What are the penalties for an illegal eviction?

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

This is no different than a Landlord deciding to sell. Tenants are by no means powerless in the current market, to say so is naive and shows a lack of understanding in the rental market. The RTA offers more protection to a tenant than a landlord, an overholding, or non paying tenant is far more difficult to remove, and the LL has far more to lose than a tenant in terms of financial penalties.

This is no different than a landlord deciding to sell, but it's much more likely to happen than a landlord deciding to sell. Following a repossession, a sale is almost certain; therefore only the most transient tenants would be interested in renting a property likely to be repossessed.

It may well be the case that the RTA system is skewed in favour of tenants. On the other hand, the current market - characterised by high demand, low supply and historically very high rents - tends to put landlords in a very strong position. It could be argued that the RTA system aims to redress that, although I appreciate that it may not do that very well, or that it may do so only for a limited class of tenants.

It may well be that a better system would limit rents and rent increases, for the benefit of tenants, in return for giving landlords a prompt and effective system for terminating tenancies where the limited rent was not paid, for the benefit of landlords.

Dav010

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is no different than a landlord deciding to sell, but it's much more likely to happen than a landlord deciding to sell.

I’m sorry, but this is untrue. Many times in recent months there has been articles stating that landlords are choosing to flee the rental market in increasing numbers due to the effect of legislation and rising property prices. Every study on the deminishing amount of rental properties available lists landlords selling as one of the main causes, are you saying repossession rates have now overtaken voluntary sales? When did this happen?


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1016879/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/richard-curran-rental-crisis-is-set-to-continue-as-some-landlords-decide-to-exit-37630028.html


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-are-landlords-leaving-the-market-in-large-numbers-1.3360363?mode=amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/homeless-families-8-4680518-Jun2019/?amp=1

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are not directly affected by repossession, in that the tenant has the same rights against the receiver as he had against the landlord. But, realistically, it changes things a lot. Following a repossession the bank is almost certain to want to sell, and therefore will want to terminate the tenancy, and has the right to do so, and that's obviously something that could significantly adversely affect the tenant. So, yeah, if a tenant knew that a landlord was financially stressed and facing insolvency, that should negatively affect his willingness to rent from that landlord. If it doesn't, that just underlines the relative powerlessness of tenants in landlord/tenant negotiations in the current market.

A tenant has no rights against a receiver unless the receiver accepts rent and adopts the lease. The only exception is where the bank has consented in writing to the mortgage, which never happens.

GGTrek

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A tenant has no rights against a receiver unless the receiver accepts rent and adopts the lease. The only exception is where the bank has consented in writing to the mortgage, which never happens.

It is coming soon, the next RTA Amendment bill (in my opinion coming live in mid 2020) will be brutal for anyone with a tenant occupying:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/select_committee_on_housing_planning_and_local_government/2019-04-11/3/


"Deputy Eoghan Murphy

Share
I cannot accept the proposed amendment. The amendment is trying to deal with the rights of the tenant where properties are in receivership. I want to address that issue, but I am not addressing it through this Bill. I will address it in follow-up legislation. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment."



With respect to the case of a peaceful re-entry and change of locks after the RTB determination is final and tenant is overholding, the only recourse for a tenant would be a legally expensive injunction and even the injuction could be defended and opposed by presenting the determination order. The legal eagles here should show a case where, after an RTB determination ordering a dwelling to be vacated by a defined date, locks are changed after such date and a court grants an injuction for the overholding non paying tenant to be allowed entering the dwelling again. This is food for thought for many landlords having nightmare tenants inside their properties.


Of course if the eviction happens before an RTB determined final date, then the civil penalties imposed by RTB are quite heavy (thousands of euros, maximum 20k, depending on gravity of what happened, very rarely they imposed the maximum, but fines between 3k to 12k are common) + court can impose other heavy damages.

GGTrek

Also suggest a good article about injuctions and the fact that the applicant needs to have "clean hands" in order to apply:
https://businessandlegal.ie/injunctions-in-ireland-types-of-injunction-available

An overholding non paying tenant ordered to vacate by an RTB adjudication definitely does not have clean hands.

Peregrinus

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m sorry, but this is untrue. Many times in recent months there has been articles stating that landlords are choosing to flee the rental market in increasing numbers due to the effect of legislation and rising property prices. Every study on the deminishing amount of rental properties available lists landlords selling as one of the main causes, are you saying repossession rates have now overtaken voluntary sales? When did this happen?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that, while a modest percentage of solvent landlords will sell in any year, virtually 100% of landlord insolvencies will be followed by a sale. This doesn't translate into "more insolvent sales than solvent sales" because, of course, there are far, far more solvent landlords than insolvent landlords.

What it does mean, though, is that if a prospective tenant knew or suspected that the landlord of the property offered to him was financially stressed, that should make the tenant reluctant to rent, because there is a high prospect that the tenancy will be interrupted by a sale following the landlord's insolvency.

My real point here, and the one I started out by making, is that it's wrong to say that a tenant's position is unaffected by the landlord's insolvency and by repossession of the property. In these circumstances the tenancy is almost certain to be terminated in short order, and that clearly affects the tenant.

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A tenant has no rights against a receiver unless the receiver accepts rent and adopts the lease. The only exception is where the bank has consented in writing to the mortgage, which never happens.

A receiver has no more power to evict than the previous landlord who lost their property.

Many receivership sales are with tenant in situ, if the receiver could have the place vacant, they would do so every time

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A receiver has no more power to evict than the previous landlord who lost their property.

Many receivership sales are with tenant in situ, if the receiver could have the place vacant, they would do so every time

Exactly, the tenants rights are uneffected no matter who controls the property, all must abide by the RTA.

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A receiver has no more power to evict than the previous landlord who lost their property.

Many receivership sales are with tenant in situ, if the receiver could have the place vacant, they would do so every time

A receiver may not have to recognise a tenancy at all if the bank never consented in writing to the tenancy. This is the case in the vast majority of leases. If the receiver demanded rent he would be taken to have adopted the tenancy.