Landlord ordered to pay €30k damages - because of tenants anti social behaviour.

S

shoegal

Registered User
Messages
153
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archiv...fined-30k-for-tenantsapos-actions-217217.html

Interesting case in Cork regarding absentee landlords and their anti social tennants.
Examiner:

Landlord fined €30k for tenants’ actions

By Eoin English
Monday, December 17, 2012

A landlord has been ordered to pay almost €30,000 in damages after his tenants subjected neighbours to serious antisocial behaviour. The award, one of the highest of its kind by the Private Residential Tenancies Board, has serious implications for landlords.

A group of 13 residents took two cases to the PRTB earlier this year in relation to antisocial behaviour linked to the tenants of two properties in Bishopscourt Drive, owned by West Cork-based landlord Flor Harrington. They outlined a catalogue of incidents, including:

* Violent incidents and fights outside one of the houses;

* Out-of-control parties, excessive noise, and disturbance;

* Drinking alcohol and urinating in public by tenants, or by people connected to them;

* Rubbish, including used nappies, being thrown into neighbouring gardens;

* Cars being driven recklessly and noisily at night in the area, and in the garden of one of the houses;

* One incident where gardaí, who were arresting an individual at one of the addresses, had to use pepper spray after they were attacked by a group of women who were in the house.
Click to expand...
 
An appeal will be made no doubt so the people will not see their money for some time.
 
Who would want to be a landlord?

I thought that the PRTB was for resolving issues between tenants and landlords? I had not realised that anyone can take a case against a landlord through the PRTB. Seems crazy.

However, the tribunal ...said Mr Harrington was in breach of his duty to the neighbours of his properties. It ordered him to pay €1,000 to each of the 13 residents in relation to one complaint, and €1,250 to each resident in relation to the second complaint — a combined damages bill of €29,250.
Click to expand...
 
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 a landlord is held legally responsible for control of a tenant's antisocial behavior and a case can be brought against him by affected third parties. Several such cases can be found documented on the PRTB website.
 
round1 said:
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 a landlord is held legally responsible for control of a tenant's antisocial behavior and a case can be brought against him by affected third parties. Several such cases can be found documented on the PRTB website.
Click to expand...
This is clear, however, the problem is if the Landlord wants to evict a tenant for anti-social behaviour, he/she has to have sufficient proof to satisfy the PRTB!

I evicted tenants in February this year who were causing havoc, but had to be patient and use 'the non-payment of rent' to get them out.

The neighbours, who were happy to complain to me on an almost daily basis, didn't want to call the Gardai to have the anti-social behaviour and drug dealing officially logged as they were afraid of the tenants. This left me in a very difficult position as I was aware of the behaviour but had no absolutely no proof as I don't live near the property.
 
There is a particular problem in Cork City around UCC and CIT relating to a number of rogue Landlords letting to rogue tenants engaged in terrible anti social behaviour.
 
delgirl said:
This is clear, however, the problem is if the Landlord wants to evict a tenant for anti-social behaviour, he/she has to have sufficient proof to satisfy the PRTB!

I evicted tenants in February this year who were causing havoc, but had to be patient and use 'the non-payment of rent' to get them out.

The neighbours, who were happy to complain to me on an almost daily basis, didn't want to call the Gardai to have the anti-social behaviour and drug dealing officially logged as they were afraid of the tenants. This left me in a very difficult position as I was aware of the behaviour but had no absolutely no proof as I don't live near the property.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem for landlords. They cannot evict without good proof of the anti-social behaviour. That proof can only come from those affected who do not always want their name brought up, often fearing retaliation my the anti-social tenants.

There is also several cases where the third party did not have sufficient proof and had their claim against the landlord denied
 
The residents said the behaviour went on for several years, and that they were "living in fear" and "felt intimidated". They said they raised their concerns with Mr Harrington, who lives in Ardgroom, on the Beara peninsula, several times, without substantive or meaningful response.
Click to expand...

In fairness,this Landlord appears not to have engaged with the issue at all.

I had a similar issue when tenants in my property called me about a neighbouring house where the Landlord having previous form for letting to disruptive types had re-let (having spent a small fortune fixing up the house) to a traveler who was keeping two piebald ponies in the back garden of his semi-d,Guards were called repeatedly for late night partying/fighting etc.

I got hold of his mobile and rang him hoping he would remove this chap,instead I got an earful of abuse at one point and I kid you not he told me I was racist against "pikeys"(his words)

I gave the neighbours details of how to raise this as a complaint with the PRTB and this is ongoing afaik,I really am at a loss to explain his behaviour,the property is in flitters,the rest of the estate is exceptionally well maintained except for sonny boy and when he eventually moves on the meat head of a landlord will have to spend €1000s on repairs.
 
round1 said:
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 a landlord is held legally responsible for control of a tenant's antisocial behavior and a case can be brought against him by affected third parties. Several such cases can be found documented on the PRTB website.
Click to expand...


I hadn't realised that at all. I presume that landlords do know this.

I have seen threads on anti-social neighbours renting a house nearby. Has this section been brought to the attention of the posters?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Who would want to be a landlord?

I thought that the PRTB was for resolving issues between tenants and landlords? I had not realised that anyone can take a case against a landlord through the PRTB. Seems crazy.
Click to expand...


Nothing crazy about it I think--it is only right that a landlord is held accountable for how his/her tenants impact on the lives of those around them.
 
miriammary said:
Nothing crazy about it I think--it is only right that a landlord is held accountable for how his/her tenants impact on the lives of those around them.
Click to expand...
The thing is that the residential tenancies act, overseen by the PRTB, is skewed in favour of the tenant to the extent that it is extremely difficult to evict tenants.

If a landord does manage to serve notice on a troublesome tenant, they have to be 100% sure that they have complied with the act in terms of the exact wording of the notice to terminate the tenancy, the minimum notice period, which starts the day after the notice is served and runs until midnight on the last day of the notice.

If the service of notices is not carried out to the letter, regardless of how far behind in rent the tenant is or what damage they have caused, the tenant can take a case with the PRTB against the Landlord for illegal eviction.

Even if the Landlord follows all the procedures laid down in the act, and even if the PRTB issues a judgement against the tenant, the PRTB has no teeth with which to evict the tenant and the Landlord then has to go to court. Court fees, solicitor's fees, PRTB fees and the loss of rental income due to non-payment for months, can devastate a Landlord who is still obliged to pay the mortgage on the property.
 
The thing is that the residential tenancies act, overseen by the PRTB, is skewed in favour of the tenant to the extent that it is extremely difficult to evict tenants.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. There are a full range of measures landlords can use to evict tenants. They just have to do it properly and in accordance with the law. A good thing, surely?

If there is no lease in place, or it has expired, they don't even need a good reason at all to notify the tenant to leave - they can ask them to move out because they want the property for a relative, or want to sell it etc.

The real issue for landlords, and tenants, is that the PRTB's decisions often go unheeded. There is one southside auctioneer and landlord who must have upwards of €30,000 of fines imposed on him (generally the bulk are for his refusal to attend the hearings). I don't believe he pays the fines. I am not convinced the landlord in this case will pay a penny over this, though I do hope I'm wrong. The state will probably continue to do business with him also. And as we know from many posts here, good luck trying to get an award out of ex-tenants. The PRTB does not seem able to compel payment of the fines/awards it dishes out.

Anyone taking a PRTB case has no right to anonymity. All the complainants in this case will have their names published on the PRTB site which can be accessed by any member of the public. They stood up the tenants in this case, if only the landlord had done the same. It appears in this case there was extensive and clear evidence of serious anti-social behaviour over a number of years, which the landlord could have used to serve 7 days notice of eviction on the tenants. If the landlord cared that is, which he did not.

To be honest, given the extent and length of the anti-social behaviour the awards (€2250 per complainant) don't sound particularly generous.

Further info on the case in this article:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/an-end-to-residents-lengthy-nightmare-217164.html

A landlord's responsibilities don't end when he/she hands over the key. You can't ruin peoples lives in your pursuit of personal gain.
 
bugler said:
No, it isn't. There are a full range of measures landlords can use to evict tenants. They just have to do it properly and in accordance with the law.
Click to expand...
Are you a landlord bugler? Just wondering where you have the idea that it's easy to evict tenants.
 
Bugler is right -there are a full range of measures Lls can use to evict tenants.

Those measures usually involve a lot of time, stress,money for the LL.

And, at the end of the day -often many months - there is very little chance of getting the money from the tenants who may not have paid rent for ages and/or caused damage.

That is besides the fact that if one has really rough and nasty tenants there can be threats to the LL who is trying to evict them ,or, more usual, more damage to the property from those tenants are in effect trespassing on the LL's property and depriving the LL of an income necessary to pay the banks.

A reading of several threads on AAM over many years will confirm much of what I say.

On another note -I am absolutely bewildered why someone cannot sue the perpetrator of anti-social behaviour rather than the person who owns the house in which these bad people live. That's besides the fact that we're supposed to have a police force.
 
Last edited:
from examiner

Both properties are now on the market. The tenants of one of the houses have been served with a notice of termination of tenancy, and are due to vacate the property by Dec 31.

The tenants of the other property have been put on notice that the house has been put on the market, and that they should find alternative accommodation.
Click to expand...
 
That don't mean that they will leave on time. The LL could have to go to PRTB in order to evict them.
 
True, but it does demonstrate that the LL is now making best efforts to address the situation. Doubtless this will form part of his challenge to the RPB's determination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top