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

[DannyBoyD]

most people, would mean that he confirms it

Good job "most people" are not in charge of our justice system.

Tenant was entitled to respond as they did.

 

[Sarenco]

Property owner / agent was at fault here.

They did not have anything to back up the allegation.

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.

 

[DannyBoyD]

People give oral evidence

Of things they have directly witnessed.

No need to apologise; you're entitled to disagree.

Though I personally don't see a need to use perjoratives when doing so.

 

[Sarenco]

Of things they have directly witnessed.

The agent was on the call!

This wasn’t hearsay if that’s what you’re suggesting

 

[bill_cash]

Good job "most people" are not in charge of our justice system.

Tenant was entitled to respond as they did.

Our justice system is a joke

 

[torblednam]

Always someone with the strawman argument.

It's not a strawman, as it's purely an extension of your stated position, so it's more of a reductio ad absurdum

 

[JoeRoberts]

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.

 

[Dr Strangelove]

many questionable decisions are made by people with no legal training.

These people all have legal training.

They are however usually not solicitors or barristers.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

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…

 

[DannyBoyD]

Do the RTB have jurisdiction in business leases?

 

[Dermot]

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.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

“Innocent until proven guilty” is not a thing in civil matters such as this.

Incredible.

 

[DannyBoyD]

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.

 

[JoeRoberts]

These people all have legal training.

They are however usually not solicitors or barristers.

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.