# PRTB. Recovering Rental arrears?



## Jane1 (4 Feb 2008)

Hi,
I've just managed to get my tenants out of my rented house after 3 months of them not paying rent. Social Welfare were paying their rent and I contacted them directly saying that they were three months behind and to pay the money directly to me, but they would not do it unless the tenants were happy with that....which is just ridiculous.

I'm out of pocket 3 months rent, the house is destroyed. I am signed up to the the PRTB and I am opening a dispute with them tomorrow. Has anyone managed to get a successful outcome from the PRTB?

There has to be some way to punish people like this.


----------



## dfg75 (5 Feb 2008)

I would not count on hearing back from the PRTB quickly. I submitted a case July 2007 and it still does not have a hearing date set. I was recently told that they are dealing with case in May/June 2007 at present and they cannot say how long it will be before a hearing date is set. From the hearing date it has the potential to drag on from there for the decision and ultimately the enforcement process.

Good luck!


----------



## murphaph (5 Feb 2008)

dfg75 said:


> I would not count on hearing back from the PRTB quickly. I submitted a case July 2007 and it still does not have a hearing date set. I was recently told that they are dealing with case in May/June 2007 at present and they cannot say how long it will be before a hearing date is set. From the hearing date it has the potential to drag on from there for the decision and ultimately the enforcement process.
> 
> Good luck!


This sounds as bad if not worse than the courts process!


----------



## dfg75 (5 Feb 2008)

It is a joke! I am told they are understaffed and underfunded. It is bad for landlords and tenants alike!


----------



## Margie (5 Feb 2008)

Why does this country give the tenants all the rights.  I've never been a landlord but I have been a tenant and always paid my rent and kept the house spotless.  I know personally of a very respectable tenant who had to give their council house back because of neighbours next door who were on social welfare paying minimum rent but able to drink all hours and cause all sorts of trouble.  No one wanted to know.  My friend was told by the council that the best thing she could do is move out.As far as I'm concerned if you don't pay your rent or are causing any trouble the landlord or council should be able to throw you out and change the locks.


----------



## Stifster (5 Feb 2008)

I just got a succesful result (not an outcome yet) for a client looking for possession and rent arrears. Papers were lodged around the middle of last year but the case was expedited due to anti-social behaviour and lobbying by elected officials and heard in December.

tenant has 21 days to appeal and then 5 days to comply. It will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## bugler (5 Feb 2008)

> Why does this country give the tenants all the rights.


 
Tenants don't have "all the rights". In fact, they have few enough. Bad tenants are just hard to move. 

It's unfortunate, and I agree that there should be a better method of resolving such situations swiftly. 

Currently, it is easy for bad tenants to take advantage of good landlords, and easy for bad landlords to take advantage of good tenants.


----------



## Cityliving (5 Feb 2008)

I am a landlord and it appears that the tenant effectively has all the protection under the PRTB. 

Consider this:
You dont pay me the rent so I take you to the PRTB why cant there be a fund to temporarily cover the landlord for lost rent? He has to pay it back once the judgement goes for or against him (with interest if against). He cant register his next tenancy if he doesnt pay?

There are so many issues I have with the PRTB:

I rent an apt to one guy and theres a spare bedroom in it. He (according to PRTB) can lease a room out to a couple if he chooses and I cant stop him? What if I rented to a single person to avoid too much wear a tear?

If an tenant doesnt agree with a rent increase they can have the case referred to the PRTB and God knows how long that would take. I mean I am supplying a service is it not my right to charge what I want? If I am stupid enough to charge way too much nobody will pay?

4 year tenancies?? I find it astonishing. I rent my dwelling for a year, I am uncomfortable with you as a tenant (for whatever reason) but at the end of your 12 month lease you now fall under the PRTB 4 year (3 left) rule. Why? What gives the tenant the right to expect something like that? And why 4 years, why not 3 or 5?

How has it been allowed to be underresourced? There are alot of rental properties at €70 a go. If there are a set series of rules that govern these tenancies surely the decisions become quite straightforward. 

Maybe if there was a judgement against a bad tenant maybe they should lose the automatic right to the 4 year tenancy? 

I dont get how at the end of all this fixed term agreement can override the PRTB rules in terms of notice of departure, deposit return if leaving early etc? How can that be? Then what is the point of PRTB rules?

Landlords represent thousands of accomodation places that otherwise would have to be found. If this service was denied for even one month the country would be screwed yet we are treated with almost contempt by many tenants. I owe you a fair service for a fair rent but we are owed some protection for the risks we take.


----------



## bankrupt (5 Feb 2008)

Cityliving said:


> 4 year tenancies?? I find it astonishing. I rent my dwelling for a year, I am uncomfortable with you as a tenant (for whatever reason) but at the end of your 12 month lease you now fall under the PRTB 4 year (3 left) rule. Why? What gives the tenant the right to expect something like that? And why 4 years, why not 3 or 5?



Tell you what, if you don't like your tenants you can just turf them out to give the place to your "cousin" or tell them you want to do the place up or that you want to move in yourself or that you are fed up with the whole landlord business and are selling (did I miss any?)

Of course having taken any of these courses of action to evict your tenants, you can just change your mind and rent out the property to some new suckers.  I'm sure there are penalties if you are found out but realistically, what are the chances of that happening?


----------



## Cityliving (5 Feb 2008)

To me this is the problem. I am having to try to construct a situation to get a legitimate claim on a property that I own? Its crazy.

Besides this only deals with tenants who are not problem tenants? There is clearly a gap between what landlords need in protection and what protection the tenants have. I have been a tenant before and subject to the whim of the landlord and this is wrong too. I just dont know why it is so hard to kick out tenants who arent paying.

There should be a dedicated baliff or equivalent who works for the PRTB to deal with this within 4 weeks of a complaint.


----------



## MrMan (5 Feb 2008)

I'll have a go at answering some of your questions and maybe offer some advice to help.



> Consider this:
> You dont pay me the rent so I take you to the PRTB why cant there be a fund to temporarily cover the landlord for lost rent? He has to pay it back once the judgement goes for or against him (with interest if against). He cant register his next tenancy if he doesnt pay?


There can't be a fund because this is assuming the landlord is 100% in the right. There is instances where the landlord has failed miserably to fulfill his/her obligations and the tenant could withhold rent as a consequence. Both are in the wrong so its basically a case of wait and see who is more in the wrong.



> I rent an apt to one guy and theres a spare bedroom in it. He (according to PRTB) can lease a room out to a couple if he chooses and I cant stop him? What if I rented to a single person to avoid too much wear a tear?



Cover yourself in the lease. Make it so that the terms include that rent stays at the current amount for the term agreed on the basis that the property is let to mrx and mrx alone. State that the rent is at a reduced rate because it is being let to a single occupant.



> If an tenant doesnt agree with a rent increase they can have the case referred to the PRTB and God knows how long that would take. I mean I am supplying a service is it not my right to charge what I want? If I am stupid enough to charge way too much nobody will pay?



The rent increase should be in line with market value, you can't simply up it 100% knowing he can't pay just to get rid of him as we all have our rights. You can have 1 increase per year and if it is in line with market rates there shouldn't be an issue.



> How has it been allowed to be underresourced? There are alot of rental properties at €70 a go. If there are a set series of rules that govern these tenancies surely the decisions become quite straightforward.



€70 a pop won't fund it, but I reckon landlords would pay higher for a better service or at least a differnet pay scale and not a standard €70 across the board.



> Maybe if there was a judgement against a bad tenant maybe they should lose the automatic right to the 4 year tenancy?



It all depends on the severity of the case, if it something serious it generally ends up with a parting of ways anyway.



> I dont get how at the end of all this fixed term agreement can override the PRTB rules in terms of notice of departure, deposit return if leaving early etc? How can that be? Then what is the point of PRTB rules?



I kind of get the jist of what your saying here and would agree that the PRTB rules should over ride if they are to make full sense.



> Landlords represent thousands of accomodation places that otherwise would have to be found. If this service was denied for even one month the country would be screwed yet we are treated with almost contempt by many tenants. I owe you a fair service for a fair rent but we are owed some protection for the risks we take.



Its not so much a service as a business, and landlords are in it for the money nothing else, they are not in it for the greater good and nor should they be. Your last line is spot on, but even though it may not seem that way there are ways to protect yourself and must of them ly in the lease. Alot of landlords seem to pay little thought to the contents of their lease and many tenants don't read them, but you definitely need to have at A1. Get a solicitor to look one over if you like and then use the same one as a template for all others.



> I just dont know why it is so hard to kick out tenants who arent paying.



this is definitely the main bone of contention with all landlords and something needs to be done to offer more protection. Tenants deserve security of tenure and they have that now with the 4.5 yr leases, but I think that there should be a database of tenants from which landlords can check to select those with a good history. It would work much the same as a credit rating and might deter some of the chancers from getting away with their current tricks.


----------



## bankrupt (5 Feb 2008)

MrMan said:


> Tenants deserve security of tenure and they have that now with the 4.5 yr leases,



This is unfortunately not true, as I pointed out above the landlord can easily cease a part IV tenancy with the flimsiest of excuses.



> but I think that there should be a database of tenants from which landlords can check to select those with a good history. It would work much the same as a credit rating and might deter some of the chancers from getting away with their current tricks.



A register of this type would be quite welcome I suspect - I would also expect a similar register for landlords though!  Is there any precedent for such a register worldwide?


----------



## Cityliving (5 Feb 2008)

Mr Man (thanks for taking the time to read my post!)

"Cover yourself in the lease. Make it so that the terms include that rent stays at the current amount for the term agreed on the basis that the property is let to mrx and mrx alone. State that the rent is at a reduced rate because it is being let to a single occupant"

Unfortuneately at the end of my fixed term agreement I cannot force the tenant to sign another lease (as far as I understand). They can simply envoke the rule of 4 years and with that I lose all protection.

"The rent increase should be in line with market value, you can't simply up it 100% knowing he can't pay just to get rid of him as we all have our rights. You can have 1 increase per year and if it is in line with market rates there shouldn't be an issue."

This is clearly why the rule is there but how do you determine a clear market rate. If I have top level apt in one area a direct comparison with a simlar sized lower spec apt cant be fair its too grey an area. The idea is to protect the tenant but it is a very constrained way of dealing with it.

"It all depends on the severity of the case, if it something serious it generally ends up with a parting of ways anyway."
I meant that any tenant with a ruling such as this would be prevented from future 4 year protection. The idea of a database sounds good but individual rights and privacy may make this unworkable.


----------



## MrMan (5 Feb 2008)

> This is unfortunately not true, as I pointed out above the landlord can easily cease a part IV tenancy with the flimsiest of excuses.



True in theory so I guess.



> They can simply envoke the rule of 4 years and with that I lose all protection.



You wont lose all protection, but you can reasonably denie a tenant the right to sublet the apartment or the room. You can use the grounds of 'in good estate management' as your reasoning for denial of a sub-let. They must seek permission ( I know this to be the case in commercial lettings and i'm almost sure its the same in residential, but you should have it confirmed). For the reasons you gavei.e extra wear and tear this could constitute bad estate management so don't le tthe tenant walk over you you have rights there just not as easily accessed as tenants.


----------

