Issues with my tenants

Skyrimaddict

4ensic15 wrote: »

You did nothing wrong so why should you let the tieif away with it. It only costs €25 to go to the RTB. If he is a householder he will be easily traced and made pay.

How easy is it to make the person pay though.
If I spend ages chasing through the courts, do I get costs awarded or something?

Graham

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

How easy is it to make the person pay though.
If I spend ages chasing through the courts, do I get costs awarded or something?

Given it only costs a few euro to start the process, cross that bridge later when/if the tenant hasn't paid-up on the foot of an RTB determination.

Skyrimaddict

Graham wrote: »

Given it only costs a few euro to start the process, cross that bridge later when/if the tenant hasn't paid-up on the foot of an RTB determination.

Ah yes, I follow you now.
I dont have to follow up with it if I feel the final cost will outweigh the gain at the end of the process.

Thank you.

4ensic15

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

How easy is it to make the person pay though.
If I spend ages chasing through the courts, do I get costs awarded or something?

You will get the costs of obtaining judgment in the Circuit Court added to the bill for the rent. You can get an instalment order from the District Court if he does not pay with the costs of pursuing him added on.

jamesthepeach

If the person has a job/career I would chase them through the courts.
Once you win they will have to pay you everything.
It's only people who plead that they are on welfare and have nothing that can avoid paying for their judgements.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

You will get the costs of obtaining judgment in the Circuit Court added to the bill for the rent. You can get an instalment order from the District Court if he does not pay with the costs of pursuing him added on.

Just to note- this is last resort tactics- an installment order can be as low as a fiver a week- which would mean if they owe you 5k including legal fees- its not indexed linked, its a flat line deduction payment- and you could actually be fully 20 years in getting it back.

If the guy annoys you sufficiently that you are this motivated- off you go- but its not a viable manner of getting a debt paid back- its more a manner of registering your unhappiness with the guy- and if there is ever a check on his/her record this lien will feature (it'll also go on their credit report, post 31st June 2017- which means it'll impede their ability to ever get a loan/mortgage etc).

Its messy- and its more a manner of registering a grudge- than a viable option for getting a debt repaid.

Usually- the threat of something like this- is sufficient to have the debt paid- and the fact that it'll go on their credit record for the first time come July- is an unknown entity- as most people aren't aware of it.

jamesthepeach

If a person owes you €20000 then even paying over a few years that's worth getting back.
Now if it's a fiver a week it's probably not worth the outlay, but the person would have to be on welfare to have to only pay that little.
I don't know if the ops tenants are on welfare, but if they aren't, or intend ever to get a job, its worth reversing the choke hold by turning it on them.

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

It's only people who plead that they are on welfare and have nothing that can avoid paying for their judgements.

Even people on social welfare can have token payments taken from their payments (I worked in debt recovery a while back- shudder.......)

It most certainly is not only people on DSP payments- who plead penury and get away without paying their judgements either- unfortunately- there are vile snakes out there who bend reality in the impossible ways imaginable to get away with it.

4ensic15

When an instalment order is applied for, the debtor has to submit an affidavit of means. This is discussed in open court. A householder with a reasonable job will be reluctant to do this. Judges will not be sympathetic either.

jamesthepeach

The_Conductor wrote: »

Even people on social welfare can have token payments taken from their payments (I worked in debt recovery a while back- shudder.......)

It most certainly is not only people on DSP payments- who plead penury and get away without paying their judgements either- unfortunately- there are vile snakes out there who bend reality in the impossible ways imaginable to get away with it.

Everyone I hear new info it reinforces to me not to ever rent to someone without a good career and reputation. Basically only rent to people who stand to lose a lot by being losers.
Sad, but true.

4ensic15

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Everyone I hear new info it reinforces to me not to ever rent to someone without a good career and reputation. Basically only rent to people who stand to lose a lot by being losers.
Sad, but true.

That is discrimination. You risk being fined heavily if you are caught. Sad but true.

athtrasna

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is discrimination. You risk being fined heavily if you are caught. Sad but true.

Not every low paid person or casual worker is on benefits.

Pelvis

OP, didn't you say earlier you're going to be down only a grand or two? I think you should read through this forum about LL whose tenants aren't so quick to move out and who don't leave the place in immaculate condition, not to mention buying new appliances!!

It doesn't sound like you're losing out on a lot here, certainly not as much as your tenant which you are partly responsible for.

IMO, don't be a dick. Under the circumstances you've outlined, the fact you're even considering taking the guy to court speaks volumes about you.

pilly

Pelvis wrote: »

OP, didn't you say earlier you're going to be down only a grand or two? I think you should read through this forum about LL whose tenants aren't so quick to move out and who don't leave the place in immaculate condition, not to mention buying new appliances!!

It doesn't sound like you're losing out on a lot here, certainly not as much as your tenant which you are partly responsible for.

IMO, don't be a dick. Under the circumstances you've outlined, the fact you're even considering taking the guy to court speaks volumes about you.

I totally agree. I've been watching this thread and trying to keep quiet after I said earlier that I didn't think OP was being a dick but I've changed my mind.

OP has admitted that the whole sale was fcuked up by him, it cost the tenant money, time and heartache I'm sure.

The tenant also did a huge amount of work in the house including repairing fencing and replacing appliances, presumably on the basis that he was buying the house so he didn't mind. OP has admitted that 2 requests for serious repairs were ignored.

I can't believe the amount of people on here saying take him to court or take a case against him with the RTB all through spite when in fact it should be the tenant in this case who's spiteful.

And I say this from the point of view of a LL, if I had done this on my tenants and they were moving out shortly as OP as stated, leaving me short a few hundred quid I'd be very happy that they weren't looking for more money.

Don't be a dick OP. You know you've done wrong here and you're just looking for people now to tell you you're in the right.

I actually think if this went before the RTB they would more inclined to give the tenant more money.

Skyrimaddict

The_Conductor wrote: »

Just to note- this is last resort tactics- an installment order can be as low as a fiver a week- which would mean if they owe you 5k including legal fees- its not indexed linked, its a flat line deduction payment- and you could actually be fully 20 years in getting it back.

If the guy annoys you sufficiently that you are this motivated- off you go- but its not a viable manner of getting a debt paid back- its more a manner of registering your unhappiness with the guy- and if there is ever a check on his/her record this lien will feature (it'll also go on their credit report, post 31st June 2017- which means it'll impede their ability to ever get a loan/mortgage etc).

Its messy- and its more a manner of registering a grudge- than a viable option for getting a debt repaid.

Usually- the threat of something like this- is sufficient to have the debt paid- and the fact that it'll go on their credit record for the first time come July- is an unknown entity- as most people aren't aware of it.

Hi,

From reading your message there, I would need to go through RTB, could be 2 months, they would then need to not comply with this order to move, as in still overhold. Then I would need to go through the courts for this. In all honesty that process could take months, and as I have mentioned before the tenant has proof of my EA avoiding/not answering calls, emails and texts in regards to the property.

My biggest worry would be as I engaged the sale over a year ago and it only came to light in the very late stage that I could not follow through with it, something that I should have checked with, that a judge may say I also wasted time in this regard and added contributory issues.

As the tenant has receipts of new appliances bought and receipts for work carried out and not reimbursed for also.

Skyrimaddict

pilly wrote: »

I totally agree. I've been watching this thread and trying to keep quiet after I said earlier that I didn't think OP was being a dick but I've changed my mind.

OP has admitted that the whole sale was fcuked up by him, it cost the tenant money, time and heartache I'm sure.

The tenant also did a huge amount of work in the house including repairing fencing and replacing appliances, presumably on the basis that he was buying the house so he didn't mind. OP has admitted that 2 requests for serious repairs were ignored.

I can't believe the amount of people on here saying take him to court or take a case against him with the RTB all through spite when in fact it should be the tenant in this case who's spiteful.

And I say this from the point of view of a LL, if I had done this on my tenants and they were moving out shortly as OP as stated, leaving me short a few hundred quid I'd be very happy that they weren't looking for more money.

Don't be a dick OP. You know you've done wrong here and you're just looking for people now to tell you you're in the right.

I actually think if this went before the RTB they would more inclined to give the tenant more money.

Hi,

No I am not thinking of taking him to court, I was only asking what outcomes of it happens. personally I dont feel this would be the best way to go

pilly

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

Hi,

No I am not thinking of taking him to court, I was only asking what outcomes of it happens. personally I dont feel this would be the best way to go

It definitely wouldn't be. Be decent with him and he'll be decent with you. The fact that he's even leaving the appliances behind and that you've stated he always paid on time and kept the place lovely suggests he's a decent human being.

Skyrimaddict

pilly wrote: »

It definitely wouldn't be. Be decent with him and he'll be decent with you. The fact that he's even leaving the appliances behind and that you've stated he always paid on time and kept the place lovely suggests he's a decent human being.

Yes, that is also what I think might go against me if I am honest. At least the house is still clean and tidy looking, nothing a good weekend wouldn't sort out anyway

4ensic15

A decent tenant is one who pays the rent. Holding back rent because of a title problem, which could have happened with any house, is despicable.

Turtle_

4ensic15 wrote: »

A decent tenant is one who pays the rent. Holding back rent because of a title problem, which could have happened with any house, is despicable.

Except it's not a title problem that could have happened to anyone. If the OP had done a little bit of due diligence and talked to the bank before going into the sale process, he would have found out right then that he couldn't sell. (I'm guessing Bank won't ageee to sale with negative equity is the issue). The OP could reasonably have known that prior to the tenant spending a load of money, backing out of another sale, and missing an opportunity to buy elsewhere for less money.

So I'm sorry, saying it could have happened with any house is nonsense. It could only have happened to any negative equity house where the owner didn't check with the bank before trying to sell, despite knowing the bank would have to agree to it. Which was negligent as it's left the tenant seriously out of pocket.

cormie

Plus it sounds like the tenant invested quite a bit into the house thinking there's a strong possibility they'd eventually own it...

Is there no chance you could still agree a sale with the tenant? If it's been their home for the past number of years they might be open to the idea if it's not too late?

Graham

Turtle_ wrote: »

So I'm sorry, saying it could have happened with any house is nonsense. It could only have happened to any negative equity house where the owner didn't check with the bank before trying to sell, despite knowing the bank would have to agree to it. Which was negligent as it's left the tenant seriously out of pocket.

Even if your complete guesswork turned out to be correct, it doesn't make a shred of difference.

Tenant is still obliged to pay the rent.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

Even if your complete guesswork turned out to be correct, it doesn't make a shred of difference.

Tenant is still obliged to pay the rent.

I don't know how you are under the impression that a tenant is obliged to pay the rent.
This is Ireland.

Skyrimaddict

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I don't know how you are under the impression that a tenant is obliged to pay the rent.
This is Ireland.

Hi,

For over six years there was never an issue, rent paid and house kept very well,, in fact better than I would have done.

I agree he should pay rent, simple, but also I and my solicitor should have checked the sale legailliy prior to any of this.

I do not think he will buy now as I am told he is at key exchange on other house

4ensic15

Turtle_ wrote: »

Except it's not a title problem that could have happened to anyone. If the OP had done a little bit of due diligence and talked to the bank before going into the sale process, he would have found out right then that he couldn't sell. (I'm guessing Bank won't ageee to sale with negative equity is the issue). The OP could reasonably have known that prior to the tenant spending a load of money, backing out of another sale, and missing an opportunity to buy elsewhere for less money.

So I'm sorry, saying it could have happened with any house is nonsense. It could only have happened to any negative equity house where the owner didn't check with the bank before trying to sell, despite knowing the bank would have to agree to it. Which was negligent as it's left the tenant seriously out of pocket.

It could have happened to the tenant with any other house. Suppose it was another house? Would the tenant be entitled to withhold rent or claim compensation?. The answer is no. Withholding rent is one of the lowest forms of thieving behaviour and should be stopped.

athtrasna

Mod note

As the OP has had pages of answers and has made a decision, the time has come to close the thread. Good luck OP