# Tenant gives notice but after date specified doesn't move out



## PaxmanK (31 May 2018)

This question has come up and I wonder if anyone here has some answers.

Tenant gave notice that they were leaving on a certain date.  Landlord has new tenants lined up for that date.  Original tenants now saying their new property fell through and they are staying.  But landlord wants them to leave on the date they specified in their notice.
Tenants refuse point blank.

What happens here?
First off are they entitled to stay even after they said they were leaving?
If not how does the landlord remove them?
He has already had to let down his new tenants.  A family with a newborn and he is not happy at all.


----------



## noproblem (31 May 2018)

Was everything done in writing or was it all word of mouth?  If in writing, you can insist they remove themselves on the date they themselves said they were leaving and if everything's up to date and conditions of lease are all met.


----------



## PaxmanK (31 May 2018)

He asked the tenant for it in writing and has his copy, but the tenant won't mobile now.  They said they will move when they get a new place.  
But that could be forever.  And he wants them out now in line with the date they gave.
He's very annoyed to say the least and knows going through the rtb would take years if the tenant digs in.


----------



## Sarenco (31 May 2018)

noproblem said:


> If in writing, you can insist they remove themselves on the date they themselves said they were leaving.


Do you mean legally or morally?

I'm not aware of any legal mechanism whereby a landlord can enforce a notice of termination issued by his tenant.

I can understand the annoyance but unless the landlord has grounds for issuing his own notice of termination, I don't see that there's much that can be done.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (31 May 2018)

Sarenco said:


> I can understand the annoyance but unless the landlord has grounds for issuing his own notice of termination, I don't see that there's much that can be done.



This can't be right. Could it now be called trespass? Anything? ... it's disgraceful that a landlord can be treated so abysmally.

No wonder landlords are leaving the market.


----------



## Sarenco (31 May 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> This can't be right. Could it now be called trespass? Anything? ... it's disgraceful that a landlord can be treated so abysmally.


Well, I didn't say it was "right", I just can't see any basis for a landlord enforcing a notice issued by his tenant. 

In the absence of any grounds for termination (e.g. non-payment of rent), I don't really see there's much the landlord can do.

It's tough on the new tenants that were lined up but, on the basis of what we've been told, the landlord doesn't seem to have incurred any losses (other than having his time wasted).

That's how I see it.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (31 May 2018)

Sarenco said:


> I just can't see any basis for a landlord enforcing a notice issued by his tenant.



I wasn't saying that you were saying that it was right... 'twas a turn of phrase.

The tenant issued notice of termination from their side, landlord acted accordingly. Tenant should have no choice but to hit the road.

If I was the landlord I'd be bucking.


----------



## Sarenco (31 May 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> If I was the landlord I'd be bucking.


Yeah, I would too.

But in the current market, I can somewhat understand the tenant's position.  If the place he had lined up fell through, what is he to do?  Book into a B&B?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (31 May 2018)

I see your point but the tenant started the ball rolling not the landlord. Just because the tenant changed his mind doesn't mean that the landlord should be messed about.

I'd still be bucking.


----------



## LS400 (31 May 2018)

It surprises me, that anyone is surprised by the tenants actions. 

The property owner is fully at the mercy of the tenant.
They know nothing will or can be done here to move them on. 

Now, if I were this tenant, why would I make life difficult for myself in appeasing the property owner. Morales and the likes don't fit with the modern day rules anymore. The governing bodies have seen to this.

What doesn't surprise me is, there is not a mention of seeking assistance from the RTB. 

Your still getting your rent, no point in stressing about letting the others down. It will not make an iota of a difference to the outcome.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (1 Jun 2018)

What's stopping the tenant doing the same thing in a few months time?


----------



## Sarenco (1 Jun 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> What's stopping the tenant doing the same thing in a few months time?


Nothing.  

Mind you, the next time the landlord might think twice about lining up a replacement until his current tenant has actually left.  Given the current tight rental market, extended void periods are hardly much of an issue.

At least in RPZ areas, tenants are usually keen to hang onto their current tenancies for dear life.  With good reason.


----------



## PaxmanK (1 Jun 2018)

I guess it's a good thing he didn't intend to sell it.
He's very annoyed. He was actually going to give them their notice for persistent late payment of rent and they gave theirs first so he went with that.
They didn't pay their last month's rent either, so he is going to gg with eviction now as he is sure they are playing games that will end with them stopping paying rent altogether.  
He really wanted them gone and thought he was blessed and getting off lightly.
Now he thinks otherwise.  Probably a long road ahead now.  Plus a couple with a newborn that his family know who think he is a demon landlord now too.
They did say to him last night that they would move if he paid them €5000 so that's why now he is climbing the walls as the where this will escalate to.


----------



## LS400 (1 Jun 2018)

€5000 to move out, what more needs to be said..

Our tenancy system is a disgrace to all.


----------



## Sarenco (1 Jun 2018)

Ah, I suspected there was more to this story.

I've heard a few stories lately about tenants demanding a ransom to quit a property - I'm afraid it's a by-product of our unbalanced regulatory system which stacks the deck very much in their favour.

Your friend may well be in for a long road to finally rid himself of these troublesome tenants. 

He needs to be very careful that he dots every "i" and crosses every "t" on the form and sequencing of the requisite demands and notices - one misstep and he's back to square one.  They clearly know the system and will be on the lookout for any flaw they can attack.


----------



## PaxmanK (1 Jun 2018)

I think they only recently learned how to game.the system and are now being coached and putting it into practice.


----------



## dcheck (2 Jun 2018)

Sarenco said:


> Do you mean legally or morally?
> 
> I'm not aware of any legal mechanism whereby a landlord can enforce a notice of termination issued by his tenant.
> 
> I can understand the annoyance but unless the landlord has grounds for issuing his own notice of termination, I don't see that there's much that can be done.


The RTA is silent on this, there is a long discussion on the legal thread of another forum for a case where tenant serves the termination notice and does not vacate (clearly the tenant is taking the proverbial p...) but I do not know if I can cross link. Case law for commercial tenancies is instead very clear: if tenant serves break notice, he/she has terminated the contract and has to leave. The RTA is silent except for Section 28: "(4) Despite the fact that such a notice of termination has been so served, that condition shall be regarded as satisfied if the notice is subsequently withdrawn." where a landlord can withdraw a termination notice served in the first 6 months and part 4 applies in this way.

My suggestion to the OP that is having such a problematic tenant (a non paying tenant that is demanding ransom to go deserves every possible misfortune) is the following one:
1) open immediately a case at the RTB with the termination notice that the tenant provided and did not comply (please be careful to check first that the termination notice provided by the tenant was valid). Ask the adjudicator to apply current case law for commercial tenancies since the RTA is silent (the OP would be effectively starting a test case)
2) serve immediately a14 days rent arrears notice demanding full payment of all rent due
3) after 15 days serve a 28 days termination notice for rent arrears and add this notice and the relative warning as evidence to be sure that, either by the termination notice served by tenant or by the termination notices served for rent arrears the adjudicator issues an order to vacate.

In this way the OP will show to the nasty tenant that things are serious and the OP is not willing to pay any ransom.


----------



## Sarenco (2 Jun 2018)

Good post @dcheck but I wouldn't be optimistic that the RTB would apply case-law on commercial tenancies to residential tenancies.  I don't think they would want to set that precedent.

I certainly agree that the wheels should be set in motion to terminate the tenancy.


----------



## facetious (3 Jun 2018)

Personally, if I were the landlord, I would be advising the current tenant that they will be liable for the costs of a hotel for the tenants who are to move in, until they have vacated the property.


----------



## Sarenco (3 Jun 2018)

Fair enough but it’s a hollow threat if you can’t actually enforce it.


----------



## noproblem (3 Jun 2018)

There's a few landlords in Dublin who would have this person removed by their own security people in doubly quick time if they were left in this situation by a tenant. The tenant could then take a case if they so wished.


----------



## PaxmanK (5 Jun 2018)

noproblem, He was mentioning going down that road alright, but hopefully ive convinced him that that is a road to ruin.
He has now decided he is not going to rent it out anymore after he gets this tenant out.  Advice I actually gave him and anyone else who would listen over a year ago, but he knew better.


----------



## noproblem (5 Jun 2018)

PaxmanK said:


> noproblem, He was mentioning going down that road alright, but hopefully ive convinced him that that is a road to ruin.
> He has now decided he is not going to rent it out anymore after he gets this tenant out.  Advice I actually gave him and anyone else who would listen over a year ago, but he knew better.




I don't see it as a road to ruin but that's just my opinion. The tenant would then have to take the legal route and all the costs involved with no guarantee of success, the so called landlord would have the property back and could do whatever he wanted with it.


----------



## Seagull (6 Jun 2018)

That would not be a good route to follow. It would be a quick and easy claim to the RTB for the evicted tenant, with a potentially 5 figure payout, along with potential criminal proceedings to follow


----------



## noproblem (6 Jun 2018)

Hmm, hasn't happened yet and I doubt very much that it will. Respect in this country is too easily given, its got to be earned. Then again, only my opinion.


----------



## Sarenco (7 Jun 2018)

Your "opinion" seems to be that the landlord in this case should take the law into his own hands because the tenant is not showing him enough "respect".  Yes?

I really hope that's a minority "opinion".


----------



## Gordon Gekko (7 Jun 2018)

Ireland really is anti-private landlord. The tenants in this instance are scum; they have reneged on their notice (which can happen) but they’re now effectively blackmailing the landlord by looking for the €5,000. The landlord would be foolish to bring in the heavies but personally I’d have no moral objection to him doing so in such circumstances. It is the tenant who has brought the matter into the gutter with his/her vile demand for payment.


----------



## Sarenco (7 Jun 2018)

I don't have any view on the morality of acting as suggested - it's the potential legal liabilities, both civil and criminal, that I would be concerned about.


----------



## cremeegg (7 Jun 2018)

noproblem said:


> There's a few landlords in Dublin who would have this person removed by their own security people in doubly quick time if they were left in this situation by a tenant. The tenant could then take a case if they so wished.



If the security people forced entry and physically removed the tenant and their belongings, then the landlord could well end up in prison.

However the landlord is under no obligation to service a property that is supposed to be vacant. (This may not be the case here, as it seems the tenant may have the right to withdraw their notice).

There is no obligation to provide electricity services, or water to a property where the tenant is overholding. there is no obligation for a landlord to keep beds, cookers, etc in a property where the tenant is over holding. 

A landlord would need to be careful here as a forced eviction is illegal, as is forced entry, however removing a cooker per se is not. The law is largely untested, though I am aware of a case where a landlord removed beds and cookers, and the RTB did not rule against him.


----------



## Sarenco (7 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> There is no obligation to provide electricity services, or water to a property where the tenant is overholding


The RTB wouldn't agree -

_"An unlawful termination of tenancy, also known as an illegal eviction, may occur where a landlord, *through force, intimidation or otherwise (such as cutting off utilities, changing the locks etc)* denies a tenant from accessing a rented dwelling or removes the tenant’s belongings from the dwelling."_

Also, a landlord has no right to enter a property with a tenant in situ to remove beds, cookers, etc.

Again, the tenant is only overholding if the tenancy has been lawfully terminated by the landlord and there is a very prescriptive process to follow in this regard.


----------



## Bronte (11 Jun 2018)

There is no issue here, the tenants hoped to move and weren't able to do so.  So nothing changes.  It's impossible to evict them and landlord would be wasting his time trying.  As long as they pay their rent and are not damaging the place than there is nothing the landlord can do. Being late with rent I would doubt is a ground for eviction. 

The landlord as regards the potential new tenants has done zero wrong.  So he should not be concerned about it.


----------



## DeeKie (12 Jun 2018)

Maybe offer to let them stay on a new lease with a revised rent as they over held


----------



## Seagull (12 Jun 2018)

Bronte said:


> There is no issue here, the tenants hoped to move and weren't able to do so.  So nothing changes.  It's impossible to evict them and landlord would be wasting his time trying.  As long as they pay their rent and are not damaging the place than there is nothing the landlord can do. Being late with rent I would doubt is a ground for eviction.
> 
> The landlord as regards the potential new tenants has done zero wrong.  So he should not be concerned about it.



No issue here? I'd consider it a pretty major issue when tenants refuse to move out after giving notice, and then demand 5K to move.


----------



## dcheck (12 Jun 2018)

Bronte said:


> There is no issue here, the tenants hoped to move and weren't able to do so.  So nothing changes.  It's impossible to evict them and landlord would be wasting his time trying.  As long as they pay their rent and are not damaging the place than there is nothing the landlord can do. Being late with rent I would doubt is a ground for eviction.
> 
> The landlord as regards the potential new tenants has done zero wrong.  So he should not be concerned about it.


Unbelievable the mentality of this poster. I still suggest the OP to take matter to RTB and make the tenant suffer as much as legally possible .


----------



## Sarenco (12 Jun 2018)

Bronte said:


> As long as they pay their rent..


You really should have read the full thread Bronte...


PaxmanK said:


> He was actually going to give them their notice for persistent late payment of rent and they gave theirs first so he went with that.
> They didn't pay their last month's rent either, so he is going to gg with eviction now as he is sure they are playing games that will end with them stopping paying rent altogether...


Rent arrears is very definitely a ground for terminating a tenancy.


----------



## bipped (5 Jul 2018)

Would that be considered blackmail ? If it is, does the landlord need a solicitor to write to the tenant?
What are the consequences if found guilty of blackmail


----------



## PaxmanK (26 Aug 2018)

Just to update.  This is now dragging through the RTB.
He wa told to expect it to take between 1 and 2 years to get them finally out now as they have dug in for the long haul while not paying rent.
He cant even skip the RTB and go straight to court.  And he will never get the rent owed back anyway.

I told him he should tell them that their name will be on record and theyll never get somewhere else again if a potential landlord looks them up at the RTB.  And he told me that thats not true.  That the tenant can have their name removed from the record so that any landlord in future can never know what they have done before.  I cant believe that would be allowed.

And now the latest is that my brothers tenant is moving out and ive told him this story.  He definitely doesnt want to get into renting long term again after hearing this and other stories, but doesnt want to sell either as he is still a bit in negative equity.


----------



## DeeKie (27 Aug 2018)

If the demand for money to move out is shown to the RTB does that impact the tenant negatively in any way?


----------



## Páid (27 Aug 2018)

Sarenco said:


> The RTB wouldn't agree -
> 
> _"An unlawful termination of tenancy, also known as an illegal eviction, may occur where a landlord, *through force, intimidation or otherwise (such as cutting off utilities, changing the locks etc)* denies a tenant from accessing a rented dwelling or removes the tenant’s belongings from the dwelling."_
> 
> ...



In this case wasn't the tenancy was terminated by the tenant? I don't believe the OP said the Notice of Termination was withdrawn at any stage. Does the fact that they don't move out automatically withdraw the Notice?


----------



## Sarenco (27 Aug 2018)

Páid said:


> In this case wasn't the tenancy was terminated by the tenant?


I really don't know.

Perhaps @PaxmanK would be kind enough to let us know whether the landlord in question is seeking to enforce a notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of non-payment of rent or whether he is seeking to enforce a notice issued by his tenant.  Also, I would be interested to know who has told the landlord to expect this process to take up to two years.

It's all very unclear...


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

Seagull said:


> No issue here? I'd consider it a pretty major issue when tenants refuse to move out after giving notice, and then demand 5K to move.



I've paid a tenant to leave.  Glad to see the back of them, I gave them back the deposit despite the damage and intimidation to my relation collecting the rent to get them leave.   I had the disgusting task of rebagging about 30 filthy bags of household waste. And I was still glad to get rid of them.  The man nearly murdered a child in the street later. They destroyed all the windos in another house and both of them ended up in jail for different legal offences. 

I did not address the 5K in my post.  The OP now knows the kind of people he is dealing with.  So he'd want to be very very careful to do this by the book.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

dcheck said:


> Unbelievable the mentality of this poster. I still suggest the OP to take matter to RTB and make the tenant suffer as much as legally possible .



Right so, let's see what a waste of time that will be to the landlord.

What dcheck do you think the RTB will do for this landlord. Or indeed any landlord. You do realise they will only spend money on court cases for tenants and not the other way around. The landlord, who pays for the RTB, is on his own, financially and legally.  Even if the RTB were to act, the landlord could end  up with zero rent for a couple of years, a thrashed property at the end of it, and the RTB telling him he did everything right !

But heh, I've the unbelievable mentality.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

Sarenco said:


> You really should have read the full thread Bronte...
> 
> Rent arrears is very definitely a ground for terminating a tenancy.


Great, legally rent arrears is a ground for termination, AND !


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

bipped said:


> Would that be considered blackmail ? If it is, does the landlord need a solicitor to write to the tenant?
> What are the consequences if found guilty of blackmail



LOL, thousands on a solicitor. You do realise you have to go first to the RTB ?  And you realise how long that will take. And then you'll end up being told, eventually, by the RTB, that you need to go to a solicitor, who will then have to hire a barrister, which of course is very cheap.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

PaxmanK said:


> Just to update.  This is now dragging through the RTB.
> He wa told to expect it to take between 1 and 2 years to get them finally out now as they have dug in for the long haul while not paying rent.
> He cant even skip the RTB and go straight to court.  And he will never get the rent owed back anyway.



Oh dear, the worst possible scenario.

My advice now changes to this: a) how much is the annual rent b) how much would the RTB give the tenant if the landlord illegally evicts
c) add in new rent that would be received d) how much for going to court e) do the maths

OR
e) 5K, negotiate to less, but don't give until house is all packed up, they get the cash, on the door step onsighing a legal document that is is voluntary.

Tenants are despicable

- notice and didn't leave
- demanded 5K
- now not paying rent
- now playing the RTB waiting game
- hte RTB know all about the waiting game, they created it by having backlogs
- the RTB being zero help, despite us landlords paying for them
- what the RTB didn't tell the landlord is that he's wasting his time with them
- this landlord is costing us landlords more money as the RTB has to waste their resources dealing with this and with zero benefit to anybody]

Finally my best advice, become a member of IPOA and get proper advice from them.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

@Bronte

My comment that you should really have read the full thread was in response to your comment that there was no problem here, as long as they pay their rent...

If you had read the thread in full you would have seen that the tenant was in arrears with their rent.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

noproblem said:


> I don't see it as a road to ruin but that's just my opinion. The tenant would then have to take the legal route and all the costs involved with no guarantee of success, the so called landlord would have the property back and could do whatever he wanted with it.



You're wrong. These cases are the ones where the RTB makes the highest awards. Against landlords. And they can enforce them against landlords as they are a mark. On the flip side of this, which is not a positive, any award made against a tenant is meaningless and will not be enforced by the RTB as tenant's are not a mark.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

Sarenco said:


> @Bronte
> 
> My comment that you should really have read the full thread was in response to your comment that there was no problem here, as long as they pay their rent...
> 
> If you had read the thread in full you would have seen that the tenant was in arrears with their rent.



Better in arrears, which can be managed with cajooling and bothering than zero rent for 2 years, court costs, stress, and a thrashed property.  There's zero chance of getting 2 years of arrears. The landlord is screwed.  And legally this is the position he finds himself in. Despite doing zero wrong.

And you're wrong, I did read the thread, and advised accordingly.  Landlord would have been in a much better poisition if he'd just played ball with the tenant staying. Which was my first advice. I knew he was snookered. Especially given the details, particuarly the 5K demand.

I'd love to know however what the PRTB advised him.  And if it was in writing.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

That's fine @Bronte but you very clearly offered your opinion without reading the full thread so your view that there was "no problem here" was based on incomplete information.

Incidentally, you are completely mistaken in your view that the RTB will only take legal proceedings on behalf of tenants.

I am personally aware of a number of cases where the RTB commenced legal proceedings to enforce a determination order against tenants for over-holding/rent arrears.  In one case, that included initiating contempt proceedings where a tenant failed to observe a court order to vacate a property.

I don't know where you are getting 2 years of rent arrears from, you might explain.

Finally, I don't agree with bribing tenants to quit - I've seen that strategy backfire too many times.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

Sarenco said:


> That's fine @Bronte
> Incidentally, you are completely mistaken in your view that the RTB will only take legal proceedings on behalf of tenants.
> 
> I am personally aware of a number of cases where the RTB commenced legal proceedings to enforce a determination order against tenants for over-holding/rent arrears.  In one case, that included initiating contempt proceedings where a tenant failed to observe a court order to vacate a property.



How much were the landlords out of pocket in those cases?  A determination order is legally useless, what good is it to you if the tenant still stays? I note you mention a 'number' of cases to the useless determination orders as they don't have legal teeth.

Yet you mention one single case of a contempt case brought by the RTB, who much did that landlord lose, and I can just imagine how bad it must have been as the RTB have stated on their website (I've read it and am not sure if it's still there) that they will make a cost analysis on taking court cases, and we all know what that means.

Have you seen many cases where the RTB went for and got tenants to pay rent arrears of a year or so?

(In two years time the current thread's landlords will be 2+ years out of rent, in rent arrears of 2+ years.  Versus currently one month in arrears.  No tenant can repay 2 years, you have a chance with 1 month. )


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

@Bronte

In that particular case, I understand it took around 9 months from filing a complaint with the RTB to the initiation of contempt proceedings for failure to comply with the resulting court order (at which point the tenant quit the property).

The RTB met the full costs of the legal proceedings.

Prior to that, I understand the landlord spent around 6 months before filing a complaint with the RTB trying to cajole the tenant to meet her obligations - to no avail.

The landlord in question has registered a judgment against the tenant for the amount of the unpaid rent.  I understand the former tenant is currently out of work due to health issues.


----------



## Bronte (29 Aug 2018)

Why did the RTB issue contempt proceedings?  How long did it take for the determination order? Was the tenant out of pocket 6 months plus 9 months?

9 months is expeditious, so I'm shocked at that, was that recently, odd then the current thread landlords has been told by the RTB 1 to 2 years. 

And one notes that the landlord has a court case to register a judgement against the tenant, how much did that cost.  With zero return.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

@Bronte

Again, the RTB sought a court order to enforce their determination against the tenant.  When the tenant failed to comply with that determination, the RTB initiated court proceedings.  When the tenant failed to comply with the resulting Court Order, the RTB issued contempt proceedings.

In terms of timing, I gather it took around 3 months from filing the complaint for the RTB to issue their determination order; another 3 months or so to get the Court order to enforce that determination; and another 3 months or so before the RTB issued contempt proceedings when the tenant failed to comply with the Court order.

Incidentally, the OP didn't actually say who told the landlord how long this process would take.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

@Bronte

You seem to prefer a less formal route to resolving these issues before making a complaint to the RTB.

That's absolutely fair enough and I wouldn't disagree with that approach.

However, that approach doesn't always work, particularly in cases where a tenant has minimal disposable income for whatever reason.

Sometimes the RTB/legal route is all you are left with - for all its faults.


----------



## Tebbit (29 Aug 2018)

This sounds horrific for the landlord in this case. - would it not solve an awful lot of these problems if tenants who do things like this could be on a register of some sort so that they would find it very difficult to get a property again in the future if they behave in this way.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

Tebbit said:


> would it not solve an awful lot of these problems if tenants who do things like this could be on a register of some sort so that they would find it very difficult to get a property again in the future if they behave in this way.


The RTB has a search function for dispute outcomes:-
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/dispute-case-outcomes/


----------



## Gordon Gekko (29 Aug 2018)

Surely, in extreme circumstances suck as the blackmail above, the trick for the landlord is not to be connected with the heavies and for the heavies to threaten something if the words PRTB or RTB are even whispered?


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

That's certainly one approach Gordon but hiring "heavies" comes with significant risks - both civil and criminal.

I don't think it's a good idea.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (29 Aug 2018)

Sarenco said:


> That's certainly one approach Gordon but hiring "heavies" comes with significant risks - both civil and criminal.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea.



I agree.

I’m only aware of one case where heavies were deployed. They weren’t hired and were teammates of the landlord. A rogue tenant was wrecking the place, refusing to pay his rent, terrorising neighbours, and wanted to be paid to leave. The landlord had gone back to do a Masters and was really tight for cash.

The lads went around, chatted with the tenant, and suggested that certain things might happen unless he left and that certain other things might happen if any authorities became involved.

The problem went away.


----------



## Sarenco (29 Aug 2018)

Fair enough Gordon.

_Deploying _heavies comes with significant risks, both civil and criminal.

I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (29 Aug 2018)

Sarenco said:


> Fair enough Gordon.
> 
> _Deploying _heavies comes with significant risks, both civil and criminal.
> 
> I wouldn't recommend it.



I agree


----------



## Magpie (19 Oct 2018)

facetious said:


> Personally, if I were the landlord, I would be advising the current tenant that they will be liable for the costs of a hotel for the tenants who are to move in, until they have vacated the property.


 you can advise that all you like but they aren't liable and its an entirely empty threat, so why bother?

It's not fair on the landlord or the new tenants, but if a tenant with a family is intending to move to a new rental, and that for whatever reason falls through (there is nothing to stop landlords withdrawing or changing their minds), what do you expect them to do? What would you do if it were you? You wouldn't move your children out of their home with nowhere to go, would you?


----------

