# Evicting tenants



## lyonsa3 (16 Aug 2007)

I was looking for some advise on my current suitation.

Tenants currently in my property for 6 months. Rent has stopped been paid and I can't get in contact with them (mobile switched off). I plan to serve them with a termination of contract notice over the weekend.  What i'd like to know is what happend to the months rent deposit I recieved from them at the beginning of the lease? I legally have to give them 35 days notice for vacation of the property.  Can I use this months deposit to cover that extra 35 days they are in my property? Or are they entitled to get this back (less of course and damage or outstanding bills)?

Also, can the tenants agree with myself a lesser term for vacation, say 7 days?


----------



## MrMan (16 Aug 2007)

You can agree a term of one day if it suits both parties, the notice is onlt there to protect them even though they don't seem to need any protection!.

If they have reneged on their rent and there is a good chance they won't pay it when they get their notice then you are entitled to keep the deposit as that is what it's for. You may find that it won't cover all costs but at least its something and I would set a date for them to leave straight away.

I would send a letter to them stating that you will be there in person at  a specific time and date tomeet them and hand them the notice in person. Do make contact with them.


----------



## gonk (16 Aug 2007)

The notice must be in writing and in the form prescribed by law, or it will be invalid.

See the PRTB website: www.prtb.ie


----------



## Kendr (16 Aug 2007)

With regard mobiles switched off - Have you called around and knocked on the door? Entered for an inspection?

You can send notice if you want. But, if the rent is 28 days in arrears, they can't be contacted and have perhaps vacated? No notice is required.  Tenancy is deemed terminated.  Take back the house.

PRTB don't give legal advice, but your solicitor will confirm this.


----------



## lyonsa3 (17 Aug 2007)

How long does rent overdue have to be before a termination of contract notice can be issued? Is it anytime after the due date or is there a length of time it has to exceed?


----------



## MrMan (17 Aug 2007)

Depends on the terms that are in the lease agreement. It is worth stipulating in tenants covenants that late payments will not be tolerated and payments over one week late will result in breach of contract and may result in termination of tennacy or something like that. The more cover you give yourself in the lease as long as its reasonable the better you can resolve problems


----------



## Marie (19 Aug 2007)

As far as I know you can't impose these conditions retrospectively - i.e. if that wasn't in the tenancy agreement you both signed you might be in breach yourself if you try to impose it now.   Perhaps they're away on holiday and there is some perfectly reasonable explanation for the delay.


----------



## wheels (20 Aug 2007)

Marie said:


> As far as I know you can't impose these conditions retrospectively - i.e. if that wasn't in the tenancy agreement you both signed you might be in breach yourself if you try to impose it now.   Perhaps they're away on holiday and there is some perfectly reasonable explanation for the delay.



If they are away on holiday then that is not a perfectly reasonable explanation given that they didn't inform the land lord that the rent would be delayed etc. As a tenent myself in the past I would never be so reckless and I have absolutely no respect for those that are.


----------



## Skyscout (5 Sep 2007)

Served notice in January. Still no hearing from PRTB.


----------



## nmh001 (5 Sep 2007)

have a look at this and see how difficult it is to get rid of a non-rent paying tenant: 

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...c1cb56458bc746fc80257346005538f5?OpenDocument

i hope you're not at the start of the kind of hassle this guy went through


----------



## NHG (6 Sep 2007)

The PRTB are worse than useless!  The landlord seems to have no rights anymore once a tennant in living in a property for more than a day over six months.

If I was back again I would not be joining the PRTB.


----------



## Bronte (6 Sep 2007)

You have to be registered with the PRTB in order to be allowed by revenue to claim back expenses on rental income.  This is from 2006 onwards.  No matter how useless you think the PRTB are it's better to have everything correct if going down the route of evicting a tenant or it could cost you dearly.


----------



## Skyscout (6 Sep 2007)

Anyone been through the adjudication process here. Have a hearing coming up hopefully in the not too distant future.


----------



## sam h (6 Sep 2007)

> Can I use this months deposit to cover that extra 35 days they are in my property? Or are they entitled to get this back (less of course and damage or outstanding bills)?


 
I assume you have a lease ?  Most standard leases allow the landlord to keep the deposit to cover outstanding rent but ideally you should do you best to get the outstanding rent (you can still serve notice).  The deposit is ment for ensuring the property is left in good repair: if they have nothing left to get back, they won't be concerned with the state of the property and the chances are if they weren't paying your rent they probably didn't look after the property too well. So you may need to keep some of the deposit anyway.  

If I were you I would call to the house every day looking for the rent. 

Good luck!!


----------



## Howitzer (6 Sep 2007)

NHG said:


> The PRTB are worse than useless!  The landlord seems to have no rights anymore once a tennant in living in a property for more than a day over six months.
> 
> If I was back again I would not be joining the PRTB.



So given the choice you'd rather break the law?


----------



## Skyscout (9 Sep 2007)

Changing the locks will cost you 20k but waiting for a case will take at least 12 months to eviction. So it becomes a cost/benefit thing. Will it cost you more than 20k while you wait a year with no rent? That's the way I see it anyway. PRTB is fine in theory but when there is such a logjam of cases that's where the system falls down and fails the landlord and rewards bad tenants.

Be very careful who you rent to.

Get a good agent or check yourself bank statements and references. Don't rent to anyone unless you see standing orders going out monthly to previous landlord. I'm not racist either but I definitely do discriminate.


----------



## aircobra19 (9 Sep 2007)

Where did 20k come from? Was it in that link that would need a hour to read?


----------



## Stifster (9 Sep 2007)

In the preamble to the PRTB Act it says the intention of the Act was to speed up the resolution process between landlords and tenants, i have a client down over 25k, lodge dan application in Nov 2006. Hearing next week. 

I'd love to challenge it.


----------



## gonk (10 Sep 2007)

Stifster said:


> In the preamble to the PRTB Act it says the intention of the Act was to speed up the resolution process between landlords and tenants, i have a client down over 25k, lodge dan application in Nov 2006. Hearing next week.
> 
> I'd love to challenge it.


 

Here's a case detailed in an Irish Property Owner's Association newsletter earlier this year, which shows clearly the PRTB system is broken and unfit for purpose ():

REF TR24DR272/2006
The tenant on being served a notice of termination in June 2005 for non-payment of rent applied for the dispute resolution services of the Board on the 20th June 2005.
The landlord after issuing a 14 day letter to bring the rent arrears up to date and a 28 day notice of termination, when the tenant refused to leave and refused to pay any rent at all, applied for the dispute resolution services of the Board on the 6th July 2005.
An adjudication hearing was held for both cases jointly on the 7th November 2005. The adjudicator sent in his report on the 16th November 2005.
On the 9th January 2006 the adjudicator’s determination -was sent to both parties allowing 21 days to appeal the decision.
On the 18th January 2006 the same adjudicator’s determination was again issued allowing 21 days to appeal the decision.
The tenant appealed the decision on the 10th February which was outside the 21 day period allowed from the second letter.
This was considered a valid appeal by the Board on the 19th April 2006. (The Residential Tenancies Act states that an appeal can be made within 21 days so it was not within the Private Residential Tenancies Board’s jurisdiction to accept this appeal).
A tribunal hearing was held on the 19th July 2006 where both sides of the case were heard and the barrister informed the tribunal that it should not have accepted the appeal.
A determination order was issued on the 11th October 2006 twelve weeks later, stating that the tenant should vacate the property within 21 days and pay the rent owing, ignoring the late notification of appeal. The tenant did not pay any rent and has not vacated the premises.
The Board sanctioned the taking of a civil case against the tenant on 17th January and informed the landlord by telephone on the 26th but they are not enforcing their determination order.
No rent has been paid by the tenant since the 18th March 2005 and the tenant is still living in the property.
This case is tremendously worrying because it demonstrates that a tenant can live in a property for two years without paying any rent and a landlord can do nothing about it. A property owner could lose their own home because of this and it does not inspire confidence in the law. It demonstrates that the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is ineffective and slower than the courts were previously.​


----------



## aircobra19 (10 Sep 2007)

This is truely shocking.


----------



## gonk (11 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> This is truely shocking.


 
Shocking, yes, but if you've any experience of dealing with the PRTB, unsurprising. They are nigh on impossible to contact by telephone. They take months to issue a simple acknowledgment of a tenancy registration.

Given that each registration costs €70, there should be enough money available to fund the PRTB properly, but on the evidence they are disastrously underresourced.


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Sep 2007)

Is their any stats available to quantify how successful or not the PRTB has been.


----------



## gonk (11 Sep 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Is their any stats available to quantify how successful or not the PRTB has been.


 
Figures for 2005

http://www.prtb.ie/disputesStats.htm

On the face of it, it would appear the PRTB would regard the case I referred to above as "resolved" becuase they have issued a determination, even though they have not taken any steps to enforce their order. So, I don't know how useful the stats are.


----------



## Skyscout (11 Sep 2007)

The €20k figure I got from reading through a few of the cases. Some are less. 

To be honest if the PTRB made a determination order in your favour. I don't think it would be unreasonable to go in and take possession. 

In fact if the rent was that far in arrears (2 years) then I would have taken possession a long time ago regardless of the penalty. 

If av rent is €1200 pm then that's nearly 30k!!!!!. Sorry I wouldn't let anyone steal 30k from me.


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Sep 2007)

Seems to me its a paper exercise, but the reality appears to be the PRTB is slow and toothless at least for landlords.


----------



## Afuera (12 Sep 2007)

Skyscout said:


> To be honest if the PTRB made a determination order in your favour. I don't think it would be unreasonable to go in and take possession.


 I agree.



Skyscout said:


> If av rent is €1200 pm then that's nearly 30k!!!!!. Sorry I wouldn't let anyone steal 30k from me.


New rents may be averaging 1200 p/m but most people are paying nowhere near that. The tenant in TR24DR272/2006 was only paying 57 EUR p/w.        This may have influenced how hard the landlord was willing to persue this case, since the penalties would far outweigh the benefits if they did something wrong.
[broken link removed]


----------



## shootingstar (12 Sep 2007)

Skyscout said:


> The €20k figure I got from reading through a few of the cases. Some are less.
> 
> To be honest if the PTRB made a determination order in your favour. I don't think it would be unreasonable to go in and take possession.
> 
> ...



Im with you on that one Skyscout. If my tenants stop paying their rent for 2 yrs i`ll lose out on €20,400.... no chance, If i couldnt get them out legally then i`d put in every window and door and make it next to impossible for them to live there. eye for an eye!!! LL`s have little come back!! jezz


----------



## Bronte (17 Sep 2007)

Gonk re your post no 19 I've 2 questions:

1. Why did the PRTB not enforce the determination order - do they have any power to do this? Don't they enforce determination orders against landlords. 

2. Why did they tell the landlord to take a civil case, I'm assuming because the PRTB has no power really but am not sure.  

And just thought of this one:
Can you take a civil case at the same time as the PRTB route so that if the PRTB at the end of two years results in O for the landlord at least you would also have the civil case going.


----------



## gonk (17 Sep 2007)

Bronte said:


> Gonk re your post no 19 I've 2 questions:
> 
> 1. Why did the PRTB not enforce the determination order - do they have any power to do this? Don't they enforce determination orders against landlords.
> 
> ...


 
Have a look on the PRTB website www.prtb.ie for their FAQs leaflets etc.

My understanding, but don't take this as gospel, is:


A landlord cannot bring civil proceedings in court against a tenant without first exhausting the PRTB dispute resolution process;
Failure for a landlord or tenant to comply with a determination of the PRTB is an offence;
If a landlord gets an eviction (or other) order from the PRTB against a tenant and the tenant doesn't comply, only then can the landlord go to court.
I don't know what role, if any, the PRTB has in the enforcement of its own orders. PRTB staff are specifically precluded from advising landlords and tenants on the tenancy laws. Your best bet for more info might be the IPOA, mentioned above.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Sep 2007)

It all seems quite messy. If it was more clear cut and there was some real power behind it, then people would have to be better tenants and landlords.


----------



## Bronte (18 Sep 2007)

Well it seems to me that if you go down the PRTB route (circa 2 years?) it means you will also have to go down the court route (another 2 years?) to enforce the PRTB decisions.

Surely the whole point of the PRTB was so that you didn't have to go to court.  

In the High Court link above it was not clear to me that the tenant would ever be able to pay the back rent, nor court costs so even if you got a High court order it wouldn't be much use if the tenant had no assets. The tenant meanwhile had no costs as he represented himself.  The landlord would be down the rent, meanwhile paying the mortgage himself plus all the legal costs - this is serious money going to the High Court.  I'm beginning to think evicting a tenant illegally and ending up paying 20K is cheap.


----------



## murphaph (23 Mar 2008)

Bronte said:


> Well it seems to me that if you go down the PRTB route (circa 2 years?) it means you will also have to go down the court route (another 2 years?) to enforce the PRTB decisions.
> 
> Surely the whole point of the PRTB was so that you didn't have to go to court.
> 
> In the High Court link above it was not clear to me that the tenant would ever be able to pay the back rent, nor court costs so even if you got a High court order it wouldn't be much use if the tenant had no assets. The tenant meanwhile had no costs as he represented himself.  The landlord would be down the rent, meanwhile paying the mortgage himself plus all the legal costs - this is serious money going to the High Court.  I'm beginning to think evicting a tenant illegally and ending up paying 20K is cheap.


Me too. And you then reverse the roles...you can sit back and let the tenant go the legal route (if he wants to). Solicitors will tell you the law stacks up heavily in the tenants favour given the precedents set since independence.


----------

