Tenants rent allowance suspended

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

I always referred to getting a PRTB determination first. I was not talking about the Section 124 enforcement. I was talking about the Section 126 criminal offence which happens simultaneously with the right to enforcement. You should read the legislation sometime.

Even the bit of the legislation you quoted earlier said they're not prosecuting for reasons of financial hardship. They're the ones over holding and getting this far in the process.

You still haven't given anything but hearsay.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Even the bit of the legislation you quoted earlier said they're not prosecuting for reasons of financial hardship. They're the ones over holding and getting this far in the process.

You still haven't given anything but hearsay.

You have got to be joking. Either that or you do not understand the difference between prosecution, conviction and sentence. Nor do you appear to understand the difference between the District Court and the Circuit Court or the difference between the civil and criminal processes. Prosecutions are in being and being processed. The limitation on custodial sentences applies only to financial obligations not the obligation to vacate which does not cost money.
As for hearsay all you have offered is hearsay. "i never heard of this or I have only ever heard of the other.
Can you identify any case where a person was prosecuted, was convicted, got a fine and was allowed continue living in the house?

Michael D Not Higgins

Grand, I used the wrong terminology, I'm not a lawyer.

You said people were getting criminal convictions and getting jailed and then posted the bit of the legislation that says they don't get custodial sentences.

You made the first assertion, we asked for proof, you have yet to provide any. It should be easy to provide one example, any example beyond "go to the district court".

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, thankfully it looks like the OP can save himself/herself all that bother.
Reading through this thread, would some of you still be so eager to turf out a tennant for a rent hiccup that can be worked out, as in this case? I think going the legal/eviction route should be a last resort, not a first resort as it seems to be for some posters.
OP, glad it worked out, well, you'll have to get the money first, then it worked out.
I think you exercised restrained and handled the situation with compassion, without being a doormat. Hope this will be the last of the hiccups.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Grand, I used the wrong terminology, I'm not a lawyer.

You said people were getting criminal convictions and getting jailed and then posted the bit of the legislation that says they don't get custodial sentences.

You made the first assertion, we asked for proof, you have yet to provide any. It should be easy to provide one example, any example beyond "go to the district court".

Not just the wrong terminology. Not alone are you not a lawyer, you can't read English. Where did I say people were getting convictions and jailed? Where does the legislation say they don't get custodial sentences?
How can I provide an example unless the cases are reported in the newspapers? The cases can be seen in the District Court. I gave an example where a landlord broyught a prosecution and the tenant left rather than face a criminal charge. The landlords generally only want the property back and the arrears of rent so they will do a deal with the tenant for a vacant premises and arrears paid as the price of dropping the charge.

Michael D Not Higgins

This will be my last response to you. You have yet to provide an example of someone jailed for over holding. This is the crux of the matter. This is what I'm disputing, everything else is your spin.

You contend they leave before a sentence but I have shown the legislation doesn't allow for jailing those for financial hardship, and yes it does cost money to move. No judge is going to lock up someone with a sob story in the middle of a housing crisis.

And arrears paid? You're joking right? We've seen several posts from landlords who couldn't get anything from people on the dole since they have no means to pay it back.

the_syco

4ensic15 wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Must be a new thing, as a few landlords are still waiting over a year of "no rent" to get their tenant out.

It has been there since the PRTB came into being, it is just that very few seem to avail of it.

I'm guessing no-one uses it because there's no proof that it has worked.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Where did I say people were getting convictions and jailed?

4ensic15 wrote: »

The court can put the tenant in prison if the tenant stays put. That would bring an end to the tenancy without the need for the sherrif!

But as there has been no public record of anyone going to prison, I wonder is it that effective?

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This will be my last response to you. You have yet to provide an example of someone jailed for over holding. This is the crux of the matter. This is what I'm disputing, everything else is your spin.

You contend they leave before a sentence but I have shown the legislation doesn't allow for jailing those for financial hardship, and yes it does cost money to move. No judge is going to lock up someone with a sob story in the middle of a housing crisis.

And arrears paid? You're joking right? We've seen several posts from landlords who couldn't get anything from people on the dole since they have no means to pay it back.

You have yet to say where I said anyone was convicted or jailed. You are saying that a judge won't jail someone in the mkiddle of a housing crisis. So, you are saying that a person is convicted, shows the judge they are poor and the judge will allow them continue to commit the crime for which they have been convicted? AS for arreears paid, you are referring to posts from people who got no money. Just because people who got money don't post doesn't mean it never happened.
You have attempted to misdescribe my posts when I sai d there was a faster alternative to Circuit Court enforcement. You have revealed considerable ignorance of the legal framework in which landlords and tenants operate.

dr.fuzzenstein

4ensic15 wrote: »

You have yet to say where I said anyone was convicted or jailed. You are saying that a judge won't jail someone in the mkiddle of a housing crisis. So, you are saying that a person is convicted, shows the judge they are poor and the judge will allow them continue to commit the crime for which they have been convicted? AS for arreears paid, you are referring to posts from people who got no money. Just because people who got money don't post doesn't mean it never happened.
You have attempted to misdescribe my posts when I sai d there was a faster alternative to Circuit Court enforcement. You have revealed considerable ignorance of the legal framework in which landlords and tenants operate.

I can't find a single reference to any tenants being imprisoned for no payment of rent in Ireland. At least since the Famine. I'm sure if one was thrown in prison for that (and ONLY that), we would hear all about it, every newspaper would scream it in their headlines and the loony left would cream themselves over it and the potential for protest and sh*t stirring. So highly, highly dubious to the point of it being as likely that the 1916 parade next year being lead by Elvis riding Shergar.

4ensic15

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I can't find a single reference to any tenants being imprisoned for no payment of rent in Ireland. At least since the Famine. I'm sure if one was thrown in prison for that (and ONLY that), we would hear all about it, every newspaper would scream it in their headlines and the loony left would cream themselves over it and the potential for protest and sh*t stirring. So highly, highly dubious to the point of it being as likely that the 1916 parade next year being lead by Elvis riding Shergar.

I am talking about not vacating the property so it can hardly be for non payment of rent.

Cuddlesworth

4ensic15 wrote: »

First off, the tenant may realise that getting a conviction means they can't go abroad to some countries particularly the States.
Secondly before sentence is imposed the Judge will ask if the property has been vacated. He will adjourn sentencing until it is or else impose a custodial sentence. Once the tenant is in custody the property is automatically vacated.

To be clear on this. You stated that tenants in a eviction process could be put in jail, that a criminal conviction could come about and that the property would be vacated. I don't doubt you are correct but I have personally never heard of these powers being put to use.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Application goes into court immediately the determination Order expires. Tenant served and back in court about 3 to 5 weeks later. Cost about 1K to landlord.

the_syco wrote: »

Must be a new thing, as a few landlords are still waiting over a year of "no rent" to get their tenant out.

4ensic15 wrote: »

It has been there since the PRTB came into being, it is just that very few seem to avail of it.

Then you gave the impression that it takes 3-5 weeks to evict a tenant in total, causing some consideration among other people here. Which ignores the notice of arrears, the notice of eviction, the PRTB case and the District court case to get the "determination" order.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The court can put the tenant in prison if the tenant stays put. That would bring an end to the tenancy without the need for the sherrif!

You then stated again that the court would jail the tenant, which they might but few overholders are that stupid. And the ones that are don't care about a criminal conviction, odds are they have plenty already.

4ensic15 wrote: »

I have been talking all along about enforcing a determination order through the District Court. In the case of overholding/witholding of rent the PRTB give priority.

You then imply that the PRTB would fast track your case while trying to clear up your miscommunication. They might fast-track but it's not a quick process from what I have heard. The worst tenants also know how to play the game, which most landlords do not delaying PRTB judgments.

4ensic15 wrote: »

You have yet to say where I said anyone was convicted or jailed. You are saying that a judge won't jail someone in the mkiddle of a housing crisis. So, you are saying that a person is convicted, shows the judge they are poor and the judge will allow them continue to commit the crime for which they have been convicted? AS for arreears paid, you are referring to posts from people who got no money. Just because people who got money don't post doesn't mean it never happened.
You have attempted to misdescribe my posts when I said there was a faster alternative to Circuit Court enforcement. You have revealed considerable ignorance of the legal framework in which landlords and tenants operate.

The judges don't jail them, they let you remove them from the property via the sheriff and the guards. In the same way the banks recently have had to appropriate their properties in high profile cases.

You seem to be caught up in the fact somebody replaced District court with Circuit court. It's a mistake, it happens. I doubt when it comes to it their lawyer would make the same mistake.

In case you are wondering, here is me telling people last year about the process as I understand it, from having talked to various landlords in the middle of evictions. The information relating to the district court is available online, it's not a hidden trick nobody knows about. The issue for landlords has always been the length of time it takes to get to that point and the loss of revenue during it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91417514&postcount=19
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91417580&postcount=20
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90677579&postcount=15

Its roughly 6 months to a year to evict, when the tenants are on the dole its financially unsound to try recover money and the tenant in almost every case would vacate coming up to district court date. So they can go on and do it to the next house. In a large number of cases the landlord fails to document or follow the process, delaying the timescale significantly.

4ensic15

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

To be clear on this. You stated that tenants in a eviction process could be put in jail, that a criminal conviction could come about and that the property would be vacated. I don't doubt you are correct but I have personally never heard of these powers being put to use.

Just because you have never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know a landlord who had a tenant arrested.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Then you gave the impression that it takes 3-5 weeks to evict a tenant in total, causing some consideration among other people here. Which ignores the notice of arrears, the notice of eviction, the PRTB case and the District court case to get the "determination" order.

If you read my post properly instead of jumping to conclusions you will see that I said the PRTB process and determination order go first.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You then stated again that the court would jail the tenant, which they might but few overholders are that stupid. And the ones that are don't care about a criminal conviction, odds are they have plenty already.

Again if the tenant leaves the landlord has achieved the major objective. In sentencing the major consideration is the possibility of recurrence. No tenant in situ could mount any kind of mitigation plea which would enable them to continue living in the porperty.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You then imply that the PRTB would fast track your case while trying to clear up your miscommunication. They might fast-track but it's not a quick process from what I have heard. The worst tenants also know how to play the game, which most landlords do not delaying PRTB judgments.

Overholding-non rent cases can be got to adjudication within weeks. Again you are relying on what you have heard. You are right about lanlords not knowing the system. neither do you.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The judges don't jail them, they let you remove them from the property via the sheriff and the guards. In the same way the banks recently have had to appropriate their properties in high profile cases.

You have never heard of a tenant being prosecuted by a landlord in the District Court so how do you know the judges don't jail tenants?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You seem to be caught up in the fact somebody replaced District court with Circuit court. It's a mistake, it happens. I doubt when it comes to it their lawyer would make the same mistake.

It is not a mistake. people don't know or understand the differences between the two procedures.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In case you are wondering, here is me telling people last year about the process as I understand it, from having talked to various landlords in the middle of evictions. The information relating to the district court is available online, it's not a hidden trick nobody knows about. The issue for landlords has always been the length of time it takes to get to that point and the loss of revenue during it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91417514&postcount=19
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91417580&postcount=20
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90677579&postcount=15

Its roughly 6 months to a year to evict, when the tenants are on the dole its financially unsound to try recover money and the tenant in almost every case would vacate coming up to district court date. So they can go on and do it to the next house. In a large number of cases the landlord fails to document or follow the process, delaying the timescale significantly.

[/QUOTE]
Again all those cases you are talking about went to the Circuit Court which is slower than the district Court. None of those tenants were prosecuted because the landlords and their solicitors did not avail of the right to prosecute.

Cuddlesworth

Not sure you get this. I agree with you but you don't put your point across well and you also seem to like to argue with everything.

athtrasna

Mod note

The A&P charter is stickied at the top of this forum. I suggest that posters refresh their memories of the basics like attacking the post not the poster, and remaining civil when posting. Consider this a warning, cards to follow if posters continue to disregard the charter. Thanks

fowlersleftpeg

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, thankfully it looks like the OP can save himself/herself all that bother.
Reading through this thread, would some of you still be so eager to turf out a tennant for a rent hiccup that can be worked out, as in this case? I think going the legal/eviction route should be a last resort, not a first resort as it seems to be for some posters.
OP, glad it worked out, well, you'll have to get the money first, then it worked out.
I think you exercised restrained and handled the situation with compassion, without being a doormat. Hope this will be the last of the hiccups.

Thanks. The arrears were paid in full on the date the tenant advised they would be paid by. She also gave me a commitment to arrange to have the RA paid directly to my account monthly, though this issue would have occurred even if that was happening already.
Hopeful it will be the last hiccup. There have been formal warnings issued and also verbal advice as to what route I will take should it happen again

dr.fuzzenstein

Wohoo, OP! Great stuff.