Evicting tenants

[gonk]

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]

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

 

[gonk]

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]

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]

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

 

[Afuera]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.