Landlord packed our stuff up and threw it out

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Yes. The landlord should use the OP's posting record on boards as their main defence in court.

What court?

s1ippy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's why I have said before in other threads, if you get a good tenant, you work to keep them.

We were impeccable tenants for six years. We would text the landlord immediately on the very rare occasion something needed doing around the property that we couldn't do ourselves. Never once late with rent.

Then a relative inherited the property, tried to triple the rent and then evicted us "to move in for college" (as punishment for not accepting the illegal increase). They put the property on the market for x4 the price and we spotted it. Facing into our third year now waiting for satisfaction from the RTB. One consolation is that the current tenant got a massive rent reduction when we alerted them to what happened us, so they're not getting ripped off and the landlord isn't actually making any more money.

So your assertion that landlords hang onto good tenants is false in our case, unless your idea of being a good tenant is accepting wildly unfair rental rates being illegally imposed.

Caranica

steddyeddy wrote: »

The landlord in this thread took items without communication or permission, kept the deposit as rent without permission and illegally evicted them. This is a text book example of making up the rules as you go along.

Allegedly. We only have the OP's word for that and they're MIA.

steddyeddy

Caranica wrote: »

Allegedly. We only have the OP's word for that and they're MIA.

Irrelevant. We have people defending the actions whether they're fictional or not. In any case I've no reason to doubt it as A) I wouldn't put it past some of the posters here to do that based on expressed views and I've seen it happen when I worked with student accommodation.

ted1

s1ippy wrote: »

Then a relative inherited the property, tried to triple the rent and then evicted us .

Not taking any sides , wrong with what they did, but they may have been landed with a big inheritance tax for getting the property that they couldn’t afford.

Also it was anew landlord as your old one died.

So your situation is quite different

steddyeddy

s1ippy wrote: »

We were impeccable tenants for six years. We would text the landlord immediately on the very rare occasion something needed doing around the property that we couldn't do ourselves. Never once late with rent.

Then a relative inherited the property, tried to triple the rent and then evicted us "to move in for college" (as punishment for not accepting the illegal increase). They put the property on the market for x4 the price and we spotted it. Facing into our third year now waiting for satisfaction from the RTB. One consolation is that the current tenant got a massive rent reduction when we alerted them to what happened us, so they're not getting ripped off and the landlord isn't actually making any more money.

So your assertion that landlords hang onto good tenants is false in our case, unless your idea of being a good tenant is accepting wildly unfair rental rates being illegally imposed.

Well in fairness the poster implied you should work to keep good tenants.

On another note I find that those who have inherited properties make the worst landlords. That's just in my experience obviously.

dubrov

Niner leprauchan wrote:

What court?

Eh, the High Court

s1ippy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well in fairness the poster implied you should work to keep good tenants.

On another note I find that those who have inherited properties make the worst landlords. That's just in my experience obviously.

We paid them the rent on time and kept the property well-maintained for a year and a half. We had been driving with the rent over 30km to give it to their infirmed relative for two years before that. Whatever about inheritance of property there's decent conduct and there's flat-out acting the cúnt.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

Not taking any sides , wrong with what they did, but they may have been landed with a big inheritance tax for getting the property that they couldn’t afford.

Also it was anew landlord as your old one died.

So your situation is quite different

Then sell it, not run a unsustainable business.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

We were impeccable tenants for six years. We would text the landlord immediately on the very rare occasion something needed doing around the property that we couldn't do ourselves. Never once late with rent.

Then a relative inherited the property, tried to triple the rent and then evicted us "to move in for college" (as punishment for not accepting the illegal increase). They put the property on the market for x4 the price and we spotted it. Facing into our third year now waiting for satisfaction from the RTB. One consolation is that the current tenant got a massive rent reduction when we alerted them to what happened us, so they're not getting ripped off and the landlord isn't actually making any more money.

So your assertion that landlords hang onto good tenants is false in our case, unless your idea of being a good tenant is accepting wildly unfair rental rates being illegally imposed.

**** me ragged. I expressed a personal opinion as someone that rents a room. Nothing to do with your or anyone elses landlord.

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Eh, the High Court

Your off to the high court now? That escalated quickly

s1ippy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

**** me ragged. I expressed a personal opinion as someone that rents a room. Nothing to do with your or anyone elses landlord.

It was a generalisation which doesn't hold true, I was pointing that out. You're not above reproach just because you rent out a room.

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then sell it, not run a unsustainable business.

So you are for then evicting tenants ?

Who says it’s unsustainable? That’s a big jump.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

It was a generalisation which doesn't hold true, I was pointing that out. You're not above reproach just because you rent out a room.

What are you talking about? It's my personal opinion. It's how I deal with my tenants. There's nothing to reproach.

Again, I'm not your landlord and never was. I want speaking for said person so relax and take a chill pill.

ted1

s1ippy wrote: »

We paid them the rent on time and kept the property well-maintained for a year and a half. We had been driving with the rent over 30km to give it to their infirmed relative for two years before that. Whatever about inheritance of property there's decent conduct and there's flat-out acting the cúnt.

No direct debits? Driving giving cash to an informed landlord ?

Gradius

GreeBo wrote: »

You seem to think that you agreeing to pay what you owed was doing him a favour so he should reciprocate and store your crap for you... Why?
The landlord clearly needed the place cleaned as he already had a new tenant moved in.

People like you who push things are why we can't have nice things. When you move out, your stuff moves out. It's pretty simple. The fact that you paid s bill you owed is irrelevant and the landlord is correct, you or him money.

Comprehension problems combined with sheer imagination!

No, I didn't "imagine I was doing him a favour". It was a simple agreement, and even calling it an agreement is overstating it's importance. The bill was DELAYED, I couldn't have paid a bill that didn't exist there and then, could I?!

So, "I'll pick up those couple bags out of your shed when I come around again and pay the bill."

No problem.

No coercion.

No "pushing".

No big fooking deal, to me OR him.

In fact, the small agreement meant so little to him, that he just threw my stuff out anyway. Funny how he didn't forget the money, am I right?

And where did you dream up "he obviously needed the place cleared"? No, he didn't. My room was as least empty until I dropped by the week later. And what that would have to do with two bags in a shed is a mystery only your addled brain could answer.

I also appreciate how my personal belongings were "crap" to you and the mindset that shows.

So in total, no, you are completely wrong on all counts. Every last one.

It's not "people like me" that results in others not having nice things. It is evidentially the likes of YOU who ruins things for others. You regard other people's belongings as crap, inherently therefore believe that tenants are beneath you and owe you every penny you demand, rightly or wrongly. You're the problem.

I'd daresay your the kind of person that drops a coin but it hits the back of your head you stoop so fast

And this attitude is evoked over 2 bags in a shed and less than 200 euro?! What a joke.

dubrov

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Your off to the high court now? That escalated quickly

That's where this case would ultimately be decided. I doubt this landlord would pay any heed to an RTB judgement

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

That's where this case would ultimately be decided. I doubt this landlord would pay any heed to an RTB judgement

Will he really wants to spend even now money on a lost cause? Especially as the high court will only listen on points of law appeals and it seems pretty open and shut legally.

GreeBo

Gradius wrote: »

In fact, the small agreement meant so little to him, that he just threw my stuff out anyway. Funny how he didn't forget the money, am I right?

No, you are wrong.
Why would he forget money that you owe him?

Again you seem to think that you are mates doing each other a favour, he is running a business and you *were* a customer and are now a debtor.
Why you think thats in any way related to you leaving your crap in his house is beyond me.

Gradius

GreeBo wrote: »

No, you are wrong.
Why would he forget money that you owe him?

Again you seem to think that you are mates doing each other a favour, he is running a business and you *were* a customer and are now a debtor.
Why you think thats in any way related to you leaving your crap in his house is beyond me.

Landlord destroys personal property worth X amount after agreeing the opposite.

Landlord puts his hand out for X amount of money.

You're an imbecile.

Claw Hammer

Nor thinks you're an unreliable and dishonest chancer and you never see the money for his bill. He thinks he's been conned by been asked to store some rubbish and is shared. He agrees to not really expecting to see you again. Surprise surprise, you turn up looking for your "valuables". You have now admitted that your "valuables" worth less than the amount owed on the bill, and notwithstanding that you could salvage some of your "valuables" you refuse to pay anything. Naturally the landlord thinking he had been left with junk and getting no payment confronted you afterwards.
Some people posting here don't seem to understand is that rent is landlord's income. Nokia said they would be happy if their own employer didn't pay them in full or paid them late. The landlord might have had to tell his daughter that she couldn't gonna school tour because a tenant hadn't paid a bill.

Grolschevik

This thread now belongs in the Creative Writing forum.

Gradius

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Nor thinks you're an unreliable and dishonest chancer and you never see the money for his bill. He thinks he's been conned by been asked to store some rubbish and is shared. He agrees to not really expecting to see you again. Surprise surprise, you turn up looking for your "valuables". You have now admitted that your "valuables" worth less than the amount owed on the bill, and notwithstanding that read the salvage some of your "valuables" you refuse to pay anything. Naturally the landlord thinking he had been left with junk and getting no payment confronted you afterwards.
Some people posting here don't seem to understand is that rent is landlord's income. Nokia said they would be happy if their own employer didn't pay them in full or paid them late. The landlord might have had to tell his daughter that she couldn't gonna school tour because a tenant hadn't paid a bill.

I'm trying to decipher that gibberish. So, according to your imagination...

1) He thinks I'm conning him, but agrees to hold my "rubbish"... Note how these fooking eejits responding deem other people's property as" crap", "rubbish" and so forth. Gas!

2) the thick then decides to throw out my stuff ANYWAY.

3) He's surprised to see me again because he thinks I'm a con artist. But still looks for money anyway.

4) after that I can't understand what you're saying at all, something about salvage?

Oh so the poor landlord relies on rent as his income. But at the same time it's totally grand that I have to spend unnecessary money replacing the stuff he destroyed. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I have rented accommodation in plenty of places and even different countries. No problems. I had lived in that particular place for roughly 2 years with no problems. Yet magically the land Lord begins to think I'm a con artist the day I'm moving. Does that make sense?

These replies here go to show you that the there's quite a few specimens still out there, and people need to watch their backs dealing with them. They'd skin you for an extra penny.

s1ippy

ted1 wrote: »

No direct debits? Driving giving cash to an informed landlord ?

Yeah, they were terminally ill and signed rent books for us. They never registered with the RTB who so enthusiastically jumped to accommodate them when they "didn't receive" the correspondence to the address they are on record as having provided for contact regarding the case. This is our third year waiting for a result.

Claw Hammer

Gradius wrote: »

These replies here go to show you that the there's quite a few specimens still out there, and people need to watch their backs dealing with them. They'd skin you for an extra penny.

Exactly, landlords have to be so careful!

Gradius

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Exactly, landlords have to be so careful!

So weak.

I do like the outright accusation that I'm a "con man".

You see, it was all part of the ultimate heist. I would rent different places for many years, all building up to the ultimate score, conning a landlord out of less than 200 euro. He destroyed the same value of stuff belonging to me, but forget that. I was able to retire on the heist of a lifetime

I like your poor landlord story too.

"Sorry little Timmy, the bad man didn't give me my money. I destroyed his things, but still. Now we can't afford that hip transplant for you, oh diddums, what shall we ever do! "

Great craic

Claw Hammer

Gradius wrote: »

So weak.

I do like the outright accusation that I'm a "con man".

You see, it was all part of the ultimate heist. I would rent different places for many years, all building up to the ultimate score, conning a landlord out of less than 200 euro. He destroyed the same value of stuff belonging to me, but forget that. I was able to retire on the heist of a lifetime

I like your poor landlord story too.

"Sorry little Timmy, the bad man didn't give me my money. I destroyed his things, but still. Now we can't afford that hip transplant for you, oh diddums, what shall we ever do! "

Great craic

You have now demonstrated that the bill was more than the value of the items you claimed were destroyed so it is clear you used it as an excuse not to pay at all. If the items were worth so much to you why did you trust them with a landlord, especially one you owed money to?
A landlord is not your mother.

Gradius

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You have now demonstrated that the bill was more than the value of the items you claimed were destroyed so it is clear you used it as an excuse not to pay at all. If the items were worth so much to you why did you trust them with a landlord, especially one you owed money to?
A landlord is not your mother.

There's that imagination going wild again

"why did you trust a landlord to hold onto something of value when you owed him money? "

Think about that for a second.

It wasn't a bartering situation at all, but one could easily say that it was a pretty solid arrangement, right?

Let me get your imagination going again with a story, as someone mentioned creative writing above.

Land Lord loves diamonds. Tenant loves gold.
Landlord has gold, tenant has diamonds.

Tenant agrees with landlord to exchange diamonds for gold. Great.

Landlord then proceeds to throw gold away. Tenant turns up for exchange, only to find landlord has thrown out gold.

Landlord demands diamonds anyway.

It's a Hollywood blockbuster waiting to happen, starring Jeff Goldblum as "Mongo Mayonnaise", a poor down-at-mouth landlord constantly befuddled by the world. Cameo appearances by Matt Damon as "landchild" who desperately needs a weekly bus ticket, and Susan Sarandon as a shed.

Claw Hammer

Gradius wrote: »

There's that imagination going wild again

"why did you trust a landlord to hold onto something of value when you owed him money? "

Think about that for a second.

It wasn't a bartering situation at all, but one could easily say that it was a pretty solid arrangement, right?

It is far from a solid arrangement. You had the landlord over a barrel when he agreed to it. You expected him, a person whom you owed money to, to take care of goods which you appeared to have abandoned?
No good reason has been given why those items were left there at all. It is an old trick, handing over some piece of junk to show sincerity. Landlords get to know your type pretty quickly. The way you are now mocking the landlord says it all.

pablo128

Is there no mods on here to cut out all the crap about fantasy hypothetical situations, and get back on topic?