# Illegal evictions on the news



## Frank (7 Oct 2008)

Big headline stories on RTE news today about illegal evictions on tenants who had not paid ent for six months.

Landlord over reacts does something stupid like lock out then ends up with a massive fine and is down again.

I know someone who took a year to get control of a house with no rent to show.

Does the house owner have no rights?

I know there is a correct way to do things if this happens but it seems like non paying tenant is better protected.

I know this is a reapeat of similiar threads but seems relevant due to the way the media has blown this up.


----------



## z106 (7 Oct 2008)

i reckon the word 'Landlord' still unfairly has a stigma attached


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

Seems there little to protect a landlord anyway.

PRTB seems toothless.


----------



## bond-007 (8 Oct 2008)

Also in the news 9 repo orders granted in the Hight Court yesterday. Apparentely next weeks repo list is "very heavy".


----------



## starlite68 (8 Oct 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Seems there little to protect a landlord anyway.
> 
> PRTB seems toothless.


 yeah...bring back the good old days when the landlord could do whatever he liked to a tenant..and get away with it!


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> yeah...bring back the good old days when the landlord could do whatever he liked to a tenant..and get away with it!


 
Why should a landlord not also be protected?

Why should a tenant be able to do what they like and get away with it?


----------



## starlite68 (8 Oct 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Why should a tenant be able to do what they like and get away with it?


maybe because its their turn!


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> maybe because its their turn!


 
So if I had a problem with a landlord, and then you became my next landlord it would be ok for me to cost you thousands of euro?


----------



## starlite68 (8 Oct 2008)

the shoe was on the other foot for long enough!


----------



## rmelly (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> the shoe was on the other foot for long enough!


 
Nothing personal, but this attitude always amuses me. What % of the *current* tenants 'suffered' under the old regime before PRTB? What % of *current* landlords mistreated tenants previously? Should the people who became landlords in the last 5 years be tarred with the same brush as someone from 20 years ago?

And even in the pre PRTB days you make it sound as if EVERY landlord was illegally evicting tenants every other day of the week.

Lets have a bit of perspective on this - there will always be problem tenants and problem landlords - neither should be seen as acceptable, and PRTB should be set up to act accordingly.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Oct 2008)

I rented for 12 years in the 1980s & 1990s and never considered myself as suffering. I always found the rent to be good value at the time, for the standard of accommodation. Granted there were many kips and dives on the market, but at least (generally) they were a cheaper option, and nobody was forced to live there.

Fwiw, I can never remember a landlord that treated me unfairly.

There is far too much ideological hostility in this country towards landlords and property ownership in general, imho.


----------



## starlite68 (8 Oct 2008)

i am just saying that up until quite recent times..tenants had little or no rights, now that they have rights landlords are whinging.


----------



## rmelly (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> i am just saying that up until quite recent times..tenants had little or no rights, now that they have rights landlords are whinging.


 
Explain how the treatment of the first landlord in the original post is fair & balanced.


----------



## starlite68 (8 Oct 2008)

rmelly said:


> Explain how the treatment of the first landlord in the original post is fair & balanced.


 its probably not fair & balanced.....but thats the way things are now! the pendulum has swung.


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 - You're not making any fair or logical argument. 

Even if tenants were treated unfairly the most they would lose is the deposit, and they would also have the inconvience of moving to other rental property. Obviously there can be other problems, but its not a situation you couldn't get out of, and just move one. 

For a landlord this can be on going for months and months, with costs in many thousands and no way to quicky resolve the situation. In many cases its actually vastly cheaper to do an illegal eviction than go via the legal route. How does that help tenants or landlords?

Theres is an assumption that a landlord is wealthy and can afford losses. Thats isn't the case for a lot of landlords, especially in recent years. Its effectively theft, so I don't know how you can justify that.


----------



## gillarosa (8 Oct 2008)

rmelly said:


> Explain how the treatment of the first landlord in the original post is fair & balanced.


 
To put it in context, the news items yesterday was there has been a rise in illegal evictions, not that there has been a rise in LL's illegally evicting tenants who had not paid rent. As we all know there is legal recourse for LL's in the event of non payment of rent and other issues, my understanding is that it was not the sole reason for illegal action taken by these LL's.


----------



## starlite68 (8 Oct 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> starlite68 - You're not making any fair or logical argument.
> 
> Even if tenants were treated unfairly the most they would lose is the deposit, and they would also have the inconvience of moving to other rental property. Obviously there can be other problems, but its not a situation you couldn't get out of, and just move one.
> 
> .


is that all..you make it sound so simple....maybe you should ask people that have had to move at short notice how easy it really is!


----------



## LennyBriscoe (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> is that all..you make it sound so simple....maybe you should ask people *that have had to move at short notice* how easy it really is!


 
Well if they haven't paid their rent in 6 months they should have a fair idea that eviction is the next step.


----------



## rmelly (8 Oct 2008)

gillarosa said:


> To put it in context, the news items yesterday was there has been a rise in illegal evictions, not that there has been a rise in LL's illegally evicting tenants who had not paid rent. As we all know there is legal recourse for LL's in the event of non payment of rent and other issues, my understanding is that it was not the sole reason for illegal action taken by these LL's.


 
A rise in so called 'illegal' evictions because of PRTBs interference/existence maybe - who determines what is 'illegal' in this instance? And what is classed as 'illegal' - that the landlord forgot to put a specific piece of text on the eviction notice or mis-spelt the tenants name?

Should non payment of rent not be illegal? (not the absence of quotes)

As for the 'legal recourse' in the event of non payment - it isn't working and is firmly in the favour of the tenant.


----------



## Card (8 Oct 2008)

at lot of difficulties in the past as well and why protection was needed was that whilst landlords considered the properties their houses, the tenants considered them as their home and often landlords failed to recognise this


----------



## jhegarty (8 Oct 2008)

gillarosa said:


> To put it in context, the news items yesterday was there has been a rise in illegal evictions, not that there has been a rise in LL's illegally evicting tenants who had not paid rent. As we all know there is legal recourse for LL's in the event of non payment of rent and other issues, my understanding is that it was not the sole reason for illegal action taken by these LL's.




the increase is because the legal route now takes 6month to a year....


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

starlite68 said:


> is that all..you make it sound so simple....maybe you should ask people that have had to move at short notice how easy it really is!


 
I never said it was easy, and its been addressed now anyway.  



Card said:


> at lot of difficulties in the past as well and why protection was needed was that whilst landlords considered the properties their houses, the tenants considered them as their home and often landlords failed to recognise this


 
I don't think anyone has a problem with that. That was a problem and has been resolved. But the solution has caused a new problem, Where landlords can incur very heavy costs, loss of income, running into tens of thousands. It maybe their only income the loss of which could put them into serious debt.


----------



## MrMan (8 Oct 2008)

I think onme of the best ways to address the current imbalance is to have a tenant database so that rather than look for references from previous landlords, they can be inputted online. It would be good to have a database to be aware of a tenant that has had abused lease agreements in the past. Maybe the prtb could provide a referencing system that showed up any previous actions taken against tenants or landlords, it might work in a preventative manner.


----------



## Raskolnikov (8 Oct 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Seems there little to protect a landlord anyway.


That's very disingenuous.

If the landlord notified the PRTB when he should have, the could have had the tenants out within two or three months. Instead, he/she waited when they should have informed the PRTB and then ended up breaking the law


----------



## rmelly (8 Oct 2008)

Raskolnikov said:


> That's very disingenuous.
> 
> If the landlord notified the PRTB when he should have, the could have had the tenants out within two or three months. Instead, he/she waited when they should have informed the PRTB and then ended up breaking the law


 
two or three months? Are you serious? You call that 'protection'?


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

Raskolnikov said:


> That's very disingenuous.
> 
> If the landlord notified the PRTB when he should have, the could have had the tenants out within two or three months. Instead, he/she waited when they should have informed the PRTB and then ended up breaking the law


 
Why disingenuous?

Are you talking about a specific case? 

I was generalising. If you get a tenant who won't pay and won't leave, and starts damaging the property, its seems to take many months, a year even, to get a legal eviction, even if you do get awarded costs, the tenant might not have the means to pay them anyway, so its a hollow victory. What protection from that is there?


----------



## gillarosa (8 Oct 2008)

jhegarty said:


> the increase is because the legal route now takes 6month to a year....


 
Well, though its not scientific, their conclusion is that a number of factors caused by the recent downturn is leading to an increase in 'illegal' evictions, such as increased costs to the LL's mortgage prompting them to want to remove tenants and replace them with ones prepared to pay higher rents, increase unemployment meaning people can't meet the rent and so on...

I'm neither renting nor a LL so excuse this if its a stupid question but isn't there eviction processes that don't involve the PRTB? isn't that for redress of one or both parties feel aggrieved?


----------



## aircobra19 (8 Oct 2008)

You just give them notice as per RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT.

Currently the landlord is very exposed to very large losses if a tenant won't leave as per the act. As such the landlord is going to be very tempted to do an illegal eviction, especially if any fines, are less than the loss they could expect otherwise. Also they will be very picky about who they'll let to. Look for bigger deposits. So I would imagine both situations will make things more difficult for tenants.


----------



## rmelly (8 Oct 2008)

gillarosa said:


> Well, though its not scientific, their conclusion is that a number of factors caused by the recent downturn is leading to an increase in 'illegal' evictions, such as increased costs to the LL's mortgage prompting them to want to remove tenants and replace them with ones prepared to pay higher rents


 
I'd be surprised at that - rents aren't increasing, if anything they're going the other way. There's something like 2 and a half times the number of properties to let on daft compared to 18 months ago. Anyone trying this would soon find this out.

Sounds like more 'quality' RTE 'journalism'.


----------



## anna_k (23 Nov 2008)

Can there be a legal eviction? Say if you served all your notices in proper form and time, the tenant didn't appeal to PRTB within 28 days - would the eviction be legal then?


----------



## groom (24 Nov 2008)

MrMan said:


> I think onme of the best ways to address the current imbalance is to have a tenant database so that rather than look for references from previous landlords, they can be inputted online. It would be good to have a database to be aware of a tenant that has had abused lease agreements in the past. Maybe the prtb could provide a referencing system that showed up any previous actions taken against tenants or landlords, it might work in a preventative manner.



hmmm also a good idea would be a website where previous tenants could warn prospective tenants away from misbehaving landlords. LLBlacklist.com nice


----------



## murphaph (24 Nov 2008)

anna_k said:


> Can there be a legal eviction? Say if you served all your notices in proper form and time, the tenant didn't appeal to PRTB within 28 days - would the eviction be legal then?


I doubt it. I don't think any forced eviction (ie, changing locks and removing people and their belongings) is going to be legal without a court order or at least a PRTB directive? I can't imagine it would be in this country.


----------



## MrMan (24 Nov 2008)

groom said:


> hmmm also a good idea would be a website where previous tenants could warn prospective tenants away from misbehaving landlords. LLBlacklist.com nice




I would have no problem with that either, anything that rewards the good and punishes bad is a good thing.


----------



## DeeFox (24 Nov 2008)

I think the idea of a website that warns about misbehaving tenants or landlords might be abused hugely.  It is very easy to slag someone off but without both sides of the story a person looking at this website might only be aware of half of what went on.


----------



## Bronte (25 Nov 2008)

I think a website of both good and bad landlords and tenants is a good idea.  
As a landlord if I have a tenant who decides to not pay rent and destroy the place I can go down the legal route, wait one or two years for a 'determination' from the PRTB, then discover that the 'determination' is worthless (tenant doesn't comply, neither pays nor leaves) PRTB decides it's 'uneconomical' to go to court, forces me to go to court (costs of this plus risk) to get eviction, wait another six months or so.  
Or I illegally evict tenant and take the hit of the fine the PRTB will 'determine' on me and I unlike the tenant will be forced to pay.  

Not sure really which is the better option but I'd hazzard a guess at number two.  As MrMan said previously the PRTB is the tenants debt collection agency and until it works both ways it will be viewed with contempt by landlords.


----------



## starlite68 (25 Nov 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> i reckon the word 'Landlord' still unfairly has a stigma attached


i thik the word should be left as it is.....call a spade a spade!


----------



## aircobra19 (25 Nov 2008)

starlite68 said:


> i thik the word should be left as it is.....call a spade a spade!


 
I can imagine most landlords are lords alright


----------



## Raskolnikov (26 Nov 2008)

Bronte said:


> I think a website of both good and bad landlords and tenants is a good idea.


In theory, yes. In practice however, it would be a legal minefield.


----------



## murphaph (26 Nov 2008)

It'd be better for the IPOA to be used as a less formal way for landlords to communicate bad tenants to each other. Sadly many landlords are completely self serving and will happily recommend a nightmare tenant to an unsuspecting LL to offload them. 

At the end of the day..use your instincts as best you can and that's all you can do.


----------



## MrMan (26 Nov 2008)

Raskolnikov said:


> In theory, yes. In practice however, it would be a legal minefield.



I can definitely see the legal issues, but if it could be done through a prtb style official route i.e if you want to be a tenant in Ireland you must register yourself as such and be given a reg number that cannot be changed as it is linked to your ppsn. Landlords can only enter in details of when that tenant lived in their property and it would mean that any landlord could then check online for the tenant reg and know for sure that any reference that they were given was from the real previous landlord, it would also give an idea of the movements of tenants as in if someone moved 5 times in 2 years you would grow suspicious.


----------



## starlite68 (26 Nov 2008)

more red tape!


----------

