Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Issue with landlord

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Kings Inns or bust wrote: »
    The OP need only get into the curtilage of the property.The Landlord can't 'defend' his property he's legally leased it to the OP. Any ruckus would legitimately involve the guards, the guards are going to resolve the situation by allowing the tenant back in.

    Assuming this was all done calmly the OP has every right to call a locksmith and the LL has absolutely no grounds to try and stop it. Any attempt to do so would be assault, again guards called.

    I'm genuinely baffled why I'm explaining this to you, you know all this.

    The guards have absolutely no role in resolving civil disputes regarding leases. the o/p will be told he can look for an injunction to get back in if he wants. The guards cannot "allow" anybody back in. Under what law are you saying they have authority to do so?


  • Options
    #33
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The guards have absolutely no role in resolving civil disputes regarding leases. the o/p will be told he can look for an injunction to get back in if he wants. The guards cannot "allow" anybody back in. Under what law are you saying they have authority to do so?

    I've explained twice now how this will play out in reality. You and I both know they'd be resolving the issue of the landlord and tenant having it out. Under what law are you suggesting the LL can prevent the tenant gaining access to the property they've legally leased?


  • Options
    #34
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Kings Inns or bust wrote: »
    I've explained twice now how this will play out in reality. You and I both know they'd be resolving the issue of the landlord and tenant having it out. Under what law are you suggesting the LL can prevent the tenant gaining access to the property they've legally leased?

    Tell me what law you are relying on? This is a legal discussion. What book on landlord and Tenant law mentions the guards?

    The landlord in possession with his deeds can let the tenant go to court to assert his lease. The tenant may well have surrendered the lease or only been a licensee for all the guards know. The side of the road is not the palce for resolving title questions and the guards are not judges. Any half decent law student would know that. Two wrongs don't make a right and the guards have no business interfering.


  • Options
    #35
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Tell me what law you are relying on? This is a legal discussion. What book on landlord and Tenant law mentions the guards?

    The landlord in possession with his deeds can let the tenant go to court to assert his lease. The tenant may well have surrendered the lease or only been a licensee for all the guards know. The side of the road is not the palce for resolving title questions and the guards are not judges. Any half decent law student would know that. Two wrongs don't make a right and the guards have no business interfering.

    It's not a legal discussion it's a practical discussion in the Accommodation forum. Perhaps a thread in the abstract in legal discussion would be better however.

    Returning to the practical side of things the guards are not going to engage in any of the legal questions. They are simply going to make a judgement call on whether the LL has illegally locked out the Tenant. A pile of possessions or the possessions locked in the property is going to be enough for them to insist the OP is let back in the property.

    Each point you've made is valid, but it's valid in both directions. Now I could make the point that the constitutional right to inviolability of the dwelling will trump the right to private property but you're equally right in that the guards will not be deciding that at the side of the road. They'll simply make a call on what makes everyone the safest that night and the OP made homeless isn't that.


  • Options
    #36
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    The gardai have nothing to do with prosecuting any postal offences. They are also so not going to get involved with civil matters such as tenancy. They'll go to the property to ensure no breach of the peace occurs bit will not force anyone to let any other person onto the house. Not officially anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Kings Inns or bust wrote: »
    It's not a legal discussion it's a practical discussion in the Accommodation forum. Perhaps a thread in the abstract in legal discussion would be better however.

    Returning to the practical side of things the guards are not going to engage in any of the legal questions. They are simply going to make a judgement call on whether the LL has illegally locked out the Tenant. A pile of possessions or the possessions locked in the property is going to be enough for them to insist the OP is let back in the property.

    .

    What authority have the guards to insist the o/p is let back into the property?
    Are they going to arrest the Landlord? For what offence.
    If the landlord stands his ground that will be the end of it. The guards are not going to engage in any legal questions. That is one thing you are right about. they will look for the easiest way out of it. They may try and persuade the LL but if he tells them they are trespassing and to get off his property, the guards will tell the o/p to go and get an injunction.


  • Options
    #38
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    cursai wrote: »
    The gardai have nothing to do with prosecuting any postal offences. They are also so not going to get involved with civil matters such as tenancy. They'll go to the property to ensure no breach of the peace occurs bit will not force anyone to let any other person onto the house. Not officially anyway.

    Thanks for dragging it back on topic, I'll give the last word to 4ensic here and I'll naff off to Legal discussion. Sorry if this tangent was not useful OP.


  • Options
    #39
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    cursai wrote: »
    The gardai have nothing to do with prosecuting any postal offences. They are also so not going to get involved with civil matters such as tenancy. They'll go to the property to ensure no breach of the peace occurs bit will not force anyone to let any other person onto the house. Not officially anyway.

    The garda have power to prosecute offences under the COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011.
    3.— (1) A person commits an offence if he or she, without the agreement of the addressee and, in the case of a person who is a postal service provider or an employee or agent of a postal service provider, contrary to his or her duty, intentionally—

    (a) delays, detains, interferes with or opens, a postal packet addressed to another person or does anything to prevent its delivery or authorises, suffers or permits another person (who is not the addressee) to do so,


  • Options
    #40
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Mod note Kings Inn or Bust and 4ensic15 please take it to pm. You have dominated the thread with a to and fro that is off putting to others who may wish to contribute. This isn't the first time you've been asked to do this in this forum, please let it be the last time. Thanks


  • Options
    #41
    percy212
    Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭percy212


    You absolutely need to call Threshold to get advice asap. If you have ANY money to spare, consider hiring a solicitor. This LL of yours is harassing you, causing you stress, stealing your mail, committing fraud, threatening you illegally with eviction etc. He needs to be taught a painful financial lesson, and preferably in front of a judge. I hope it all works out for you. Horrible position to be in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Kings Inns or bust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Kings Inns or bust


    athtrasna wrote: »
    Mod note Kings Inn or Bust and 4ensic15 please take it to pm. You have dominated the thread with a to and fro that is off putting to others who may wish to contribute. This isn't the first time you've been asked to do this in this forum, please let it be the last time. Thanks

    Apologies, I don't wish to speak for 4ensic but I think it just got the better of us, well me anyway and I think it might have been forgotten what forum this was. I think everyone started off with the best of intentions.

    Sorry again OP for dragging it OT.

    Discussion on the legal issues raised here for anyone who is interested.


  • Options
    #43
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    Kings Inns or bust wrote: »
    Apologies, I don't wish to speak for 4ensic but I think it just got the better of us, well me anyway and I think it might have been forgotten what forum this was. I think everyone started off with the best of intentions.

    Sorry again OP for dragging it OT.

    Discussion on the legal issues raised here for anyone who is interested.

    Of the standard of advice is the same ill stay away. OP ring the prtb or threshold and no one else.


  • Options
    #44
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The garda have power to prosecute offences under the COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (POSTAL SERVICES) ACT 2011.
    3.— (1) A person commits an offence if he or she, without the agreement of the addressee and, in the case of a person who is a postal service provider or an employee or agent of a postal service provider, contrary to his or her duty, intentionally—

    (a) delays, detains, interferes with or opens, a postal packet addressed to another person or does anything to prevent its delivery or authorises, suffers or permits another person (who is not the addressee) to do so,

    No they can't. Sticking Gardai on top of it does not give them any relevant powers. AFAIK the only powers they have are section 13 offences for obscene etc post and post in relation to packages suspected of containing illegal drugs. Mda.


  • Options
    #45
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    cursai wrote: »
    No they can't. Sticking Gardai on top of it does not give them any relevant powers. AFAIK the only powers they have are section 13 offences for obscene etc post and post in relation to packages suspected of containing illegal drugs. Mda.

    The Garda prosecute in the name of the DPP. Unless the offence has been reserved for prosecution by the Attorney General, it can be prosecuted by the garda in the name of the DPP.
    The offence of sending obscene material is contained in section 55 of the Act. It makes no distinction between the offences in that section and the earlier Section 53 offences.


  • Options
    #46
    Jen Pigs Fly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,770 ✭✭✭Jen Pigs Fly


    The fact that he wants no paper trail means he's definitely not declaring his income to revenue.

    An anonymous call to report it is all you need ;) auditors and compliance officers can be quite scary when the circumstance calls for it.


  • Options
    #47
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The Garda prosecute in the name of the DPP. Unless the offence has been reserved for prosecution by the Attorney General, it can be prosecuted by the garda in the name of the DPP.
    The offence of sending obscene material is contained in section 55 of the Act. It makes no distinction between the offences in that section and the earlier Section 53 offences.

    Sorry apologies i was thinking of telephones. anyway the postal company prosecute for the offence for the offence withholding post. Don't know why your dragging the DPP into this.


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    xxxJennyxxx wrote: »
    The fact that he wants no paper trail means he's definitely not declaring his income to revenue.

    An anonymous call to report it is all you need ;) auditors and compliance officers can be quite scary when the circumstance calls for it.

    Just a general comment on this as you read a lot of people saying "ring revenue as he is not declaring the income".

    You don't declare income to revenue as you get it you make a tax return when it is due. Just because revenue have no record now of someone earning money from a rental does not mean the law is being broken. Now this case it looks fairly obvious there is no intention to declare it but regardless of this no tax would be due yet.


  • Options
    #49
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    cursai wrote: »
    Sorry apologies i was thinking of telephones. anyway the postal company prosecute for the offence for the offence withholding post. Don't know why your dragging the DPP into this.

    Both can prosecute. Gardai can't prosecute in their own names, they have to prosecute in the name of the DPP.


  • Options
    #50
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Both can prosecute. Gardai can't prosecute in their own names, they have to prosecute in the name of the DPP.

    No. Show me this. Show me where it says this. It's like arguing with two law students. Gardai don't interpret laws to suit themselves they follow them to the letter.(mostly).


  • Options
    #51
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    cursai wrote: »
    No. Show me this. Show me where it says this. It's like arguing with two law students. Gardai don't interpret laws to suit themselves they follow them to the letter.(mostly).

    And this isn't the legal discussion forum. Take this over there or to pm please.

    Mod


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    athtrasna wrote: »
    And this isn't the legal discussion forum. Take this over there or to pm please.

    Mod

    i was actually getting to that point. Hence the law student reference but you ruined my trap.


  • Options
    #53
    Jen Pigs Fly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,770 ✭✭✭Jen Pigs Fly


    Winter Black Gel wrote: »
    Just a general comment on this as you read a lot of people saying "ring revenue as he is not declaring the income".

    You don't declare income to revenue as you get it you make a tax return when it is due. Just because revenue have no record now of someone earning money from a rental does not mean the law is being broken. Now this case it looks fairly obvious there is no intention to declare it but regardless of this no tax would be due yet.

    I'm well aware of the form TR1/TR2/11/11s etc I'm up to my eyes in returns at the moment ;)
    A anonymous call from someone even with a slight doubt as to the income being declared may be checked and selected for audit, people ring reporting a lot less :pac:


  • Options
    #54
    janisjoplin
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭janisjoplin


    Just want to say thanks again to everyone for the advice. I haven't contacted the RTB as of yet because I'm anxious of causing trouble whilst I'm still living in the property. Also my landlord is nearly 80 years of age and don't want to be the cause of him being ill. As regarding the mail issue I'm not going to change my address and I'm not allowing him to bully me unfortunately I will have to keep knocking on his property for when he sees fit to give me my mail. I have also spoken with him about my deposit and he said he has no intentions of keeping it,that it doesn't matter to him if I stay or leave. I'm trying to keep things on a plesant note with him as most landlords look for references from the previous landlord. So have been on to a few estate agents and am praying that I will find somewhere suitable, tis a nightmare having to go through the whole moving and looking for somewhere new process again . Hopefully I will find somewhere soon. Thanks again everyone for all your help


  • Options
    #55
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    janisjoplin wrote: »
    Just want to say thanks again to everyone for the advice. I haven't contacted the RTB as of yet because I'm anxious of causing trouble whilst I'm still living in the property. Also my landlord is nearly 80 years of age and don't want to be the cause of him being ill. As regarding the mail issue I'm not going to change my address and I'm not allowing him to bully me unfortunately I will have to keep knocking on his property for when he sees fit to give me my mail. I have also spoken with him about my deposit and he said he has no intentions of keeping it,that it doesn't matter to him if I stay or leave. I'm trying to keep things on a plesant note with him as most landlords look for references from the previous landlord. So have been on to a few estate agents and am praying that I will find somewhere suitable, tis a nightmare having to go through the whole moving and looking for somewhere new process again . Hopefully I will find somewhere soon. Thanks again everyone for all your help

    For the moment just get some advice from the relevant places. You don't have to act on it and they wont either without your permission.


  • Options
    #56
    janisjoplin
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭janisjoplin


    cursai wrote: »
    For the moment just get some advice from the relevant places. You don't have to act on it and they wont either without your permission.

    Will do. I'll contact Monday and see what advice they give me. Thanks


Advertisement