Difficult Tenant

Arbiter of Good Taste

omnithanos wrote: »

I've rented to dozens of tenants before this with no problems. A little give and take is sometimes required. What's stopping you from deciding not to pay any further rent if you were that way inclined? Even if your sticky landlord decided to instigate eviction proceedings immediately there'd be nothing stopping you from squatting rent free for a year. We need better regulation in this area. Not only do Landlords have no rights over their own properties but we are now expected to pay huge property tax bills irrespective of whether we can afford to pay them or not. There is no option for a landlord to deffer payment based on income like an owner occupier can. Plus the Revenue are dishonest, they deducted one of my property tax payments twice and refused to pay it back until I went to the ombudsman. The process took three months before I had my double payment returned. Now Irish Water say that a landlord is automatically considered to be the occupier of any house they own. How can you live in multiple houses?
Then you have banks and solicitors conspiring to repossess properties and sell them on without following due process.
Crooks the lot of them.

Seriously OP, there is give and take, and then there is being treated like a doormat. You don't seem to be a bad person, and for whatever reason you are taking this charlatan at his word.
You might be like a friend of mine who is so good and caring that she can't believe that other people are not the same. As a result she gets taken for a ride regularly.

You seem to be distrustful of the government who, to be honest, will put you right in the end, but you are letting this ba$tard screw you over royally. At the end of the day, if he owes you rent, then he is not only robbing you, he is robbing the taxpayer. His dogs will not be put down if he brings them to a reputable shelter, so don't let him give you that sob story. (I'm still astounded how he can afford four dogs when two well paid professionals like myself and Mr Arbiter, with a reasonable mortgage, find one tiny one a big drain on resources.)

BabySlam

OP why dont you just give him the house and forget about being the owner. Just sign it over to him. No more LL worries!

Miamiheat

OP you are really a nice guy, maybe too much for your own good but the world would be terrible without decent people. Based on the responses of the thread you know what to do. I am just surprised by how much negative comments you have received by the readers: so they all think they know it all and would never find themselves in such situations: let them be...

omnithanos

Sent letter yesterday ordering that he remove both the new dog and the dog that can escape and that he pay the full arrears on the current agreement within 14 days.

He sent me the following text
"I was looking through the lease I've noticed something has been missing since the first time I rented the house and it's required by law to have one but your house doesn't have one and that's a B.E.R. cert"

We had a new fuse box installed before he moved in and I think the guy said we had a G rating but he didn't give us a cert so on the prtb registration form we have indicated there is no cert and the house has a G rating which is the worst one. Do you need a cert to prove you have the worst rating and why didn't the prtb inform me that I needed a cert when I registered?

bucketybuck

Miamiheat wrote: »

OP you are really a nice guy, maybe too much for your own good but the world would be terrible without decent people. Based on the responses of the thread you know what to do. I am just surprised by how much negative comments you have received by the readers: so they all think they know it all and would never find themselves in such situations: let them be...

That is correct. I would never find myself in such a situation.

Because the idea that somebody wakes up one day and "finds" themselves in a mess like this is just idiotic.

Michael D Not Higgins

omnithanos wrote: »

Sent letter yesterday ordering that he remove both the new dog and the dog that can escape and that he pay the full arrears on the current agreement within 14 days.

He sent me the following text
"I was looking through the lease I've noticed something has been missing since the first time I rented the house and it's required by law to have one but your house doesn't have one and that's a B.E.R. cert"

We had a new fuse box installed before he moved in and I think the guy said we had a G rating but he didn't give us a cert so on the prtb registration form we have indicated there is no cert and the house has a G rating which is the worst one. Do you need a cert to prove you have the worst rating and why didn't the prtb inform me that I needed a cert when I registered?

Let him take it up with the PRTB. He's desperately looking for a bargaining chip. Stick to your guns, if it comes down to it the PRTB might give you a slap on the wrist for not having a BER, but you could mitigate that by having one done in the interval.

Puddle Q

omnithanos wrote: »

Sent letter yesterday ordering that he remove both the new dog and the dog that can escape and that he pay the full arrears on the current agreement within 14 days.

He sent me the following text
"I was looking through the lease I've noticed something has been missing since the first time I rented the house and it's required by law to have one but your house doesn't have one and that's a B.E.R. cert"

We had a new fuse box installed before he moved in and I think the guy said we had a G rating but he didn't give us a cert so on the prtb registration form we have indicated there is no cert and the house has a G rating which is the worst one. Do you need a cert to prove you have the worst rating and why didn't the prtb inform me that I needed a cert when I registered?

Man he's just using this to batter you again !!! He doesn't give a hoot about the BER. So while you waste your time trying to get it sort he continues to take you for a ride !

Maybe just invest in a good second hand saddle and put it on your back and he can hop up on you and literally ride you altogether !

Penny Tration

omnithanos wrote: »

Sent letter yesterday ordering that he remove both the new dog and the dog that can escape and that he pay the full arrears on the current agreement within 14 days.

He sent me the following text
"I was looking through the lease I've noticed something has been missing since the first time I rented the house and it's required by law to have one but your house doesn't have one and that's a B.E.R. cert"

We had a new fuse box installed before he moved in and I think the guy said we had a G rating but he didn't give us a cert so on the prtb registration form we have indicated there is no cert and the house has a G rating which is the worst one. Do you need a cert to prove you have the worst rating and why didn't the prtb inform me that I needed a cert when I registered?

No. He's talking crap. You've given him fourteen days, so draft up your 28 day notice of eviction.

And seriously get some legal advice. I'm sorry but if you haven't a clue about her certs or eviction notices, you need a solicitor.

At this stage, it's clear he's going to stay til the bitter end, which could be over a year rent free.

So I'd suggest you offer him cash to leave immediately.

omnithanos

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

No. He's talking crap. You've given him fourteen days, so draft up your 28 day notice of eviction.

And seriously get some legal advice. I'm sorry but if you haven't a clue about her certs or eviction notices, you need a solicitor.

At this stage, it's clear he's going to stay til the bitter end, which could be over a year rent free.

So I'd suggest you offer him cash to leave immediately.

I won't be doing that but I may offer not to pursue him for arrears if he leaves quickly. I'll make an appointment and discuss that with free legal aid.

CIARAN_BOYLE

In case you are ignorant of the costs of owning a dog its laid out below
https://www.dspca.ie/media/CostofKeepingaDog1.pdf

if he has 4 dogs he could have afforded your rent he has simply chosen not to.

Penny Tration

omnithanos wrote: »

I won't be doing that but I may offer not to pursue him for arrears if he leaves quickly. I'll make an appointment and discuss that with free legal aid.

You're not getting those arrears back regardless tbh.

If my choice was an expensive court battle for a year or more while receiving no ten, vs giving a scumbag a grand to move out, I know which I'd choose.

Michael D Not Higgins

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

No. He's talking crap. You've given him fourteen days, so draft up your 28 day notice of eviction.

And seriously get some legal advice. I'm sorry but if you haven't a clue about her certs or eviction notices, you need a solicitor.

At this stage, it's clear he's going to stay til the bitter end, which could be over a year rent free.

So I'd suggest you offer him cash to leave immediately.

I wouldn't start with a cash offer. Too many people suggest that here and it sets a dangerous precedent. Tell him you're willing to forgive the debt and won't continue with a PRTB case if he's willing to leave without issue. This would be the first port of call.

It's likely that he's stubborn and will dig his heels in but don't play your ace in the first move. Use all your other options first.

Penny Tration

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I wouldn't start with a cash offer. Too many people suggest that here and it sets a dangerous precedent. Tell him you're willing to forgive the debt and won't continue with a PRTB case if he's willing to leave without issue. This would be the first port of call.

It's likely that he's stubborn and will dig his heels in but don't play your ace in the first move. Use all your other options first.

Yeah, I wouldn't have used it as the first offer, but ultimately it'll probably be the cheapest way to get rid of him.

omnithanos

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I wouldn't start with a cash offer. Too many people suggest that here and it sets a dangerous precedent. Tell him you're willing to forgive the debt and won't continue with a PRTB case if he's willing to leave without issue. This would be the first port of call.

It's likely that he's stubborn and will dig his heels in but don't play your ace in the first move. Use all your other options first.

Even if he does stay wouldn't I still receive his rent allowance payment directly?

He would also be guilty of benefit fraud since he didn't hand over the rent allowance payments at the start, couldn't I report him for that?

Penny Tration

omnithanos wrote: »

Even if he does stay wouldn't I still receive his rent allowance payment directly?

Could he get it transferred back to his own account instead of yours?

Michael D Not Higgins

omnithanos wrote: »

Even if he does stay wouldn't I still receive his rent allowance payment directly?

Until DSP decide to stop paying it for whatever reason. He could just ring them up and say he's moved to spite you.

omnithanos

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Until DSP decide to stop paying it for whatever reason. He could just ring them up and say he's moved to spite you.

If he did that I could then report him for benefit fraud and have all his benefits cancelled.

Penny Tration

omnithanos wrote: »

If he did that I could then report him for benefit fraud and have all his benefits cancelled.

But you've upped his rent to 900-odd, so doesn't that mean you're a party to it? I'm pretty sure ra limits for a single person living alone don't go that high.

cerastes

omnithanos wrote: »

Even if he does stay wouldn't I still receive his rent allowance payment directly?

He would also be guilty of benefit fraud since he didn't hand over the rent allowance payments at the start, couldn't I report him for that?

Just keep your mouth closed about it to him
Too late for what happened at the start, not that SW care anyway.

If he stops giving it to you do report it to SW and go to the local receiving officer.

You should have been getting the complaints in writing from the persdon who had the issue with the dog, not to show him but to use against him as proof of his actions and anti social behaviour, for which you can demand he is out in 7 days, whether he abides by that or not is another thing but it would mean he would not be there legitimately and would be out eventually and the ball started rolling on it, or he may start to realise and pay back what he owes (unlikely).
I would never offer money in lieu of being nice, any hint of it is blackmail (fraud by duress?) and illegal, so consider recording calls and conversations on an app while phone on or if speaking to him in hand.

omnithanos

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

But you've upped his rent to 900-odd, so doesn't that mean you're a party to it? I'm pretty sure ra limits for a single person living alone don't go that high.

Nope he moved in with his two kids so the rent was within the limits. I only found out they had moved out when he signed the new lease.

Shelflife

omnithanos wrote: »

If he did that I could then report him for benefit fraud and have all his benefits cancelled.

Yes you could , it may mess up his benefits for a while, BUT in the meantime you now have a tenant in the house whos not getting rent allowance and not paying you rent.

Forget about messing around with his benefits and possible fraud issues, concentrate fully on getting him out of the house and look after your interests only.

Even if he complies with everything you need to get him out asap.

Remember your first loss is always the cheapest !

Jenny Thalia

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Yeah, I wouldn't have used it as the first offer, but ultimately it'll probably be the cheapest way to get rid of him.

I don't care what it would cost me there is no way I'd pay off some scumbag who already owed me a fortune Id be following him for the money too, hounding him for it even after he left and that's a fact.

jmayo

omnithanos wrote: »

Tenant moved into my property on 1st June 2013.
Rent was agreed at €925 per month and approx €760 of this was paid by Rent Allowance which he received directly.
He kept missing his payments and from November he arranged for the rent allowance payments to come to me directly but in his first year at the property he had gone into arrears of over €5,000.
I made sure that he did not go into any further arrears by sending warning letters which meant he kept on top of his payments for the next six months.

How many months arrears did you let him build up ?

omnithanos wrote: »

When we met to sign the new agreement he told me that there was severe damp in the upstairs bedrooms and he gave me two quotes to replace the roof.
I said I would arrange to fix it up but my repair man kept making excuses which led to my tenant missing a further two months of his share of the rent.
He said he could get someone to fix it up for €400 so I said I would write off his two months missed rental payments if he arranged to fix it up.

So you decided to let him get a mate in to "fix" it up and you woudl right off two months rent which looks like at least €925 x 2

omnithanos wrote: »

In April I received a call from one of his neighbours to say that my tenant now has three dogs and one had escaped and attacked her.
I arranged to meet my tenant at the house and I was happy that the dogs weren't dangerous. I brought it to my tenants attention that his lease states that he should have written permission to have a dog at the house and I stressed that three dogs were too many. He claimed that if he returned the dogs they would be put down so I agreed he could keep the dogs provided that he could guarantee that they could not get out, that he make an effort to rehouse one of them as soon as possible and that he would not take any more dogs in.

So basically you are allowing him break the terms of the lease and not just for one dog, but three.

omnithanos wrote: »

I relayed this agreement to the neighbour who wasn't at all happy and who abused me by saying I was only interested in getting my rent.

She doesn't know you very well then because if she did she would know you aren't interested in getting your rent, but providing a charity to this guy and a few dogs.

omnithanos wrote: »

I got another text from the same neighbour on Thursday saying that my tenant now has four dogs and one is escaping. I sent a text to my tenant who confirmed he now has four dogs but the latest one is old and hasn't got long to live and it is only one of the four dogs that can get out. He had also gone four weeks behind in his payments and said that he has no problem paying the rent but that myself and the neighbours need to give him space about the dogs.

I sent a text to him this morning to remind him that he is now five weeks behind in his payments.

I have also arranged to talk to another, more reasonable, neighbour about him today.

My plan now is to send him a warning letter ordering that my five weeks rent be paid, the newest dog removed, the escaping dog removed if he cannot be contained and the upstairs bedrooms repaired all within fourteen days. If he does not comply with these demands I will ask him to vacate.

Any further suggestions?

Suggestion one:
get him out as almost everyone here has advised.
Follow legal route, although being honest a kick in the hole and all their stuff bin bags would be more suitable for this tenant.

Suggestion two:
sell the property as soon as he is out and never ever become a landlord again because quiet frankly you are lousy at it and losing money hand over fist.

omnithanos wrote: »

I don't trust him at all....

but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt.

What is the old saying...
fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ....

I don't know what is the saying once we go into double figures.

omnithanos wrote: »

I wouldn't trust an Estate Agent, from my experience they appear to be neither trustworthy nor competent.

Hmmmm.

BTW the tenant bringing up the BER cert is a shot across the bows and I would guarantee you it will take months to shift them.

cerastes

Shelflife wrote: »

Yes you could , it may mess up his benefits for a while, BUT in the meantime you now have a tenant in the house whos not getting rent allowance and not paying you rent.

Forget about messing around with his benefits and possible fraud issues, concentrate fully on getting him out of the house and look after your interests only.

Even if he complies with everything you need to get him out asap.

Remember your first loss is always the cheapest !

Even the threat of having his dole/social/whatever its called cut might concern him, he's played his hand and if you arent getting your money anyway, what have you to lose? I mean, what have you to lose as far as he is concerned you could go through with it and why wouldnt you?
Dont play that hand until you see what his response is.

Dont be nasty or threatening, just tell him he is going to have to leave and you will do what is needed.
Dont forewarn him of any letters containing notices of eviction and send them according to when they are required.

I know people will dissagree with this, but tell him you'll give him a reference and wont follow up with the DSP if he just gets out so you can rent it and he can start fresh somewhere else where the social is concerned about him as a tenant.
Ina ctual fact any written reference or even just your number should contain your number, dont give out any reference until he is gone, both to him in a hardcopy or a verbal until its definite he is out in case he tries to get a mate to test it, even then I would not give anyone a good report of him, at best I make note of difficulties, by saying there were problems, but he is an ok person but he just doesnt have is siht together or hum and haw about it, dont just fob him off to someone else, if they decide to take him on after that, its their business.


because the bank is hounding you and you cant afford to pay it without the rent etc (Im sure this is true anyway)
Dont plead, state facts, and sow seeds

Play it all by ear and dont lay all your cards out and dont make any offers as he might realise the game is up and making offers initially might make him think there might be more or he'll hold out for better.

Operate matter of factly.
Its gone on long enough and its time to put it to an end.
Really you need to nip any problems in the bud from the start.

omnithanos

Just to be clear I'm getting his rent allowance of €760 paid directly into my bank account each month so his arrears constitute his share of the rent which is paid irregularly.

foggy_lad

Shelflife wrote: »

How can a landlord be responsible for the actions of a dog that belongs to a tenant ?

If the landlord fails to take action when dogs are brought in against the terms of a lease or against the conditions of any management company they can be held liable for any damage or nuisance caused to neighbours or others by the dogs. It is because they are deemed to have been negligent in not acting.

omnithanos wrote: »

Once I deliver him the letter on Monday ordering him to remove the newest dog as well as any dog that can get out I surely wouldn't have any case to answer to the prtb.
I was also unaware that the dogs were causing any nuisance until I received a text on Tuesday and got in contact with the more reasonable neighbour today.

You are now taking action to redress the breaches and prevent any nuisance or damage to your neighbours so they would have no case against you.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

In case you are ignorant of the costs of owning a dog its laid out below
https://www.dspca.ie/media/CostofKeepingaDog1.pdf

if he has 4 dogs he could have afforded your rent he has simply chosen not to.

I doubt very much that such costs are ever incurred by these so-called animal lovers who are basically animal hoarders, they take in strays that they can't afford to keep and the situation can spiral out of control very quickly.

foggy_lad

foggy_lad wrote: »

If the landlord fails to take action when dogs are brought in against the terms of a lease or against the conditions of any management company they can be held liable for any damage or nuisance caused to neighbours or others by the dogs. It is because they are deemed to have been negligent in not acting.
.

There is simply no way I will accept that a LL can be held responsible for a tenants dog.

I would be no different to a LL being expected to pay a tenants water charges or electricity bill if they left them outstanding or if a tenant damaged a neighbors property they were visiting.

Michael D Not Higgins

Charlie Hundreds Quake wrote: »

There is simply no way I will accept that a LL can be held responsible for a tenants dog.

You can be. Third party complaints come up under anti-social behaviour for the PRTB. I'll include a quote from one of their determination orders concerning a noise complaint:

It is incumbent therefore on the Tribunal to decide whether this excessive noise constitutes behaviour that contravenes the tenant’s obligations as provided for in Section 16 of the Act.

Section 15(1) provides that “a Landlord of a dwelling owes to each person who could be potentially affected a duty to enforce the obligations of the Tenant under the tenancy.” A complaint by a Third Party that a Landlord had failed to comply with Section 15 may be maintained under Section 77 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Section 16(h) sets out the obligation of the Tenant that they should “not behave within the dwelling, or in the vicinity of it in a way that is anti-social or allow other occupiers of, or visitors, to the dwelling to behave within it, or in the vicinity of it, in such a way”.

Section 17(1) of the Act explains that anti-social behaviour encompasses engaging, persistently, in behaviour that prevents or interferes with the peaceful occupation of a neighbouring dwelling by any person residing in a neighbouring dwelling in the vicinity of the rented dwelling.

The Tribunal has given extensive consideration to the circumstances in this case and to the law as set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 on the question of Third Party complaints and anti-social behaviour. It acknowledges that it is possible to make a case that the behaviour of the Tenants’ children in this instance could come within the definition of the anti-social behaviour under Section 17 of the Act.

However, the Tribunal finds that the clear intention of the Oireachtas, in adopting the definition of anti-social behaviour, concerned itself with acts, or persistent acts, that verged on the criminal, if indeed they were not actually criminal, that caused fear, injury, intimidation or threat to the occupants of a neighbouring dwelling. The Tribunal does not accept that the Oireachtas envisaged the inclusion of persons with medical conditions under the label of ‘anti-social’ behaviour.

It appears clear that anti-social behaviour is something that can be the remit of the landlord, should such behaviour be deemed anti-social as per the above definition.

jmayo

But I would assume it has be linked to the property just like the anti social behaviour.

Thus if the dogs escape from the property then maybe the landlord can be held responsible, but if the tenant was walking down the street and the dogs escape there is no way in hell the landlord can be blamed.

Michael D Not Higgins

jmayo wrote: »

But I would assume it has be linked to the property just like the anti social behaviour.

Thus if the dogs escape from the property then maybe the landlord can be held responsible, but if the tenant was walking down the street and the dogs escape there is no way in hell the landlord can be blamed.

The outcome would be determined from the details. If there were numerous complaints related to the dogs made to the landlord, which the landlord did not heed, an incident down the street could be seen as a pattern of behaviour not an isolated incident.