tenant not paying rent wont leave

[galway_blow_in]

The OP has the following options:

a) Pay her to leave. Give her back her deposit to move on, she will likely need this. But don't give it to her until she has moved all her stuff to the new place. And give her a good reference too. (I take no notice of references, in fact I don't think I ever got one !)

b) Evict her illegally. How much will the RTB charge you for this. Then do the maths. (look up the recent cases to see how much, it was around 10K I think).

c) Do nothing and you can be sure she'll stay there rent free for ages. I'd no way allow her collect social welfare if you're not being paid. So put a stop to that.

You do realise that the RTB order you've got is worthless?

the RTB order is not useless , its a link in the chain which you need to move to the next stage of the process , granted the process is dysfunctional and designed to hamper the landlord all the way but its what the OP is forced to work with

the RTB are there to verify that you have adhered to the correct steps before you move on to the courts - authorities who have actual power

as for the option of paying the tenant to leave , better make sure she signs a paper saying she willingly vacated

 

[Susie2017]

There is a programme on tv I watch regularly based in the UK. Called 'cant pay we will take it away' or something along those lines. Basically bailiffs come on foot of a court order and take possession of the property or valuable items if you have not paid rent or other bills. It occurs quite often, either you pay up or you get locked out permanently. Seems to work quite well and the bailiffs get their %. Seems like its probably a lucrative enough business for them. Is there nothing comparable here ? How do you ever get non payers out ?? Im sure lot of landlords would use their services willingly if they were available to hire. System here is an utter joke.

 

[galway_blow_in]

There is a programme on tv I watch regularly based in the UK. Called 'cant pay we will take it away' or something along those lines. Basically bailiffs come on foot of a court order and take possession of the property or valuable items if you have not paid rent or other bills. It occurs quite often, either you pay up or you get locked out permanently. Seems to work quite well and the bailiffs get their %. Seems like its probably a lucrative enough business for them. Is there nothing comparable here ? How do you ever get non payers out ?? Im sure lot of landlords would use their services willingly if they were available to hire. System here is an utter joke.

tenant rights are much stronger in ireland than in the uk so i doubt it

 

[Moon light]

Hi Suzieb, my advise to you is just do everything by the book, keep calm and go through the correct process, call RTB and see if they can move any faster on this, and yes call S.W and see if they will transfer the rent over to you, no harm in asking,

 

[Bronte]

the RTB order is not useless , its a link in the chain which you need to move to the next stage of the process , granted the process is dysfunctional and designed to hamper the landlord all the way but its what the OP is forced to work with

the RTB are there to verify that you have adhered to the correct steps before you move on to the courts - authorities who have actual power

as for the option of paying the tenant to leave , better make sure she signs a paper saying she willingly vacated

The RTB are only costing this landlord money by delaying her right to go to court. The RTB was supposed to be to avoid the expense of going to court. But their orders are legally worthless as you still have to go to the time and expense of court.

The tenant is winning. Paying zero rent. Getting money from social welfare. And sitting pretty knowing full well the RTB is useless against her.

 

[Bronte]

There is a programme on tv I watch regularly based in the UK. Called 'cant pay we will take it away' or something along those lines. Basically bailiffs come on foot of a court order and take possession of the property or valuable items if you have not paid rent or other bills. It occurs quite often, either you pay up or you get locked out permanently. Seems to work quite well and the bailiffs get their %. Seems like its probably a lucrative enough business for them. Is there nothing comparable here ? How do you ever get non payers out ?? Im sure lot of landlords would use their services willingly if they were available to hire. System here is an utter joke.

You forgot one thing about that programme, most landlords don't get their back rent, they get damaged houses as well in many of the cases.

 

[Sarenco]

Galway's advice is spot on - securing an RTB determination order is the first and necessary step to securing possession of the property.

Any other approach is likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.

 

[cremeegg]

Galway's advice is spot on - securing an RTB determination order is the first and necessary step to securing possession of the property.

Any other approach is likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.

Have you any basis for that comment or is it just your own predisposition.

How do you know that the bribery approach will be ineffective. From memory at least two posters, Bronte being one, have told us of the success of this approach for them.

I suspect that lots of landlords use the baseball approach, threatened or actual. They are unlikely to report it here.

At least those approaches offer a prospect of ending a landlords losses, the RTB approach assures the landlord that the losses will continue.

 

[Sarenco]

@Cremegg

I suggested that any other approach was likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.

Bribery might work. Or it might be a complete waste of money. I've personally come across cases where defaulting tenants agreed to move on for a few grand, only to subsequently change their mind having received the bribe.

Similarly, the "baseball approach" might work. Or it might not. The RTB could subsequently direct that the landord allow the tenant to re-enter the property and/or pay substantial damages to the tenant.

The RTB process may well be frustrating but it's still likely to be the most effective way of securing possession of the property.

 

[galway_blow_in]

The RTB are only costing this landlord money by delaying her right to go to court. The RTB was supposed to be to avoid the expense of going to court. But their orders are legally worthless as you still have to go to the time and expense of court.

The tenant is winning. Paying zero rent. Getting money from social welfare. And sitting pretty knowing full well the RTB is useless against her.

if you go straight to court without first having notified the RTB of the situation and accordingly gotten approval for eviction from the RTB , the sitting judge in court will toss your case straight back at you and demand you go through the RTB

you have to correspond with the RTB all the way first !

 

[galway_blow_in]

Galway's advice is spot on - securing an RTB determination order is the first and necessary step to securing possession of the property.

Any other approach is likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.

its putting the cart before the horse

you must carefully choreograph things correctly in order to adhere to the conditions of the process , you need your ducks in a row , a brazen tenant knows the RTB are powerless to evict in real terms and so effectively you always need to get before a judge when dealing with a delinquent tenant but not before making your case to the ( useless ) RTB and haven gotten their stamp of approval

its a terrible system but sure what can you do ?

 

[galway_blow_in]

Have you any basis for that comment or is it just your own predisposition.

How do you know that the bribery approach will be ineffective. From memory at least two posters, Bronte being one, have told us of the success of this approach for them.

I suspect that lots of landlords use the baseball approach, threatened or actual. They are unlikely to report it here.

At least those approaches offer a prospect of ending a landlords losses, the RTB approach assures the landlord that the losses will continue.

just to be clear i would try bribing the tenant if it would swiften eviction , i made the point about seeing things out with the RTB within the context of someone suggesting ( apologies if i took you up wrong ) the RTB could be bypassed and a hearing in front of the judge arranged , that cant happen or if it does the judge will want to know what way the RTB ruled

 

[suzieb]

My main issue is should i notify the social welfare of the order and the fact she hasnt paid and is there a possibility the rent can be redirected to me without her permission if the RTB have given an order that she pay me rent. Any experience in this from anyone would be appreciated. thanks. If she will move quicker if the rent isnt stopped then id consider not notifying them if theres no way id get it.

 

[cremeegg]

My main issue is should i notify the social welfare of the order and the fact she hasnt paid and is there a possibility the rent can be redirected to me without her permission if the RTB have given an order that she pay me rent. Any experience in this from anyone would be appreciated. thanks. If she will move quicker if the rent isnt stopped then id consider not notifying them if theres no way id get it.

I think the first thing you should do is tell the tenant that you are considering contacting the social welfare about the unpaid rent.

If the tenant has their rent cut off they will not find it easy to get it re-instated. I had a similar situation some years ago. I contacted the Community Welfare Officer, who was concerned that money being authorised for rent was not being used for rent.

I got the impression that the CWO had considerable discretion over the payment of the rent supplement. The CWO has a responsibility to house people, they know that eventually you will get an eviction so they don't want that. The system has I think changed since then, although you mention "rent supplement" is this the actual scheme. I thought that had been phased out.

Its hard to advise as a tenant with no rent supplement will be more desperate, they have no chance of getting rehoused.

I think you should forget about the rent and focus on getting them out.

 

[Purple]

Since a landlord can get Welfare rent payments directly it should mean that SW tenants are actually a safer bet since if a private tenant doesn't pay up the landlord still have to go through the RTB fiasco but has no second string to their bow in the form of the CWO and Welfare.
I'm a private tenant and I don't think my landlord has any moral duty to me beyond abiding by the terms of the lease. It is a business arrangement, first and foremost. It so happens that we get on well and have a mutually beneficial relationship but that's secondary.

By the way, if the tenant is a bit of a nutcase then there's no problem saying it here. it's not as if their name is being given.

 

[Bronte]

if you go straight to court without first having notified the RTB of the situation and accordingly gotten approval for eviction from the RTB , the sitting judge in court will toss your case straight back at you and demand you go through the RTB

you have to correspond with the RTB all the way first !

I wasn't suggesting that. I quite clearly know that you have to go down the RTB route first. Which delays you and keeps the tenants sitting pretty for a very long time.

 

[Bronte]

If the tenant has their rent cut off they will not find it easy to get it re-instated.

Its hard to advise as a tenant with no rent supplement will be more desperate, they have no chance of getting rehoused.

Absolutely right Cremeegg, OP will never get them out if they mess with their social welfare unless it's to get the rent to go directly to the OP.

 

[Bronte]

@Cremegg

I suggested that any other approach was likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.

Bribery might work. Or it might be a complete waste of money. I've personally come across cases where defaulting tenants agreed to move on for a few grand, only to subsequently change their mind having received the bribe.

Similarly, the "baseball approach" might work. Or it might not. The RTB could subsequently direct that the landord allow the tenant to re-enter the property and/or pay substantial damages to the tenant.

The RTB process may well be frustrating but it's still likely to be the most effective way of securing possession of the property.

Want to put figures on it.

Let's make rent 1K a month. One year down is 12K. Meanwhile you've to pay out a mortgage from your own pocket. Let's say also 1K a month. So now you're down the 12K and you've to pay another 12K.

You've stress for a year. How much to go to court? Say anything from 2K to 5K (anyone have any idea)

Or you illegally evict them. In this case the OP has a useless RTB order, but that's to his benefit. Let's say the RTB fines her 5K or 10K. But you'll have your rent of 12K to pay that and you've got rid of your problem.

OP if you are reading this - bribary is the cheapest option, you give enough for the tenant to have a deposit on the new place and something 'sweet' to tempt her to move.

 

[Sarenco]

@Bronte

I believe I have already addressed those points in this post:-

Bribery might work. Or it might be a complete waste of money. I've personally come across cases where defaulting tenants agreed to move on for a few grand, only to subsequently change their mind having received the bribe.

Similarly, the "baseball approach" might work. Or it might not. The RTB could subsequently direct that the landord allow the tenant to re-enter the property and/or pay substantial damages to the tenant.

Bribery may well be the cheapest option.

Or it might be a complete waste of money. I certainly wouldn't advise anybody to fork out significant amounts of money on a strategy that mightn't work.

 

[Palerider]

I accept that almost all users of AAM are above the idea of discommoding a tenant.
There is absolutely no way I would play by the rules as any tenant flouts them in such a manner, regardless I would get my property back, by lawful means, just in the grey areas, as I said discommode.