Landlord packed our stuff up and threw it out

FishOnABike

s1ippy wrote: »

...facing into our third year of waiting for the outcome of our second RTB hearing after our landlord said he didn't receive any of the correspondence and we had to do the whole thing again after winning the first time, if our agent tried to get us to leave now we would continue to pay the rent but not shift an inch until we were good and ready.

Well done boards, you've actually increased my hated of the landlord "class".

It's about time the RTB adopted procedures similar to the courts. Send notice to registered address, deemed received two days later, fourteen days to file appearance, if no reply / no show by the respondent then the applicant can file for a judgement in default of defence. Once judgement is made it can only be challenged in a higher court.

The RTB was supposed to streamline the whole process but, as it appears, it is inefficient and can be played by either tenant or LL to delay things, because it lacks the equivalent powers / procedures of the courts.

fishfoodie

FishOnABike wrote: »

It's about time the RTB adopted procedures similar to the courts. Send notice to registered address, deemed received two days later, fourteen days to file appearance, if no reply / no show by the respondent then the applicant can file for a judgement in default of defence. Once judgement is made it can only be challenged in a higher court.

The RTB was supposed to streamline the whole process but, as it appears, it is inefficient and can be played by either tenant or LL to delay things, because it lacks the equivalent powers / procedures of the courts.

The main thing the RTB lacks is resources. The amount of rented accommodation in Ireland is far in excess of what their staffed for, & no-one is interested in making it fit for purpose, & paying for it.

If its to do an effective job, in a reasonable time frame, it needs to be subsidized by the rental sector itself.

ted1

billybonkers wrote: »

What would you do in this situation if you agreed reduced rent, the rent was late 1 week and the tenant could not get to the property because of a global pandemic?

What has the question to do with what I said.

ted1

FVP3 wrote: »

The LL is up 4,300 euro. At least for now.

How do you work that out?

Rent fior may not paid , 2300
Rent for April 400

That’s 2700 short , deposit 4600, no rent in June and he’ll be done 400 and another 2,300 a month till he gets new tenants.

Then there RTB will insist he pays the deposit or part of it back.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

He evicted tenants illegally. They didn't abandon anything.

Correct.

That's nothing to do with what we were discussing concerning theft and burglary though is it?

meijin

meijin wrote: »

I guess you're right on trespass/theft, but not on tenancy regulations.



that is obvious, please see https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/during-a-tenancy/maintenance-inspections-and-access/inspections-and-access/

"The landlord can only enter the property with the permission of the tenant, unless it is an emergency situation, and the landlord must enter the property and every attempt has been made to contact the tenant (for example a flood in the property or a fire etc). "




there are laws covering abandonment by the tenant, which were already mentioned

Slow the horses my friend.

Throughout this entire thread I have been in agreement concerning the landlord being in breach. 100% agree with you on regards the landlord being wrong and in bother.

My comments refer only and I repeat only to the allegations and downright bad advise concerning filling criminal allegations of theft and burglary.

There's breaches of civil law here, no doubt in my mind but the requirements for criminal law aren't met.

s1ippy

fishfoodie wrote: »

The main thing the RTB lacks is resources. The amount of rented accommodation in Ireland is far in excess of what their staffed for, & no-one is interested in making it fit for purpose, & paying for it.

If its to do an effective job, in a reasonable time frame, it needs to be subsidized by the rental sector itself.

The problem is that landlords are supposed to pay for the service voluntarily and many don't because they never go after anyone.

Can you imagine our frustration when our landlord wasn't even registered with the RTB and we still had to oblige him and go through the illegal eviction hearing a second time when he said he'd received no correspondence, even though the RTB have a phonecall record of him requesting that the notices be sent to our old property and tenants said he came to collect the post regularly.

Same landlord told us he had upwards of 30 properties not registered and we disclosed this to the RTB, with evidence, as a friend of ours rented another property from him and I saw two others up on daft. It wouldn't be a very difficult thing to prove and the penalties are supposed to be very harsh, but it's never enforced so there's no incentive whatsoever to pay.

The mind boggles, except it doesn't, because of course that's the system when you think about it for about five seconds in the wider context of society.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is quite simple.
Pay rent in full and on time ; no problems.
Pay rent late or not at all; problems.

Again CH I have to wonder what legal system you're thinking about here. You seem to be operating from the "don't fall on hard times and nothing illegal will happen to you" system.

I used to work in UCD's student housing department when I was an undergrad there. We dealt with student accommodation on campus and private rental. There's actually files kept on landlords with views like you have. They're not too uncommon in Ireland unfortunately.

Anyway one student came to the legal team for advice regarding a landlord who evicted him illegally (pretending to sell the house) kept his deposit. The legal team suggested official channels, but the student against our advice, allegedly kept one or two items from the house. Unprovable of course but the landlord rang us up to complain about what had happened.

By your logic we should have said "pay the deposit back then no problems".

You need to obey the law CH. Defence of people like this are what's giving Irish landlords a bad name.

steddyeddy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Correct.

That's nothing to do with what we were discussing concerning theft and burglary though is it?

It sort of is Niner. As I mentioned I was a student volunteer in UCD's student housing department. This happened to students more than you can imagine.

A lot of the time when a landlord cleaned out an apartment after an illegal eviction a student would say "well where's my playstation, XBOX laptop ect".

Even if the aforementioned item was fictional the LL would usually freak out and be accused of burglary. This worked because the landlord is acting in an illegal manner by evicting and holding their stuff. Most people who act in this sort of thuggish manner don't keep an inventory. So yes it could be construed as theft if the tenant was that way inclined.

Claw Hammer

<SNIP>

the_syco

steddyeddy wrote: »

You need to obey the law CH. Defence of people like this are what's giving Irish landlords a bad name.

Yes, Claw Hammer. Obey the law. Only the tenants are allowed to ignore the law, dontcha know?

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Shirley the Land Lord should have been contacted by the OP

The LL could have contacted the other tenants. The OP hasn't said that they are evicted.

expertrhino wrote: »

"I have boxed up your belonging, they are in a shed in *(location 20 miles from apartment)* and I'm keeping your secerity deposit for rent unpaid"

Nothing about the OP being evicted.

steddyeddy

the_syco wrote: »

Yes, Claw Hammer. Obey the law. Only the tenants are allowed to ignore the law, dontcha know?


The LL could have contacted the other tenants. The OP hasn't said that they are evicted.

Nothing about the OP being evicted.

Syco no one is saying that.

We're saying it's not acceptable for the landlord to act illegally.

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again CH I have to wonder what legal system you're thinking about here. You seem to be operating from the "don't fall on hard times and nothing illegal will happen to you" system.

I used to work in UCD's student housing department when I was an undergrad there. We dealt with student accommodation on campus and private rental. There's actually files kept on landlords with views like you have. They're not too uncommon in Ireland unfortunately.

I’m sure that breaches GPDR.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

I’m sure that breaches GPDR.

Definitely does if it were organised. In a lot of cases the university were paying for vulnerable students to rent places so we had to be very very careful. We certainly weren't going to rent to people with some of the views on display here.

the_syco

steddyeddy wrote: »

Definitely does if it were organised. In a lot of cases the university were paying for vulnerable students to rent places so we had to be very very careful. We certainly weren't going to rent to people with some of the views on display here.

Did you have a file on "problematic" student tenets?

steddyeddy

the_syco wrote: »

Did you have a file on "problematic" student tenets?

Not a file as such but we certainly didn't refer a student to a landlord with a bad history as a tenant.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

It sort of is Niner. As I mentioned I was a student volunteer in UCD's student housing department. This happened to students more than you can imagine.

A lot of the time when a landlord cleaned out an apartment after an illegal eviction a student would say "well where's my playstation, XBOX laptop ect".

Even if the aforementioned item was fictional the LL would usually freak out and be accused of burglary. This worked because the landlord is acting in an illegal manner by evicting and holding their stuff. Most people who act in this sort of thuggish manner don't keep an inventory. So yes it could be construed as theft if the tenant was that way inclined.

what the accuser thinks and what is correct arent the same, the student can scream "theft" all they want but its still not theft. Construed means nothing.

They should also be careful. In the scenario you suggest, accusing someone os stealing a finctional item knowing that its a false allegation. Thats defamation and if the report was made to Gardai, making a false report

steddyeddy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

what the accuser thinks and what is correct arent the same, the student can scream "theft" all they want but its still not theft. Construed means nothing.

They should also be careful. In the scenario you suggest, accusing someone os stealing a finctional item knowing that its a false allegation. Thats defamation and if the report was made to Gardai, making a false report

I agree. It's not something that should be attempted. However, removing people's items without permission or forewarning leaves one open to such possibilities. The landlord would already been seen in less than favourable light from a legal perspective.

Claw Hammer

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree. It's not something that should be attempted. However, removing people's items without permission or forewarning leaves one open to such possibilities. The landlord would already been seen in less than favourable light from a legal perspective.

The question you have to ask is, "if the tenant had paid the rent in full and on time, would it have happened?".
If the answer is "No" the the tenant must share at least some of the responsibility for what happened".

steddyeddy

[PHP][/PHP]

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree. It's not something that should be attempted. However, removing people's items without permission or forewarning leaves one open to such possibilities. The landlord would already been seen in less than favourable light from a legal perspective.

Oh lets not beat about the bush, if the OP is being honest then the landlords ****ed but no matter how right you are, you need to box smart in these situations

davindub

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The question you have to ask is, "if the tenant had paid the rent in full and on time, would it have happened?".
If the answer is "No" the the tenant must share at least some of the responsibility for what happened".

Why does that question need to be asked?

wakka12

JayZeus wrote: »

In other words you all left the property uninhabited as you all decided to go home to live with your parents, you didn’t pay rent on time despite a decent rent reduction, but expected your personal belongings to be stored in a property in which none of you are residing or paying rent for?

He hasn’t evicted you. You moved home. He hasn’t made you homeless. You didn’t pay rent on time and then effectively abandoned the property and your belongings. Good of him to box it up and put it in storage. Most abandoned rentals result in a skip being dropped outside.

After he agreed to a reduction of your rent, you should have paid it on time. Collect your stuff and find a new place to live. Don’t muck people around next time. Your rent is ALWAYS to be paid on time.

Ordinarily I would agree but seems like the landlord was extremely unreasonable here. Not even a warning given before entering and removing and touching somebody else's belongings is not even a bit okay, especially given the circumstances right now with COVID and people not being allowed to travel home.

GreeBo

If the landlord genuinely thought the property was abandoned then he wouldnt have kept their stuff.
Hasnt a leg to stand on.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The question you have to ask is, "if the tenant had paid the rent in full and on time, would it have happened?".
If the answer is "No" the the tenant must share at least some of the responsibility for what happened".

No actually. People don't share responsibility for the illegal actions of another person.

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree. It's not something that should be attempted. However, removing people's items without permission or forewarning leaves one open to such possibilities. The landlord would already been seen in less than favourable light from a legal perspective.

As have you with your GPDR breach. Pot kettle black.

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

As have you with your GPDR breach. Pot kettle black.

I never said I kept them Ted. I said some people might. However, you're hardly in a position to judge based on your views on this thread.

ted1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I never said I kept them Ted. I said some people might. However, you're hardly in a position to judge based on your views on this thread.

My view is that the op and landlord need to talk by having a verbal conversation. The op hasn’t been told that he’s been evicted. The op has failed to pay rent , and breached the lease by leaving it empty for more than 30 days.
The landlord has put stuff in storage reason unknown possible different explanations, only way if finding out is via a conversation. The landlord has indicated that he is keeping deposit in lieu of payment, only June July And August left on lease.

May hasn’t been paid so perhaps he’s worried about remaining rent.

GreeBo

ted1 wrote: »

My view is that the op and landlord need to talk by having a verbal conversation. The op hasn’t been told that he’s been evicted. The op has failed to pay rent , and breached the lease by leaving it empty for more than 30 days.
The landlord has put stuff in storage reason unknown possible different explanations, only way if finding out is via a conversation. The landlord has indicated that he is keeping deposit in lieu of payment, only June July And August left on lease.

May hasn’t been paid so perhaps he’s worried about remaining rent.

If he hasnt been evicted, then under what reason has the landlord possibly removed their stuff?>

Gimme 5 of these possible explanations, oh and explain why the landlord didnt provide them as part of the message to the OP about taking their items?

steddyeddy

ted1 wrote: »

My view is that the op and landlord need to talk by having a verbal conversation. The op hasn’t been told that he’s been evicted. The op has failed to pay rent , and breached the lease by leaving it empty for more than 30 days.
The landlord has put stuff in storage reason unknown possible different explanations, only way if finding out is via a conversation. The landlord has indicated that he is keeping deposit in lieu of payment, only June July And August left on lease.

May hasn’t been paid so perhaps he’s worried about remaining rent.

Ted you can't believe that someone takes all of the possessions from the house for no reason. Why would they do that?

daithi7

steddyeddy wrote: »

No actually. People don't share responsibility for the illegal actions of another person.

If they don't keep their end of a lease agreement up, they do in my book. Particularly when they had 'renegotiated ' it!!