to get Rent Supplement in the future, if I were you I would try this and tell them you will be informing SW at the end of next week if they are still in the house.

This may encourage them to hurry up and leave.

In my experience, this will not affect future social welfare eligibility. It greatly depends on the official dealing with these tenants, some are hard line, letter of the law types, and some are so sympathetic, that they are often taken for a ride.
I have had prospective tenants come into the office looking for a property, and specifically asking for a house in an area overseen by a particular officer.
The official will tell a landlord, or agent, that "we are not here to provide rental income for landlords, we are here to ensure people have somewhere to live"

geeksauce

Nekarsulm wrote: »

In my experience, this will not affect future social welfare eligibility. It greatly depends on the official dealing with these tenants, some are hard line, letter of the law types, and some are so sympathetic, that they are often taken for a ride.
I have had prospective tenants come into the office looking for a property, and specifically asking for a house in an area overseen by a particular officer.
The official will tell a landlord, or agent, that "we are not here to provide rental income for landlords, we are here to ensure people have somewhere to live"

I know it may not work, but the tenant may not know this and the threat of losing the rent supplement may be enough for them to move on. Obviously if the threat of reporting them is to be used then it has to be followed up.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

This advice is wrong on so many different levels.
So- we end up with a culture where its ok for tenants to not pay their rent (the original issue remember)- and instead of being taken to task- are given a payday by the landlord, in exchange for them agreeing to move.......????

Also- the OP wants the property back to live in it themselves. They have been living with their parents hitherto. The tenant dragging this out- living rent-free in the property- is adding vast additional costs onto the landlord- not least of all, accommodation costs- as the OP will now have to pay to live somewhere else- meanwhile freeloaders are holding the OP's home to ransom.

I will not tolerate discussion of illegal activities in this forum- if you want to give the OP advice on how to deal with the issue- keep it legal- and hinting about possible courses of action, without actually spelling it out- is not allowed either..........

Most of you have been around these parts for long enough- and know the lie of the land- you're not going to get away with discussing illegal activities here.

It's certainly unpalatable but faced with an 18month wait for a legal eviction and the high likelihood of non payment, I would consider a cash incentive to get them out so that I could move on.

Gatling

geeksauce wrote: »

I know it may not work, but the tenant may not know this and the threat of losing the rent supplement may be enough for them to move on. Obviously if the threat of reporting them is to be used then it has to be followed up.

The social welfare keep paying the supplement as long as there in the property .

Social welfare don't deal with 3rd parties which the landlord is .
It's not fraud because there is no agreement between social welfare and the landlord .
And there will be no problem with the tenant getting rent supplements in the future

ABC101

Best to get good advice, either from a solicitor who is familiar with these issues, or perhaps various property owner / landlord organizations.

www.ipoa.ie

www.irishlandlord.com

Alternatively get in contact with a larger landlord who has multiple properties and has experience with this sort of issue.

Landlords are in a very vulnerable position due to the delayed and ineffective resolution process. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Tenants are in a very vulnerable position due to the very high cost of living / rented accommodation.

Telling a person they cannot afford to live in Dublin... so they should hump off to Tipperary where a 3 bed house can be had for 650 -700 / month etc... is all well and good... but if their family support is in Dublin... then it is not so simple.

London has major issues with the cost of living... only some people can really afford to live there. The rest are being pushed out. I see Dublin going the same way.

The Irish Govt / political parties are too busy being politically correct, promising all sorts of miracles to all persons.... whilst delivering effectively nothing. Shirking basic responsibilities such as having a roof over one's head has obviously got lost in the PC jargon.

If the penal taxation measures against landlords were withdrawn / reduced then it could be possible for Landlords to reduce the rent....... and tenants could have more money in their pocket as a result.

NewCorkLad

Gatling wrote: »

The social welfare keep paying the supplement as long as there in the property .

Social welfare don't deal with 3rd parties which the landlord is .
It's not fraud because there is no agreement between social welfare and the landlord .
And there will be no problem with the tenant getting rent supplements in the future

How could it not be fraud?

Take the landlord out of it. These people are receiving rent supplement from social welfare which they are then keeping for themselves and not using for it's intended purpose which means they are fraudulently accepting social welfare payments.

Any 3rd party can notify social welfare of fraud which they will deal with.

Gatling

NewCorkLad wrote: »

How could it not be fraud?

Take the landlord out of it. These people are receiving rent supplement from social welfare which they are then keeping for themselves and not using for it's intended purpose which means they are fraudulently accepting social welfare payments.

Any 3rd party can notify social welfare of fraud which they will deal with.

Because it's a supplement that's applied for based on you been in an approved rental property .

There is no fraud in welfare 's eyes .

its not the same as scamming the system with payments

Nekarsulm

Who is being defrauded?
The Tenant has a place to live, and the Department is is providing the tenant with monies to pay rent.
Dept. has no real connection with the Landlord. Now, in rare cases, where a tenant has in the past failed to pass on the rent allowance to a landlord, the landlord can apply to have the money paid directly into his/her account.(usually the mortgage account)
In the case of RAS tenants, on a longer tern contract, this is also the case.

Maddylicious

To anyone suggesting I pay them to move on- this won't work because they have expressed to me their desire to stay and have told me they would pay me an extra €200 a month which I refused. I did serve them with an eviction notice for arrears and should've done it sooner but I always suspected they'd dig their heels in so I built myself up to doing it. I just want them gone at this stage and if I thought that would work and could afford to do it (which I can't) I would. I suspect they haven't really looked elsewhere as they're acting like it's their home and are very attached to the specific area

doubter

Maddylicious wrote: »

To anyone suggesting I pay them to move on- this won't work because they have expressed to me their desire to stay and have told me they would pay me an extra €200 a month which I refused. I did serve them with an eviction notice for arrears and should've done it sooner but I always suspected they'd dig their heels in so I built myself up to doing it. I just want them gone at this stage and if I thought that would work and could afford to do it (which I can't) I would. I suspect they haven't really looked elsewhere as they're acting like it's their home and are very attached to the specific area

Frankly, that's not your problem-I mean that they are attached to that area.
You've done the right thing with the tenancy board, possibly involving a solicitor might speed things up.
I would also notify them of your intention to report their fraud to social welfare if you are going to do that.
You need to mount the pressure to leave on them, in any legal way possible.
I have to applaud you for not loosing your temper-I would have probably lost it a long time ago.

Good luck to you!

Michael D Not Higgins

Wait, they offered you €200 more a month but were still in arrears? How was that going to work? Did they know about your plan to move in?

Rent allowance accepting landlords are few and far between in this market due to the low amount in comparison with the market rate. Even if they were looking, they'd probably have to move quite far which is why they're not shifting for the time being.

foggy_lad

Gatling wrote: »

The social welfare keep paying the supplement as long as there in the property .

Social welfare don't deal with 3rd parties which the landlord is .
It's not fraud because there is no agreement between social welfare and the landlord .
And there will be no problem with the tenant getting rent supplements in the future

The Landlord just has to tell the community welfare that they are no longer accepting rent allowance and their rent allowance will stop and case will be reviewed and they will have to get all the forms signed again by the Landlord which will not happen.

Gatling wrote: »

Because it's a supplement that's applied for based on you been in an approved rental property .

There is no fraud in welfare 's eyes .

its not the same as scamming the system with payments

They must get a form filled out by the landlord to get rent supplement, if the landlord tells the community welfare that they have not filled out the latest forms than payment will stop and will not recommence until the landlord signs new forms!

Gatling

foggy_lad wrote: »

The Landlord just has to tell the community welfare that they are no longer accepting rent allowance and their rent allowance will stop and case will be reviewed and they will have to get all the forms signed again by the Landlord which will not happen.


They must get a form filled out by the landlord to get rent supplement, if the landlord tells the community welfare that they have not filled out the latest forms than payment will stop and will not recommence until the landlord signs new forms!

No once they have a 12 month lease the cwo won't care .
The rent supplement gets reviewed ever 10/11 months as long as they have a lease and there still in the property the supplement gets paid, the lease supercedes the landlord telling the cwo he is raising the rent above the limits .

Come next month the rent supplement could be getting raised to meet current values

Maddylicious

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Wait, they offered you €200 more a month but were still in arrears? How was that going to work? Did they know about your plan to move in? .

Yup. They'd say anything to stay but they never do what they say they'll do. Full of empty promises and yes they know I want to move in

the_syco

Maddylicious wrote: »

Yup. They'd say anything to stay but they never do what they say they'll do. Full of empty promises and yes they know I want to move in

Run through the process again, and look into how you use a sheriff to enforce eviction.

Maddylicious

the_syco wrote: »

Run through the process again, and look into how you use a sheriff to enforce eviction.

Sheriff only comes into play when PRTB rules tenants need to vacate and it needs to be enforced AFAIK

Gatling

Op how long did they sign lease for

The_Conductor

Gatling wrote: »

Op how long did they sign lease for

Once the rent hasn't been paid and a notice for arrears was not fully satisfied within the specified time period, any lease is null and void- and no longer valid (irrespective of how long the lease was for).

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Once the rent hasn't been paid and a notice for arrears was not fully satisfied within the specified time period, any lease is null and void- and no longer valid (irrespective of how long the lease was for).

Once the subsequent notice of termination has been served - the notice of arrears and exclusion of time itself is insufficient.

Cuddlesworth

Maddylicious wrote: »

Sheriff only comes into play when PRTB rules tenants need to vacate and it needs to be enforced AFAIK

Wrong. The PRTB can't order the Sheriff to do anything. You need to take the PRTB ruling to the local district court. Then they will issue a eviction notice. You can then take that notice to the Sheriff if they refuse to vacate the premises by the terms of the notice(judges tend to give a time period to vacate).

Michael D Not Higgins

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Wrong. The PRTB can't order the Sheriff to do anything. You need to take the PRTB ruling to the local district court. Then they will issue a eviction notice. You can then take that notice to the Sheriff if they refuse to vacate the premises by the terms of the notice(judges tend to give a time period to vacate).

I think that's what the OP meant, to get it enforced through the courts.

groovyg

Could you call in the services of debt collector if your rent hasn't been paid?

Michael D Not Higgins

groovyg wrote: »

Could you call in the services of debt collector if your rent hasn't been paid?

You could do that but only after going through the PRTB and courts first. Let's say you do that, with these tenants, with no assets, on meagre social welfare payments, following a protracted battle to remove them from the property, where they've racked up 10k in debt. I can't see much success in that.

eyescreamcone

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You could do that but only after going through the PRTB and courts first. Let's say you do that, with these tenants, with no assets, on meagre social welfare payments, following a protracted battle to remove them from the property, where they've racked up 10k in debt. I can't see much success in that.

You mightn't collect money but you might scare them into leaving

Michael D Not Higgins

eyescreamcone wrote: »

You mightn't collect money but you might scare them into leaving

But you can't collect the debt until all the PRTB stuff is sorted out. If you're harassing the tenants with debt collectors (I don't even know if they'd take on anything like this) then it will act against you in any dealings with the PRTB case.