# Landlord ordered to pay €30k damages - because of tenants anti social behaviour.



## shoegal (17 Dec 2012)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archiv...fined-30k-for-tenantsapos-actions-217217.html

Interesting case in Cork regarding absentee landlords and their anti social tennants.


> Examiner:
> 
> *Landlord fined €30k for tenants’ actions*
> 
> ...


----------



## Time (17 Dec 2012)

An appeal will be made no doubt so the people will not see their money for some time.


----------



## facetious (17 Dec 2012)

shoegal said:


> http://www.irishexaminer.com/archiv...fined-30k-for-tenantsapos-actions-217217.html
> 
> Interesting case in Cork regarding absentee landlords and their anti social tennants.


And yet, a landlord cannot evict a tenant unless he has the same amount of proof which basically he has to gather from neighbours.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Dec 2012)

Who would want to be a landlord? 

I thought that the PRTB was for resolving issues between tenants and landlords? I had not realised that anyone can take a case against a landlord through the PRTB.  Seems crazy. 



> However, the tribunal ...said Mr  Harrington was in breach of his duty to the neighbours of his  properties. It ordered him to pay €1,000 to each of the 13 residents in  relation to one complaint, and €1,250 to each resident in relation to  the second complaint — a combined damages bill of €29,250.


----------



## round1 (17 Dec 2012)

Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 a landlord is held legally responsible for control of a tenant's antisocial behavior and a case can be brought against him by affected third parties. Several such cases can be found documented on the PRTB website.


----------



## delgirl (17 Dec 2012)

round1 said:


> Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 a landlord is held legally responsible for control of a tenant's antisocial behavior and a case can be brought against him by affected third parties. Several such cases can be found documented on the PRTB website.


This is clear, however, the problem is if the Landlord wants to evict a tenant for anti-social behaviour, he/she has to have sufficient proof to satisfy the PRTB!

I evicted tenants in February this year who were causing havoc, but had to be patient and use 'the non-payment of rent' to get them out.  

The neighbours, who were happy to complain to me on an almost daily basis, didn't want to call the Gardai to have the anti-social behaviour and drug dealing officially logged as they were afraid of the tenants.  This left me in a very difficult position as I was aware of the behaviour but had no absolutely no proof as I don't live near the property.


----------



## ajapale (17 Dec 2012)

There is a particular problem in Cork City around UCC and CIT relating to a number of rogue Landlords letting to rogue tenants engaged in terrible anti social behaviour.


----------



## ajapale (17 Dec 2012)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Who would want to be a landlord?



I wonder if the landlord was able to demonstrate that he made best efforts to evict the tenant(s) and that the PRTB slowed down / stymied those best efforts could the neighbours sue the PRTB?


----------



## facetious (17 Dec 2012)

delgirl said:


> This is clear, however, the problem is if the Landlord wants to evict a tenant for anti-social behaviour, he/she has to have sufficient proof to satisfy the PRTB!
> 
> I evicted tenants in February this year who were causing havoc, but had to be patient and use 'the non-payment of rent' to get them out.
> 
> The neighbours, who were happy to complain to me on an almost daily basis, didn't want to call the Gardai to have the anti-social behaviour and drug dealing officially logged as they were afraid of the tenants.  This left me in a very difficult position as I was aware of the behaviour but had no absolutely no proof as I don't live near the property.


And therein lies the problem for landlords. They cannot evict without good proof of the anti-social behaviour. That proof can only come from those affected who do not always want their name brought up, often fearing retaliation my the anti-social tenants.

There is also several cases where the third party did not have sufficient proof and had their claim against the landlord denied


----------



## Knuttell (17 Dec 2012)

> The residents said the behaviour went on for several years, and that they were "living in fear" and "felt intimidated". They said they raised their concerns with Mr Harrington, who lives in Ardgroom, on the Beara peninsula, several times, without substantive or meaningful response.



In fairness,this Landlord appears not to have engaged with the issue at all.

I had a similar issue when tenants in my property called me about a neighbouring house where the Landlord having previous form for letting to disruptive types had re-let (having spent a small fortune fixing up the house) to a traveler who was keeping two piebald ponies in the back garden of his semi-d,Guards were called repeatedly for late night partying/fighting etc.

I got hold of his mobile and rang him hoping he would remove this chap,instead I got an earful of abuse at one point and I kid you not he told me I was racist against "pikeys"(his words)

I gave the neighbours details of how to raise this as a complaint with the PRTB and this is ongoing afaik,I really am at a loss to explain his behaviour,the property is in flitters,the rest of the estate is exceptionally well maintained except for sonny boy and when he eventually moves on the meat head of a landlord will have to spend €1000s on repairs.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Dec 2012)

round1 said:


> Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 a landlord is held legally responsible for control of a tenant's antisocial behavior and a case can be brought against him by affected third parties. Several such cases can be found documented on the PRTB website.




I hadn't realised that at all. I presume that landlords do know this. 

I have seen threads on anti-social neighbours renting a house nearby. Has this section been brought to the attention of the posters?


----------



## miriammary (17 Dec 2012)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Who would want to be a landlord?
> 
> I thought that the PRTB was for resolving issues between tenants and landlords? I had not realised that anyone can take a case against a landlord through the PRTB.  Seems crazy.




Nothing crazy about it I think--it is only right that a landlord is held accountable for how his/her tenants impact on the lives of those around them.


----------



## Annie51 (17 Dec 2012)

Does anyone know if the same tenants are still in the houses?


----------



## delgirl (18 Dec 2012)

miriammary said:


> Nothing crazy about it I think--it is only right that a landlord is held accountable for how his/her tenants impact on the lives of those around them.


The thing is that the residential tenancies act, overseen by the PRTB, is skewed in favour of the tenant to the extent that it is extremely difficult to evict tenants.

If a landord does manage to serve notice on a troublesome tenant, they have to be 100% sure that they have complied with the act in terms of the exact wording of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the minimum notice period, which starts _the day after_ the notice is served and runs until midnight on the last day of the notice.

If the service of notices is not carried out to the letter, regardless of how far behind in rent the tenant is or what damage they have caused, the tenant can take a case with the PRTB against the Landlord for illegal eviction.

Even if the Landlord follows all the procedures laid down in the act, and even if the PRTB issues a judgement against the tenant, the PRTB has no teeth with which to evict the tenant and the Landlord then has to go to court.  Court fees, solicitor's fees, PRTB fees and the loss of rental income due to non-payment for months, can devastate a Landlord who is still obliged to pay the mortgage on the property.


----------



## bugler (18 Dec 2012)

> The thing is that the residential tenancies act, overseen by the PRTB,  is skewed in favour of the tenant to the extent that it is extremely  difficult to evict tenants.


No, it isn't. There are a full range of measures landlords can use to evict tenants. They just have to do it properly and in accordance with the law. A good thing, surely?

If there is no lease in place, or it has expired, they don't even need a good reason at all to notify the tenant to leave - they can ask them to move out because they want the property for a relative, or want to sell it etc. 

The real issue for landlords, and tenants, is that the PRTB's decisions often go unheeded. There is one southside auctioneer and landlord who must have upwards of €30,000 of fines imposed on him (generally the bulk are for his refusal to attend the hearings). I don't believe he pays the fines. I am not convinced the landlord in this case will pay a penny over this, though I do hope I'm wrong. The state will probably continue to do business with him also. And as we know from many posts here, good luck trying to get an award out of ex-tenants. The PRTB does not seem able to compel payment of the fines/awards it dishes out.

Anyone taking a PRTB case has no right to anonymity. All the complainants in this case will have their names published on the PRTB site which can be accessed by any member of the public. They stood up the tenants in this case, if only the landlord had done the same. It appears in this case there was extensive and clear evidence of serious anti-social behaviour over a number of *years*, which the landlord could have used to serve 7 days notice of eviction on the tenants. If the landlord cared that is, which he did not.

To be honest, given the extent and length of the anti-social behaviour the awards (€2250 per complainant) don't sound particularly generous.

Further info on the case in this article: 
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/an-end-to-residents-lengthy-nightmare-217164.html

A landlord's responsibilities don't end when he/she hands over the key. You can't ruin peoples lives in your pursuit of personal gain.


----------



## delgirl (18 Dec 2012)

bugler said:


> *No, it isn't*. There are a full range of measures landlords can use to evict tenants. They just have to do it properly and in accordance with the law.


Are you a landlord bugler? Just wondering where you have the idea that it's easy to evict tenants.


----------



## oldnick (18 Dec 2012)

Bugler is right -there are a full range of measures Lls can use to evict tenants.

Those measures usually involve a lot of time, stress,money for the LL.

And, at the end of the day -often many months - there is very little chance of getting the money from the tenants who may not have paid rent for ages and/or caused damage.

That is besides the fact that if one has really rough and nasty tenants there can be threats to the LL who is trying to evict them ,or, more usual, more damage to the property from those tenants are in effect trespassing on the LL's property and depriving the LL of an income necessary to pay the banks.

A reading of several threads on AAM over many years will confirm much of what I say.

On another note -I am absolutely bewildered why someone cannot sue the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour rather than the person who owns the house in which these bad people live. That's besides the fact that we're supposed to have a police force.


----------



## ajapale (18 Dec 2012)

from examiner



> Both properties are now on the market. The tenants of one of the houses  have been served with a notice of termination of tenancy, and are due to  vacate the property by Dec 31.
> 
> The tenants of the other  property have been put on notice that the house has been put on the  market, and that they should find alternative accommodation.


----------



## Time (18 Dec 2012)

That don't mean that they will leave on time. The LL could have to go to PRTB in order to evict them.


----------



## ajapale (18 Dec 2012)

True, but it does demonstrate that the LL is now making best efforts to address the situation. Doubtless this will form part of his challenge to the RPB's determination.


----------



## delgirl (18 Dec 2012)

oldnick said:


> Bugler is right -there are a full range of measures Lls can use to evict tenants.
> 
> Those measures usually involve a lot of time, stress,money for the LL.


Yes, oldnick there are a range of measures Landlords can use to evict tenants, but my point with bugler is that it's certainly not easy as he says.

As you say, extremely costly and stressful and if you're unfortunate enough to have given the tenant a fixed-term lease, you can only evict for reasons such as non-payment of rent or anti-social behaviour and have to have watertight proof of their behaviour if you are going to try the latter. Been there, didn't have enough proof and apart from hiring a private detective or staking out the house myself, there was nothing I could do. The anti-social behaviour also included visitors to the property damaging the neighbours walls and cars, but the neighbours were afraid to call the Gardai.

Even the non-payment of rent is a nightmare. You have to give them 14 days notice to pay the rent and, if they pay within that time, and default again the following month, the whole process starts over again.  It took me 5 long stressful months to get a dreadful tenant out of my property and only with the help of the Gardai did I finally manage to get him out.  It cost €2,000 to put the house back to the condition it was in before they moved in and, of course, they walked away without a forwarding address.

Anyone who thinks it's easy to get tenants out of a property has either never evicted anyone before or has been lucky enough to have tenants who have left when legally asked to do so.


----------



## ajapale (18 Dec 2012)

I heard a barrister on Radio 1 it seems the law was enacted back in 2004!


----------



## shesells (19 Dec 2012)

Yes..it's the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) 2004. Often quoted but only limited sections.


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2012)

Time said:


> That don't mean that they will leave on time. The LL could have to go to PRTB in order to evict them.


 
It doesn't work like that Time. Even if as a landlord you serve all your valid eviction notices the tenant may not leave and even if you spend a year after that with a case to the PRTB which orders the tenant's to leave they still may not leave. After all that time wasting you'd have to go to court and that's really quick !  I wonder does this mean a landlord must go to court.  

Any landlord will tell you it's nearly impossible to get rid of anti social tenants who don't want to leave. These people really know the system. They'll quite happy sit there damanging your property, living rent free while you are pulling your hair out doing things by the book and meanwhile you've still to pay for your mortgage.

In this particular case if the landlord illegally evicted the tenants he would be ordered by the PRTB to pay circa 20K to the tenants. 

And actually this story gets worse, looks like the landlord is forced into 'selling' the properties in order to get the tenants out. I cannot believe any landlord would be happy to keep anti social tenants. What benefit is there to him. 

There is a gaping hole in the PRTB legislation. If a landlord has served valid notice, the landlord should be allowed to evict the tenant, maybe with the pressence of the gardai to police it. If that were the law a lot of these problems would never arise. 

Now that I'm responsible for my tenants anti social behaviour, what is the state's responsiblities to those it houses who are anti social, indeed what is the state's responsibilities to ordinary people who live beside home owners who are anti social. 

All I know is I'm getting more responsibilites but I've no rights myself if I live beside anti social home owners or council tenants. This doesn't sound right, landlords are responsible for the behaviour of their tenants but those tenants seem to have no responsibilites.


----------



## facetious (19 Dec 2012)

bugler said:


> No, it isn't. There are a full range of measures landlords can use to evict tenants. They just have to do it properly and in accordance with the law. A good thing, surely?
> 
> *If there is no lease in place, or it has expired, they don't even need a good reason at all to notify the tenant to leave - they can ask them to move out because they want the property for a relative, or want to sell it etc.
> *
> ...



What are you referring to as "an expired lease". After a tenant has been in occupation for 6 months he gains PART 4 rights (unless a valid notice of termination was served during the first six months) and therefore may remain in the property without signing any new lease. Therefore, he is protected by the laws of the RTA 2004.

In order for a landlord to fully comply with the 6 grounds available to him (under Part 4 laws) to evict a tenant, he must actually comply with the ground stated on a permanent basis. He cannot evict a tenant on the grounds that he or a relative will live in the property - he must actually do that. If after a month or two, he then rents out the property he has not complied with the law and a tenant may bring a case of unlawful eviction for which the landlord risks a heavy fine awarded to the tenant.

Anyone involved in a case with the PRTB DO have the right to anonymity. There are many instances in PRTB resolution decisions where one or both parties have requested that their names be withheld and they are usually  referred to as "Z" or similar. Furthermore, sometimes the address of the property is also not given.

This, in my opinion is not right. As the PRTB is replacing the courts where, I believe (but stand to be corrected), names are freely available, the PRTB should act in the same way.

This way, both bad tenants and landlords could be detected fairly easily. However, I note that it is impossible to search the PRTB decisions for any particular criteria such as a landlord's or tenant's name.


----------



## bugler (19 Dec 2012)

> What are you referring to as "an expired lease". After a tenant has been  in occupation for 6 months he gains PART 4 rights (unless a valid  notice of termination was served during the first six months) and  therefore may remain in the property without signing any new lease.  Therefore, he is protected by the laws of the RTA 2004.
> 
> In order for a landlord to fully comply with the 6 grounds available to  him (under Part 4 laws) to evict a tenant, he must actually comply with  the ground stated on a permanent basis. He cannot evict a tenant on the  grounds that he or a relative will live in the property - he must  actually do that. If after a month or two, he then rents out the  property he has not complied with the law and a tenant may bring a case  of unlawful eviction for which the landlord risks a heavy fine awarded  to the tenant.



The expired lease reference is relevant because even where there has been a lease, a landlord can wait it out and then serve a valid termination under Part 4. So really, there's no excuse for a serious issue going on with a tenant for years, even ignoring the fact that anti-social behaviour is grounds for terminating a lease also.

Also, come off it. Landlord wants tenant out, and tenant is part 4. Landlord serves notice:

"I am selling the house."
"I want the house for a relative."
"I am substantially renovating the house."

This is valid. Tenant leaves, presumably finds new accomodation, and doesn't lurk in the bushes outside their ex-home waiting to verify that yes, in fact someone related to the landlord has moved in. If the landlord wants to be cautious, he can put a price tag on the property and stick a sign up. Maybe he could ask for 50% more than the house is worth, just to be safe. He could move back into the house himself, or have a relative do it. Maybe the relative/himself only wants the house a certain number of days. 

In what fantasy land does the ex-tenant come back into the picture and presumably reclaim the house, when they have moved on to a new dwelling? 

"stated on a permanent basis"... - You mean they have to sell the house, "permanently"? Or that the relative has to move in, forever? How does the tenant verify that the new occupant is a relative of the landlord? Can they take a DNA sample from both? 

There are so many holes in these get out clauses you could drive a movers' van through them. Whatever the intention of the legislation it makes it very easy to serve a valid notice of termination, and this is without the tenant doing *any wrong*. Where the tenant has done wrong, particularly serious anti-social behaviour as evidenced here, 7 days notice can be served. Most of the landlords posting here are way off topic. This wasn't a thread about how difficult it is to evict tenants. The landlord has seemingly taken no interest in evicting them, and he/his agent disputes that the tenants' behaviour was as bad as made out. If there is any evidence the landlord tried to evict the tenants at any stage over several years can someone highlight it for me?



> “The tribunal notes that no written complaint or notice was made to the  tenants after any of the communications were received from the  neighbouring residents or their representative.
> 
> “It is claimed  that the tenants were requested to modify their behaviour, but there is  no evidence that this was effective, or that the requests were  accompanied by any threat of sanction if they failed to do so.”





> True, but it does demonstrate that the LL is now making best efforts to  address the situation. Doubtless this will form part of his challenge to  the RPB's determination.



Does it? Where is the indication that he is selling out of motivation to resolve this issue? And after how many years? And can anyone find these houses on myhome.ie? Because I can't, despite the fact they are apparently on the market. Maybe I am being hindered by the fact I don't know the area, but I've found the estate on the myhome map and these houses are not on it.

This was a case of a landlord letting to anti-social tenants, then washing his hands of them while continuing to collect the rent (presumably paid by the state) for a number of years. The tenants affected the quality of life of a large number of people. I wonder would the landlords sympathising with him on this thread change their tune if such tenants moved in next door to their own homes.


----------



## delgirl (19 Dec 2012)

bugler said:


> Where the tenant has done wrong, particularly serious anti-social behaviour as evidenced here, 7 days notice can be served.


.. provided the Landlord has watertight proof such as Garda evidence.



bugler said:


> Most of the landlords posting here are way off topic. This wasn't a thread about how difficult it is to evict tenants.


Sorry if I'm one of the ones you think is off topic, I was responding to your general assertion earlier in this thread that is it easy to evict tenants, which in my experience as a Landlord who has had to evict on two separate occasions, is incorrect.



bugler said:


> I wonder would the landlords sympathising with him on this thread change their tune if such tenants moved in next door to their own homes.


I don't think any of the landlords who have posted on this thread have any sympathy with the landlord in question, perhaps you could point out where sympathy has been expressed?

As he had proof, via neighbours' statements and Gardai records, of serious anti-social behaviour, he should of course have taken steps to evict the tenants.


----------



## oldnick (19 Dec 2012)

Bugler - why would a LL wish to evict tenant ?

*NO* LL wants to evict a good tenant without a valid reason , such as using the house for LL's family, or selling it etc.  LLs are desperate to retain good tenants.

I don't know why you go on at such length about a situation that does not arise, rather than the most common situation which is that it is extremely costly and difficult to actually evict a bad tenant.

It may be "easy" to serve a notice of termination. It can take a hell of a long time before that bad tenant leaves  and can cost the LL a lot of stress and money . Delgirl's experience is one of many on AAM that I previously referred to.

You, Bugler,are just looking at the written law but are still ignoring the overwhelming evidence which shows that what is written on paper means very little to in practice.

You may be even be a LL but certainly not one who has had the horrific experience of dealing with foul thuggish tenants who have cost  you a fortune, caused damage and would laugh at any talk about notice to evict, knowing full well they'd get another six months free rent and not pay for any damage.


----------



## facetious (19 Dec 2012)

bugler said:


> The expired lease reference is relevant because even where there has been a lease, a landlord can wait it out and then serve a valid termination under Part 4. So really, there's no excuse for a serious issue going on with a tenant for years, even ignoring the fact that anti-social behaviour is grounds for terminating a lease also.
> 
> Also, come off it. Landlord wants tenant out, and tenant is part 4. Landlord serves notice:
> 
> ...


Where a landlord cites, as his reason for evicting a tenant, on the ground that he requires the property for his own or a close family members use, he must state in the Notice of Termination, the the identity of that person and the expected duration of the occupation.

Furthermore, the NoT must also state that the landlord is required to offer to the evicted tenant a tenancy of the property if the the terms of the NoT are not complied with. That is to say, the landlord/his family member specified in the Notice vacates within 6 months of the expiry of the NoT.

Likewise, for each of the 6 grounds for eviction from a Part 4 tenancy, regulations are in place to prevent a landlord from using the grounds but not complying with them; to prevent a landlord from evicting a tenant as and when he wants to.


----------



## fear peile (19 Dec 2012)

There is some major flaw in the system here, I am not by any means sympathising with said LL, but why should any man have to bear the responsibility for the actions of others. The TENANTS were the people who caused the anti social behaviour, what happens them ?? do they just walk of into the sunset to do it all over again to create havoc for some other LL or community, when the current LL eventually manages to evict them. In my opinion they seem to be the untouchables. I have to agree with Oldnick on this issue, quote, " I am absolutely bewildered why someone cannot sue the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour rather than the person who owns the house"


----------



## Dermot (19 Dec 2012)

The owner of the house is obviously not a good landlord however I have reservations around the issue of he being held liable for the actions of others.  If this case is appealed and upheld how will local authorities escape being held responsible for the anti social behaviour of some of their tenants.  There are serious anti social behaviour issues in a lot of local authority estates around the country.  This case could have serious unintended consequences as I see it


----------



## Bronte (20 Dec 2012)

fear peile said:


> . The TENANTS were the people who caused the anti social behaviour, what happens them ?? do they just walk of into the sunset to do it all over again to create havoc for some other LL or community,


 
Yes this is exactly what happens. If the tenant's actions have no repercussions for them then they will continue. I had just such a tenant and I got away lightly I consider. In my case I paid them to leave (subsecuently they took a High court case for personal injuries against me) 

Before they left the man took a hurley stick to a child in the estate, in the next house I was informed they broke all the windows and caused untold damage. They left the kids alone in the house crying for hours on end, and no I didn't ring social welfare as I consider state care worse than these parents for all they were criminals but the kids were fed and housed. In any case the state doesn't want to know. Did the usual disguisting cleaning up after them, packing I cannot remember how many black plastic bags and bribing the binmen take them (which they did). Both mother and father were brought from their respective jails for the High court case, but because they did not arrive at the same time they told different stories and the case was thrown out. She, unusually for a mother of 3 kids, was jailed because the judge was upset she had taught her kids to shoplift. 

In case anyone on here is in any doubt I don't have any sympathy for a landlord who doesn't get rid of serious problem tenants over a very long period of tiem,  but there is more to this. It is really really difficult to get rid of any tenant, even those with serious problems and getting rid of them only moves the problem on, it doesn't solve them. But if Bugler can enlighten me in how fast he thinks a landlord can get rid of a tenant that is any way under a year or two I will listen with bated breath. The only way I know if bribery or force. Both of which land you in serious hot water with the PRTB.  So far I've only had to do the bribary route.  I do wonder if the landlord in this case had forceably evicted the tenant's what fine the PRTB would land on him.  

And now it seems in addition to everything else I'm to be responsible for tenant's behaviour.


----------



## miriammary (20 Dec 2012)

Dermot said:


> The owner of the house is obviously not a good landlord however I have reservations around the issue of he being held liable for the actions of others.  If this case is appealed and upheld how will local authorities escape being held responsible for the anti social behaviour of some of their tenants.  There are serious anti social behaviour issues in a lot of local authority estates around the country.  This case could have serious unintended consequences as I see it



It is high time local authorities were held responsible for their tenants also. They should also be held accountable for how certain tenants impose on the lives of others. Saddest of all I think in all of this is that those anti social tenants will move on somewhere else and cause heartache and worry for others again. They suffer no penalties in all of this which I believe is wrong. I have seen tenants evicted from where I live only to be moved to another area and they behave in the same way all over again. It seems they are entitled to everything and yet responsible or accountable for nothing. Until a system is brought in that penalises the tenant also behaviour will not change. Finally the landlord in question in all of this lives in a beautiful quiet part of the country and I'm sure he would never have left them in those houses so long had they been near himself. It seems 'not on my own doorstep' but ok beside someone else.


----------



## serotoninsid (24 Dec 2012)

miriammary said:


> It is high time local authorities were held responsible for their tenants also.... Saddest of all I think in all of this is that those anti social tenants will move on somewhere else and cause heartache and worry for others again. They suffer no penalties in all of this which I believe is wrong. I have seen tenants evicted from where I live only to be moved to another area and they behave in the same way all over again. It seems they are entitled to everything and yet responsible or accountable for nothing. Until a system is brought in that penalises the tenant also behaviour will not change.


Agree completely.  It's a nonsensical system.


			
				oldnick said:
			
		

> I am absolutely bewildered why someone cannot sue the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour rather than the person who owns the house in which these bad people live.


Again, this is only logical - and I can't understand how we have a system that protects (and in some ways, rewards..) the worst of behaviour.  

I'm not a landlord - but how many accounts have there been - here and on other boards and that we hear locally - of cases like this?



			
				bronte said:
			
		

> The only way I know if bribery or force. Both of which land you in serious hot water with the PRTB. So far I've only had to do the bribary route.


I'm aware of one case last year where the gardai told the landlord off the record there was nothing they could do - nor was there anything he could do.  They told him to get heavies in to remove them!  He did - and they did exactly what was required.  However, how should anyone be put into the position of having to break the law in order to take control of their own property?


----------



## TenantRef (30 Jan 2013)

I think that there had to be some aspect of carelessness by the landlord in this. However it is a lot of money for one individual to be fined, with current tax rates he would need to earn 60k from rent in order to pay the tax liability and then pay the fine.


----------



## delgirl (18 Feb 2013)

Some welcome legislation in the pipeline to help landlords and neighbours deal with problem tenants, which doesn't involve complaints by individuals to the Gardai. 

This was my problem in 2012 when I had to try to evict troublesome tenants - the neighbours were happy to complain to me, but were afraid to approach the Gardai for fear of intimidation and damage to their vehicles and properties. I therefore had no proof of the anti-social behaviour and was unable to evict the tenants on these grounds.

Will be interesting to see how quickly the PRTB react to complaints.


----------



## Bronte (18 Feb 2013)

delgirl said:


> Will be interesting to see how quickly the PRTB react to complaints.


 
That's not the only problem, what powers will the PRTB have?  Is this going to be another case of the PRTB telling the landlords to go to court and the landlord bearing the cost of this.


----------

