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

From 26th of February enforcement of RTB determination orders will move from Circuit

Options
  • 10-03-2018 8:10pm
    #1
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭


    My solicitor was wary about this change since he said that District Courts are not ready for this, I guess only time will tell.
    https://www.rtb.ie/media-research/news-centre/latest-news/2018/03/09/enforcement-of-determination-orders-to-move-from-circuit-court-to-district-court-from-26th-february-2018

    The actual order from the Minister is this one:
    http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/HPLGdoclaid220218_164237.pdf

    Section 22 gives further regulatory wide powers directly to the Housing minister which for sure is not to be welcomed: " 22. Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (1):
    “(1A) Without prejudice to any provision of this Act, regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations.”    ."

    Section 57 and 58 transfer RTB determinations enforcement powers from Circuit to District Courts and leaves the monetary limits unchanged (which means there is no 15k limit)

    Unfortunately I could not find the new Rule 93C in courts.ie, if anyone can find it, please post it in this thread.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    bleary
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭bleary


    In theory sounds like a positive move. If people know that enforcement happen in a reasonable timeframe then should improve supply


  • Options
    #3
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    bleary wrote: »
    In theory sounds like a positive move. If people know that enforcement happen in a reasonable timeframe then should improve supply

    Apparently Threshold are appealing to have this reversed- they'd rather the judicial level was set much higher- they state 'dealing with this at District Court level is inappropriate- as it could potentially impact on how long a tenant can expect to stay in property once the tenancy has ended'. Thats the whole point though? Its not fair or reasonable to expect an indefinite stay of judgement, regardless of whether or not you're paying your rent- once a tenancy has been legally ended- there should be reasonable mechanisms in place to allow a landlord retrieve their property (i.e. it has to be reasonable- and it has to be seen as reasonable- at the moment there is no reason whatsoever in the equation).


  • Options
    #4
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Apparently Threshold are appealing to have this reversed- they'd rather the judicial level was set much higher- they state 'dealing with this at District Court level is inappropriate- as it could potentially impact on how long a tenant can expect to stay in property once the tenancy has ended'. Thats the whole point though? Its not fair or reasonable to expect an indefinite stay of judgement, regardless of whether or not you're paying your rent- once a tenancy has been legally ended- there should be reasonable mechanisms in place to allow a landlord retrieve their property (i.e. it has to be reasonable- and it has to be seen as reasonable- at the moment there is no reason whatsoever in the equation).

    +1

    Justice delayed is justice denied.


  • Options
    #5
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,348 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Don't agree with Threshold at all here.


  • Options
    #6
    dennyk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭dennyk


    Yeah, that's some ridiculous reasoning there. Being able to enforce evictions in a reasonable timeframe is good for everyone except bad tenants who want to game the current inefficient system. If potential homelessness is an issue, that's something that should be addressed through proper channels within the social support system, not by letting erstwhile tenants squat in their former landlord's property indefinitely while their case queues for months or years as a side effect of an overburdened higher court system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    dennyk wrote: »
    Yeah, that's some ridiculous reasoning there. Being able to enforce evictions in a reasonable timeframe is good for everyone except bad tenants who want to game the current inefficient system. If potential homelessness is an issue, that's something that should be addressed through proper channels within the social support system, not by letting erstwhile tenants squat in their former landlord's property indefinitely while their case queues for months or years as a side effect of an overburdened higher court system.
    The Threshold behaviour shows how they behave in very bad faith. I dealt with a few of their "representatives" and my opinion of them is that they are mostly "s..m"


  • Options
    #8
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    Just got this email

    With Effect from 26th February 2018, the enforcement of RTB Determination Orders has moved from the Circuit Court to the District Court. Enforcement is an important function of the Residential Tenancies Board.

    When landlords, tenants and third parties bring disputes to the RTB through mediation, adjudication or tribunal, they receive a legally binding Determination Order.

    Where a determination order is not complied with the RTB may take enforcement proceedings to the courts. This change in moving from the Circuit to the District Court is therefore an important and welcome change.

    As there are more District Courts nationwide which sit more often than the Circuit Court, this will provide for quicker access to the courts at a significantly reduced cost.

    Landlords may also take their own enforcement proceedings

    Will this actually speed up enforcement?


  • Options
    #9
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    Threads merged


  • Options
    #10
    VonBeanie
    Registered Users Posts: 101 ✭✭VonBeanie


    I reckon this has more to do with pressure on the Circuit Courts to deal with other matters, than anything designed to help landlords get RTB determinations enforced quicker. Anything that speeds up the process is to be welcomed, although I cant see this helping enough to encourage landlords. Allowing direct access to the courts without wasting time in the RTB, is the only real way of streamlining the process sufficiently.

    As for Threshold. They have no concern for landlords - only tenants. They would like to see a system where nobody could ever be evicted for any reason. Anything which delays evictions is good for their world view - the rights and wrongs of the eviction are not important, as all evictions should be stopped. Its a type of thinking that is killing supply - but I guess they will not be employing me to formulate their policies :-)


  • Options
    #11
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    The cases will be dealt with by the Civil branch of the District Court, which is a disaster. Adjournments are for months at a time. It is difficult to get a hearing as the criminal lists always get priority. There is little or no chance of this speeding anything up. The other issue is the question of an appeal from the District Court.
    Most District Court judges know nothing about the legislation. It will be a farce.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement