RTB: Evicting a tenant after a Garda drug raid not justified

DannyBoyD said:
Property owner / agent was at fault here.

They did not have anything to back up the allegation.
Click to expand...
People give oral evidence in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings every day of the week.

Again, nobody refuted or challenged the agent’s statement - there was no conflict of evidence.

Sorry but your argument - and the RTB’s decision - is beyond ridiculous.
 
Both the RTB and WRC are organisations that have been given quite extensive legal powers but their many questionable decisions are made by people with no legal training. There is an inbuilt bias in the RTB towards tenants and in the WRC towards complainants, particularly with their new role in equality decisions. The case of the dog at the bread in Lidl was the last straw for me with regard to the WRC.
 
Exhibit B is the Starbucks franchisee case. Two years of overholding, a 2.5 year termination process, and the case thrown out because in the intervening period the landlords had moved the property into a company and a document didn’t mention the company name, it mentioned the original owners, who own the company.

So deadbeats can decline to pay their rent and get away with it because a document said you’re refusing to pay the rent you owe to Gordon Gekko when it should have said you’re refusing to pay the rent to Gekko Limited. Because that’s the key issue…
 
Having engaged with a senior person some time ago they informed me that as such you do not have to have any legal qualification to be an adjudicator with RTB.
To say they have a legal qualification reminds me of Berties accountancy qualification.
 
Whats more incredible is the notion that some folks here believe that a tenant should lose their home on the basis of a unsubstantiated self reported telephone conversation.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
These people all have legal training.

They are however usually not solicitors or barristers.
Click to expand...
Did this change when it took over from the old LRC ? It used to be the case that many ex union folk were appointed.
Could you let us know the minimum legal training that is required to get one of these adjudication posts. I would imagine that many in the RTB are people who just worked themselves up through the shambles of an organisation that started out 20 years ago. Do they take an oath like our Judiciary do? Are their names publicly available for each case decision ? How can any employee of the RTB who is a tenant themselves be expected to be non-judgemental in adjudicating cases ?
We have outsourced due legal process akin to how we have outsourced other aspects of our lives to various NGO's.
 
7 day notice periods are illegal. They would have justification in serving eviction notice for anti social behaviour but still would have had to serve it in writing with the appropriate notice period for that tenancy. RTB were correct here.
 
lff12 said:
7 day notice periods are illegal. They would have justification in serving eviction notice for anti social behaviour but still would have had to serve it in writing with the appropriate notice period for that tenancy. RTB were correct here.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that’s incorrect.

A seven-day notice for serious anti-social behaviour (which is defined) is perfectly valid.

The RTB’s decision was based on an apparent lack of documentary evidence of the alleged anti-social behaviour - not on a lack of notice.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Whats more incredible is the notion that some folks here believe that a tenant should lose their home on the basis of a unsubstantiated self reported telephone conversation.
Click to expand...

This feels like a Catch 22 where the only way to avoid something bad happening is waiting for something bad to happen.

Your argument is not that the Garda Raid happened or that it wasn't successful but you have to wait 2yrs+ to get the documentation that makes it official. In the meanwhile make hay.

While I take the point there is a legal process, and Garda are often fair from a bastion of truth. My question would be where the protection for the landlord in all this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register