RTB adjudication

godtabh · 21-04-2017 9:48pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

I don't know why he is posting a fictitious adjudication. It is very annoying to read it knowing it is pure BS. A pair of shoes brings me to all adjudications that I go to.

Arent they private?

4ensic15 · 21-04-2017 9:50pm

godtabh wrote: »

Arent they private?

They are private. The landlord, tenant, their representatives and witnesses attend.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 21-04-2017 9:52pm

godtabh wrote: »

Arent they private?

He probably works as a representative for a agency company or something.

davo10 · 21-04-2017 9:53pm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

He probably works as a representative for a agency company or something.

Note taker/secretary?

JustLen · 21-04-2017 9:58pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

They are private. The landlord, tenant, their representatives and witnesses attend.

Landlords that have good representatives don't find themselves in these situations often if at all

gustus · 23-04-2017 11:26am

Hi Guys,
Yes I was asking myself the same question.. Why so aggressive? I Imagine thats why hes been to so many of them.

For those of you who are interested, the adjudicator said he could give us a preliminary decision at the end of the hearing as this would speed up the process and if willing we could agree to a settlement there and then. As we were deciding on the spot we would be given a 10 day opt-out clause/cooling off and even then after the 10 days we would have 3 weeks to re-apply for a tribunal I believe. SO basically its faster and more efficient. Perhaps this something new, but I wouldn't know as this is my first and hopefully last adjudication.
A big farce all the same. They had no interest in solid evidence that the tenants forged the contract to tr and get off scott-free. The adjudicator seems like a rookie on his first day. No disrespect to novices but I believe he surely should have had a more experienced adjudicator at his side.

For what its worth there you go.

davindub · 23-04-2017 11:36am

gustus wrote: »

Hi Guys,
Yes I was asking myself the same question.. Why so aggressive? I Imagine thats why hes been to so many of them.

For those of you who are interested, the adjudicator said he could give us a preliminary decision at the end of the hearing as this would speed up the process and if willing we could agree to a settlement there and then. As we were deciding on the spot we would be given a 10 day opt-out clause/cooling off and even then after the 10 days we would have 3 weeks to re-apply for a tribunal I believe. SO basically its faster and more efficient. Perhaps this something new, but I wouldn't know as this is my first and hopefully last adjudication.
A big farce all the same. They had no interest in solid evidence that the tenants forged the contract to tr and get off scott-free. The adjudicator seems like a rookie on his first day. No disrespect to novices but I believe he surely should have had a more experienced adjudicator at his side.

For what its worth there you go.

It sounds more like mediation, the 2nd stage is adjudication.

gustus · 23-04-2017 11:43am

-I think I know the difference... Mediation collapsed as the tenants wouldnt co-operate. This was an adjudication. Face to face. Facts gone through etc... Believe me. We didnt negotiate the terms. The ADJUDICATOR awarded me unpaid rent.

davindub · 23-04-2017 12:24pm

gustus wrote: »

-I think I know the difference... Mediation collapsed as the tenants wouldnt co-operate. This was an adjudication. Face to face. Facts gone through etc... Believe me. We didnt negotiate the terms. The ADJUDICATOR awarded me unpaid rent.

"As we were deciding on the spot we would be given a 10 day opt-out clause/cooling off and even then after the 10 days we would have 3 weeks to re-apply for a tribunal I believe"

Either you are confused or the ADJUDICATOR was...

You were offered the opportunity to make an agreement during the tribunal?

The 10 day cooling off period relates to an agreement made, the 21 days is the period of appeal from an adjudicators decision made based on the acceptance of the agreement.

If no agreement, adjudicator issues report in the normal manner and you have 21 days from receipt to make an appeal.

gustus · 23-04-2017 12:32pm

davindub wrote: »

"As we were deciding on the spot we would be given a 10 day opt-out clause/cooling off and even then after the 10 days we would have 3 weeks to re-apply for a tribunal I believe"

Either you are confused or the ADJUDICATOR was...

You were offered the opportunity to make an agreement during the tribunal?

The 10 day cooling off period relates to an agreement made, the 21 days is the period of appeal from an adjudicators decision made based on the acceptance of the agreement.

If no agreement, adjudicator issues report in the normal manner and you have 21 days from receipt to make an appeal.

It was an adjudication. Not a tribunal. He just said that instead of waiting for the decision in the post thet he would make a judgement there and then and if both parties accepted we could get the ball rolling... We werent negotiating. It was the adjudicators determination... But yeah as I said he seemed a bit wet behind the ears. I would have been more comfortabe if he'd had a more experienced workmate with him...

davindub · 23-04-2017 12:50pm

gustus wrote: »

It was an adjudication. Not a tribunal. He just said that instead of waiting for the decision in the post thet he would make a judgement there and then and if both parties accepted we could get the ball rolling... We werent negotiating. It was the adjudicators determination... But yeah as I said he seemed a bit wet behind the ears. I would have been more comfortabe if he'd had a more experienced workmate with him...

Sorry apologies, slip of the keyboard.

It should have been made clear that the adjudicator was proceeding on the basis that an agreement had been reached.

The tribunals are a little more formal and better in my opinion, for example you can be held in contempt if you give false evidence. Your appeal may have had a better outcome if the tenants were facing 4000 fine or 6 months in prison for their false evidence.

gustus · 23-04-2017 12:52pm

davindub wrote: »

Sorry apologies, slip of the keyboard.

It should have been made clear that the adjudicator was proceeding on the basis that an agreement had been reached.

The tribunals are a little more formal and better in my opinion, for example you can be held in contempt if you give false evidence. Your appeal may have had a better outcome if the tenants were facing 4000 fine or 6 months in prison for their false evidence.

Oh right. THat does sound better... But at this stage im happy to be done with it.. They will get their cummupence. Karma and all that.. I could still appeal to a tribunal... Any advice welcome..?

davindub · 23-04-2017 1:09pm

gustus wrote: »

Oh right. THat does sound better... But at this stage im happy to be done with it.. They will get their cummupence. Karma and all that.. I could still appeal to a tribunal... Any advice welcome..?

You would need proper legal advice if seeking advice, there is a lot to go through, even on the basics like the lease, it needs to be checked thoroughly against the Act.

Also you might consider the ability of the tenant to pay, they might pay the current judgement but if you double it? If they don't pay you have to go to the circuit court for an enforcement order.

So if you are reasonable happy, accept it.

beauf · 23-04-2017 1:27pm

The best the LL can do it re-rent the place as fast as possible and minimize the loss. Accept that some losses are inevitable in a business. The problem with the current process is the delay in getting bad tenants out and re-rented.

mrslancaster · 23-04-2017 6:40pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

There was always a 3 month time limit of intention to transfer interest from the RTA 2004. There have just been a couple of cases where the court has ruled that there needs to be a firm intention. There is no hard and fast rule on what that entails, but it does mean you can't give notice if you're just trying to get them out ahead of any advertising, open viewings, etc.

if LL gives correct notice, tenant moves out and then LL is unable to sell the property what is the situation?
does house have to be offered back to previous tenant or is it like starting from scratch, re let to new tenant?
is there a time limit

4ensic15 · 23-04-2017 7:50pm

gustus wrote: »

Hi Guys,
Yes I was asking myself the same question.. Why so aggressive? I Imagine thats why hes been to so many of them.

For those of you who are interested, the adjudicator said he could give us a preliminary decision at the end of the hearing as this would speed up the process and if willing we could agree to a settlement there and then. As we were deciding on the spot we would be given a 10 day opt-out clause/cooling off and even then after the 10 days we would have 3 weeks to re-apply for a tribunal I believe. SO basically its faster and more efficient. Perhaps this something new, but I wouldn't know as this is my first and hopefully last adjudication.
A big farce all the same. They had no interest in solid evidence that the tenants forged the contract to tr and get off scott-free. The adjudicator seems like a rookie on his first day. No disrespect to novices but I believe he surely should have had a more experienced adjudicator at his side.

For what it's worth there you go.

It gets better! It took 3 days to come up with this threadbare explanation.
It now appears that there was a collapsed mediation. If mediation fails the next stop is the Tribunal. not adjudication. The adjudication was a settlement no an award. There is no determination order. Whilst adjudicators always try and encourage a settlement, they never make preliminary rulings.
The adjudicators are chosen from a panel, which is constituted by people who pass an exam. It has been well over a year since the last exam so there are no rookie adjudicators.
At all events there is no chance the award will ever be paid. I don't know what was expected in relation to forging the document. The guards to be called?
Residential Tenancies Act 2004
113.—A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he or she makes a statement or supplies information to an adjudicator, the Tribunal or the Board in connection with the performance by the adjudicator, Tribunal or Board of his or her or its functions under this Part in relation to a dispute,

(b) that statement or information is false or misleading in a material respect, and

(c) the person knows that that statement or information is so false or misleading.

gustus · 24-04-2017 12:24pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

It gets better! It took 3 days to come up with this threadbare explanation.
It now appears that there was a collapsed mediation. If mediation fails the next stop is the Tribunal. not adjudication. The adjudication was a settlement no an award. There is no determination order. Whilst adjudicators always try and encourage a settlement, they never make preliminary rulings.
The adjudicators are chosen from a panel, which is constituted by people who pass an exam. It has been well over a year since the last exam so there are no rookie adjudicators.
At all events there is no chance the award will ever be paid. I don't know what was expected in relation to forging the document. The guards to be called?
Residential Tenancies Act 2004
113.—A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he or she makes a statement or supplies information to an adjudicator, the Tribunal or the Board in connection with the performance by the adjudicator, Tribunal or Board of his or her or its functions under this Part in relation to a dispute,

(b) that statement or information is false or misleading in a material respect, and

(c) the person knows that that statement or information is so false or misleading.

You have no idea what youre talking about...