Overstaying tenants *Mod warning in post 1

pwurple

Sorry airy fairy... this is a story I've heard so many times it isn't even shocking anymore. It's just awful for you and your family.

The only people I've ever known to get out of it quickly, have taken the law into their own hands in some form.
I've known people who arranged some scary looking buddies with baseball bats to go have a chat, or people who threaten to go rat them at their workplace asking for paycheques to be trimmed. All completely illegal no doubt.

Between the inability to evict delinquents, and the black market created by rent caps, people climbing all over each other to get in the door of a place, and others thinking it's their god given right to destroy someone else's house... the property market in Ireland is like the wild west at the moment.

windmilllane

I really hope you get rid of them soon op. It's beyond disgraceful now property owners are treated in this country. I too had a horror tenant and luckily they moved on but I've sworn I'll never get stung again.

beauf

Could you sell and leave the tenant there. It would obviously hurt the price you get. But you wouldn't be spending money on talking them to court.

I assume if you report them to the local authority they will stop their dole.

jamesthepeach

beauf wrote: »

Could you sell and leave the tenant there. It would obviously hurt the price you get. But you wouldn't be spending money on talking them to court.

I assume if you report them to the local authority they will stop their dole.

Nothing will be stopped on them bar their rent allowance, which they don't need if they aren't paying rent anyway. In fact it is a desirable situation for social welfare. The tenant is free to fcuk the landlord all they want and no government agency will step in. It keeps them off the hands of the government and saves social welfare money, all the while making the landlord take all the pain.

aLou991

I'm sorry to hear this OP.

I had a nightmare tenant myself - more or less the same situation and it was the most stress I can ever remember being under in my whole life.

Hope you get sorted soon!

neris

davo10 wrote: »

This is head wrecking, the tenant is stealing from the state by keeping the money, and from you by not paying, yet is protected by tenancy law.

yep, i had a tenant years ago on social welfare, was getting the money from SW office but not paying me, I rang the person in SW and explained the tenant was pocketing the money and was basically told nothing to do with SW, was between me and tennant and that I should go to PRTB to get the money from the scrote of a tenant

mugsymugsy

Simple system needs to be introduced if rent not paid.

2 weeks arrears notice issued.
4 weeks - prtb case created.
4-8 weeks - prtb decision made.
8-12 weeks - bailiffs allowed to enter and change locks.

This would mean worse case landlord is 3 months out of pocket. Why can't the government bring in simple legislation with time frames of the above that are clearly set out.

beauf

We've been asking for this for a decade or more now. No interest from any party to change it.

awec

I guess the government's problem is what to do with the tenants after they have been evicted. It's a zero sum game for them.

Michael D Not Higgins

awec wrote: »

I guess the government's problem is what to do with the tenants after they have been evicted. It's a zero sum game for them.

This is the nub of it. If you have an efficient system evicting low income and social welfare tenants during a housing crisis, the housing services are going to be swamped with homeless cases. The government have effectively burdened private landlords with the housing crisis while they get their own house in order.

angiogoir

Not a lot you can do other than await the legal proceedings. Depends though on how they are, ie are there any other ways you could encourage them out?

airy fairy

angiogoir wrote: »

Not a lot you can do other than await the legal proceedings. Depends though on how they are, ie are there any other ways you could encourage them out?

I have no way of getting them out. The tenant is unapproachable and we can't even call to the property because of tenants rights.

The tenant is playing the game that the state is allowing to be done.

I am doing what I've always done, above board and legally.
I will go through the process of eviction, if my bank allows for the next few months.
There's nothing else I can do.
It's a dark hole I'm in. It takes my breath away.

mugsymugsy

mugsymugsy wrote: »

Simple system needs to be introduced if rent not paid.

2 weeks arrears notice issued.
4 weeks - prtb case created.
4-8 weeks - prtb decision made.
8-12 weeks - bailiffs allowed to enter and change locks.

This would mean worse case landlord is 3 months out of pocket. Why can't the government bring in simple legislation with time frames of the above that are clearly set out.

3 months out of pocket is unacceptable. If rent isn't paid for a full month the tenant should be out before the end of the next month and the rent money should simply be forcefully removed from them in full, be that taking it from their wages or dole or from their bank account if they have it. I don't mean 5 euro a week either I mean a significant percentage of their dole/wages.

airy fairy

Liana Late Somebody wrote: »

3 months out of pocket is unacceptable. If rent isn't paid for a full month the tenant should be out before the end of the next month and the rent money should simply be forcefully removed from them in full, be that taking it from their wages or dole or from their bank account if they have it. I don't mean 5 euro a week either I mean a significant percentage of their dole/wages.

This scenario would be ideal compared to what happens in reality.
It took 4/5 months before I got a date from rtb for a hearing as the tenant failed to show for a mediation. So regardless of who was right or wrong, the time lapse is significant.
Going into my 7th month of no rent. And looks like the same amount of time again before courts appoint a sheriff and the expense that entails, for me. The tenant gets off free.

karenalot

neris wrote: »

yep, i had a tenant years ago on social welfare, was getting the money from SW office but not paying me, I rang the person in SW and explained the tenant was pocketing the money and was basically told nothing to do with SW, was between me and tennant and that I should go to PRTB to get the money from the scrote of a tenant

Thankfully the new system HAP goes directly to the landlord. So while not a perfect setup it's improved somewhat.

Absolute lunacy that rent allowance was being paid directly to tenants. The reason why the tenants are on benefits in the first place is because they don't have a huge amount of money. A cheque then going to them for hundreds each month is obviously going to be tempting for some to pocket.

CeilingFly

Why would anyone be a small time landlord when this type of situaltion is all too prevalent.

If it was a commercial premises you can simply change the locks.

If the government really wanted the thousands of empty homes to go into the rental market they would introduce a very simple 3 months of non-payment and non communcation for automatic eviction without recourse to a lenghty legal process.

The 3 months would allow for a new agreement or pl;an or arbitration.


Sanme with those refusing to pay mortgage - 12 months of non payment / non communication / non new payment plan and banks should be allowed to repossess without a 2 year court process.

Make it easy to get rid of scum non payers and you'll see thousands of homes suddenly become available

The_Conductor

karenalot wrote: »

Thankfully the new system HAP goes directly to the landlord. So while not a perfect setup it's improved somewhat.

Absolute lunacy that rent allowance was being paid directly to tenants. The reason why the tenants are on benefits in the first place is because they don't have a huge amount of money. A cheque then going to them for hundreds each month is obviously going to be tempting for some to pocket.

No- its not an improvement.
If a tenant doesn't pay their share of the rent to the local authority- the local authority doesn't pay anything at all to the landlord- they get cut-off.
In addition- the local authority won't discuss the reason the landlord isn't getting paid, with the landlord, on data-protection grounds.

So- yes, its good that the landlord gets paid directly- however, its deeply unfair and inequitable- that the carpet gets yanked from under landlords- if the tenant doesn't pay their share to the local authority.

Its a heads-I-win, tails-you-loose for the local authority- absolutely every smidgen of risk is batted back to the landlord- they are the ones left carrying the can.

jamesthepeach

CeilingFly wrote: »

Why would anyone be a small time landlord when this type of situaltion is all too prevalent.

If it was a commercial premises you can simply change the locks.

If the government really wanted the thousands of empty homes to go into the rental market they would introduce a very simple 3 months of non-payment and non communcation for automatic eviction without recourse to a lenghty legal process.

The 3 months would allow for a new agreement or pl;an or arbitration.


Sanme with those refusing to pay mortgage - 12 months of non payment / non communication / non new payment plan and banks should be allowed to repossess without a 2 year court process.

Make it easy to get rid of scum non payers and you'll see thousands of homes suddenly become available

Not only have the government made it impossible to be a landlord without huge, and I mean HUGE, risk, but they are also now trying to force people who don't want to be landlords into it. Airbnb and people in nursing homes to name two groups.

Michael D Not Higgins

CeilingFly wrote: »

Why would anyone be a small time landlord when this type of situaltion is all too prevalent.

If it was a commercial premises you can simply change the locks.

If the government really wanted the thousands of empty homes to go into the rental market they would introduce a very simple 3 months of non-payment and non communcation for automatic eviction without recourse to a lenghty legal process.

The 3 months would allow for a new agreement or pl;an or arbitration.


Sanme with those refusing to pay mortgage - 12 months of non payment / non communication / non new payment plan and banks should be allowed to repossess without a 2 year court process.

Make it easy to get rid of scum non payers and you'll see thousands of homes suddenly become available

And where do the evicted people go? The government don't have the homeless services to deal with them as well so you still have the same problem, demand outstrips supply and you've just shuffled the deck.

beauf

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

And where do the evicted people go? The government don't have the homeless services to deal with them as well so you still have the same problem, demand outstrips supply and you've just shuffled the deck.

The issue is the people (Govt) who are meant to be providing supply are the ones restricting it.

Thargor

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

And where do the evicted people go? The government don't have the homeless services to deal with them as well so you still have the same problem, demand outstrips supply and you've just shuffled the deck.

The threat of having to engage with the emergency accommodation system would focus their minds on paying the rent they've given by the taxpayer to the landlord in the first place instead of drinking and smoking it, they don't have this problem anywhere else, it's a purely Irish situation.

jamesthepeach

Previous to the farcical rental legislation we have now, I would have been only too happy to rent directly to social welfare, provided they dealt with everything.
ie I rent it to them for 5 or 10 years and they pay me no matter what. They would also be responsible for any tenants they sublet to and any anti social behaviour solved by them.

At the end of the period they give it back to me in the same condition they took it in.
But no, they just want to dump all the sh1t and risk on me, so they can fcuk right off with themselves. That's not a good deal at all for me.

crossmolinalad

mugsymugsy wrote: »

Simple system needs to be introduced if rent not paid.

2 weeks arrears notice issued.
4 weeks - prtb case created.
4-8 weeks - prtb decision made.
8-12 weeks - bailiffs allowed to enter and change locks.

This would mean worse case landlord is 3 months out of pocket. Why can't the government bring in simple legislation with time frames of the above that are clearly set out.

And get them by sheriff to get the money which the landlord owes
Other countries you can walk away without pay rent or utility bills but the courts comes after you until you have paid the last centyou owe them plus court costs and loads of fines/interest
Worst cases they selling everything you have to get the money

GGTrek

crossmolinalad wrote: »

mugsymugsy wrote: »

Simple system needs to be introduced if rent not paid.

2 weeks arrears notice issued.
4 weeks - prtb case created.
4-8 weeks - prtb decision made.
8-12 weeks - bailiffs allowed to enter and change locks.

This would mean worse case landlord is 3 months out of pocket. Why can't the government bring in simple legislation with time frames of the above that are clearly set out.

And get them by sheriff to get the money which the landlord owes
Other countries you can walk away without pay rent or utility bills but the courts comes after you until you have paid the last centyou owe them plus court costs and loads of fines/interest
Worst cases they selling everything you have to get the money

Knowing other countries pretty well: unfortunately you cannot extract blood from a stone. Only if the tenant works and has a decent income you can get back the rent, otherwise it is the same as Ireland except for eviction speed. Latin countries are terrible for eviction speed since the courts are too slow. Some US states are perfect: 6 to 8 weeks max and the sheriff arrives, however forget getting back unpaid rent and damage.

CardinalJ

Hopeless system.

Im a tenant who gives out about the amount of short term lets taking supply out of the long term system, but if I had to rent property out I know I couldn't afford to risk ending up in this situation.

Michael D Not Higgins

beauf wrote: »

The issue is the people (Govt) who are meant to be providing supply are the ones restricting it.

Yes and evicting tenants doesn't increase supply so they're not planning on changing anything to encourage or speed up evictions.

Thargor wrote: »

The threat of having to engage with the emergency accommodation system would focus their minds on paying the rent they've given by the taxpayer to the landlord in the first place instead of drinking and smoking it, they don't have this problem anywhere else, it's a purely Irish situation.

As above, government won't support any change to the current system. It suits them to burden landlords with the problem.

Look at it in a simplified system, assume there's only 2 houses available but 3 families. One of the families are low income and are already renting one of the houses, the other two families are workers on average wages. One of those families gets the remaining house and the other relies on family or another solution until a house becomes available.

In this scenario, landlord of house 1 will realise the market rate is higher and will try to get the other family to rent at the expense of their current low income tenants. This leaves the low income family with fewer options and must avail of the government's housing services, thereby incurring cost on the government's budget, moreso than any help they may have been getting from social welfare for the rent.

The government realised this and implemented the rent controls to disincentivise switching tenants, and discrimination laws to prevent selecting away from those with social welfare payments. This leaves the initial conditions of the scenario as temporarily stable until house number 3 can be built, with minimum cost to the government in the interim.

Now let's say the low income family don't pay rent, then go through the whole RTB and courts process for 12-18 months before forcible eviction takes place. That's minimised the cost to the government over that period as they haven't had to house them.

You can be guaranteed if we're doing these calculations that someone in the government has as well. Their outward policies of protecting vulnerable tenants is actually a policy of covering themselves because they've messed up their own housing stock.

Ms Doubtfire1

Really sorry to hear this OP, this is not how it should be. I think in your case I'd simply asses the larger risk: How much would they actually fine you if you change the locks while these **** are gone out vs how much do you stand to loose? Imho I'd go in, change the locks and throw their stuff out.You can't go homeless because those anti social disgusting tenants think they can take the p**?

jamesthepeach

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

You can't go homeless because this disgusting GOVERNMENT think they can take the p**?

FYP

airy fairy

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Really sorry to hear this OP, this is not how it should be. I think in your case I'd simply asses the larger risk: How much would they actually fine you if you change the locks while these **** are gone out vs how much do you stand to loose? Imho I'd go in, change the locks and throw their stuff out.You can't go homeless because those anti social disgusting tenants think they can take the p**?

Unfortunately the law sees them as my tenants even though they have no lease, have rtb court ruling telling them they have to be out and are now over their legal limit of notice so in effect squatting.
I've got health issues, have kids, work etc and one of my children has a serious long term illness and I cannot end up in court/jail for fecking the tenant our on the street. The tenant would be the first on Joe Duffy screaming the injustices of a landlord throwing the tenant and kids out on the street.
The tenant would call guards, would sue me, and become violent. You get the scenario.
It's all against me.

karenalot

The_Conductor wrote: »

No- its not an improvement.
If a tenant doesn't pay their share of the rent to the local authority- the local authority doesn't pay anything at all to the landlord- they get cut-off.
In addition- the local authority won't discuss the reason the landlord isn't getting paid, with the landlord, on data-protection grounds.

So- yes, its good that the landlord gets paid directly- however, its deeply unfair and inequitable- that the carpet gets yanked from under landlords- if the tenant doesn't pay their share to the local authority.

.

As stated, it's not perfect but of course it's an improvement. Tenants no longer have the option to spend what potentially could be €1500 a month of the governments money on themselves when the cheque comes through the door.

Now all they save by not paying the rent is their weekly contribution. In the case of my own SW tenant it's 35 euro and it would be less worth it to them to lose a house over the smaller amount. Not saying it doesn't happen of course.

I also don't agree that the rent should be stopped at all to a landlord and it should be sorted out among the tenant and the local authority. But at least its taking a step in the right direction, even if that direction is still massively flawed.