Bias in media reporting of landlord-tenant cases (IT article)

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patfert1

Frequent Poster
Messages
699
This article nicely demonstrates the media bias against landloards.

www.irishtimes.com

Landlord ordered to pay €5,000 damages to family over mould

Tenants claimed they suffered major health issues due to seven years of mould
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com
(paywalled but 2 free articles per month)

Headline:
"Landlord ordered to pay €5,000 damages to family over mould"

If you read to the end:
Tenant owed €9,700 in rent arrears dating back to Sept 2023. The tribunal ruled that the "tenants should pay the landlord €4,700, which is the amount owed in arrears less the €5,000 damages award."

And of course, good luck to the landlord ever seeing that money!

In the article we also discover:
"An eviction notice served on them in January 2025 was invalid as it was served 27 days, rather than the required 28 days, after an initial rent arrears warning, the tribunal found."

So there is a lot to digest in this article:
1) Media bias in reporting, leading with an "anti-landlord" message
2) Landlord did not fix mould issue, despite 2 attempts to fix it, and was judged responsible by the tribunal. Without knowing more facts we accept that, but it suggests challenges faced by landlords. If the only way to resolve an issue with a property would be to move a tenant out and do a major piece of work, but the tenant will not move out and stops paying rent, what can the landlord do?
3) Eviction notice deemed invalid due to error of just 1 day, which is very disproportionate.
4) Tenant probably "gets away with" not paying almost 10k in rent.

Unfortunately the article does not say if the tenant is still living there.
 
Last edited:
patfert1 said:
2) Landlord did not fix mould issue, despite 2 attempts to fix it, and was judged responsible by the tribunal. Without knowing more facts we accept that, but it suggests challenges faced by landlords. If the only way to resolve an issue with a property would be to move a tenant out and do a major piece of work, but the tenant will not move out and stops paying rent, what can the landlord do?
Click to expand...
Mould is often caused or exaserbated by the tenant's lifestyle - things like not heating the place properly, wet clothes on horses, not opening windows, not opening windows/running the fan in the bathroom.,

Little the landlord can do in those circumstances, but it is always the landlord's fault.

I'd expect this to become worse with the 6 year tenancies. The tenant will stay in place and you'll have to pay compensation and reduce the rent due to the mould.

Another anti-landlord bias - mouldy flats are always the landlords fault.
 
I imagine there is more to this story than reported. In a normal rental market, while obviously a landlord should supply a fit-for-purpose accomodation, a tenant who doesn't like the property would simply move out. Here, although the landlord might well also be at fault for not trying to address the problem propertly, the tenant stopped paying part of the rent, obviously disputed the NoT, and for all we know is still there.

In the more general case, what am I as a landlord supposed to do if there is a serious problem that requires major repair and renovation which requires a vacant property, and I give a notice to terminate since it's not practical to do it with the tenant in-situ, but the tenant won't move out? It could happen to any of us - flood damage, fire, etc. Legally, I should have two options. One, issue a NoT with the legal notice period, let's say 6 months, on the basis I will do major renovation. Or two, if the work cannot wait 6 months, then issue a NoT but I would have to compensate the tenant for up to 6 months to live somewhere else. My liability should not in any circumstance extend beyond the notice period.
 
I'm no fan of Ireland's rental laws or most media coverage of the topic.

But think it's unreasonable to say that the linked article is "biased". To me, it reads as a pretty straightforward account of what happened at the tribunal.

"Tenant in arrears, told to pay" is hardly what make the item newsworthy, hence it's reasonable that it doesn't appear in the headline.
 
gaelic_oc said:
think it's unreasonable to say that the linked article is "biased". To me, it reads as a pretty straightforward account of what happened at the tribunal
Click to expand...
It’s more the headline that’s biased, rather than the article itself. Of course this article was posted on Reddit and the first reply was ‘Scummy landlords’ without them actually reading the article.
 
It's definitely a factual and unbiased article.

“The landlord has a statutory obligation to maintain the property which it has failed to do and must be liable for the inconvenience, stress and upset caused to this family by its breach of their obligation for failing to address, in a timely manner, the repair and maintenance of the property,” it said.

Not sure what headline I would use if I had to come up with one.

Landlord ordered to pay €5,000 to tenant in arrears over mould.

The arrears is not news. Lots of tenants are in arrears.

The mould is probably the newsy bit of the story
 
The report is factual enough, but the headline was about the landlord.

It wasn't about how it is now 2026 and the tenant has been behind on the rent since 2023.

It wasn't that despite the tenant deliberately not paying rent, the NoT is invalid and the landlord must start the whole process again because 27 days notice instead of 28 was given.

It wasn't about how the landlord is back to square one, will have to serve a fresh notice and start the whole, long process all over again, which again the tenant can challenge and claim compensation.

It wasn't about how tenants can squat for years it seems and the landlord is powerless to remove them and will be at a complete loss of rent for the period.

It wasn't about how the landlord here is a company, has other apartments and can survive this, but this would financially ruin a small landlord with a mortgage or a pensioner who was relying on the rent for income.

So while the report is factual enough, there is bias; in the headline, in the legislation and in the RTB.
 
patfert1 said:
This article nicely demonstrates the media bias against landloards.
Click to expand...
You've picked a very bad article to demonstrate landlord bias. It was clear the landlord had not fulfilled their obligations as a landlord. Though it is a bit odd a tenant claiming lung problems from damp when they smoke is just ridiculous. But nevertheless he and his family are entitled to live in a decent place.

On the wider question of media bias against landlords you are correct.
 
Bronte said:
. It was clear the landlord had not fulfilled their obligations as a landlord.
Click to expand...
I see the landlord did attempt to fix the mould issue on 2 occassions.. what went wrong here, did the fix not work or the the tenant make it difficult for the landlord to do this, or the tenant was not openiing windows etc??
 
Colin4444 said:
I see the landlord did attempt to fix the mould issue on 2 occassions.. what went wrong here, did the fix not work or the the tenant make it difficult for the landlord to do this, or the tenant was not openiing windows etc??
Click to expand...
Good point, mould is often caused by tenant lifestyle issues - wet clothes on horses, windows not opened, bathroom door left open after a shower and the fan and heater not turned on, cooking with no lids on saucepans etc.

The landlord said there were no problems with other apartments in the block, so you do wonder whether it was tenant lifestyle.

I think it is bias in the RTB - they have to find something in favour of the tenant even when the tenant isn't paying the rent.
 
Colin4444 said:
I see the landlord did attempt to fix the mould issue on 2 occassions.. what went wrong here, did the fix not work or the the tenant make it difficult for the landlord to do this, or the tenant was not openiing windows etc??
Click to expand...
He said there was mould on their towels, blinds, in the bathroom and on the balcony. They had to leave windows opening continually to ventilate the home, he said. Howe claimed they slept on mouldy beds and had mould in their water. They alleged their children suffered skin ulcers and have had to sleep on the floor.

Tempus Realty’s agent said two attempts had been made to fix a leak in the roof but the problem came under the apartment management company’s remit. The landlord did as much as it could to maintain the dwelling, and there were no mould issues in any of its apartments, the agent contended.

- There was a leak in the roof
- Landlord is blaming the apartment management company
- This is not the tenant's problem
- Seven years of mould of an unbelievable level
- Two "attempts" in 7 years to fix the roof - like seriously !
 
Greenbook said:
Good point, mould is often caused by tenant lifestyle issues - wet clothes on horses, windows not opened, bathroom door left open after a shower and the fan and heater not turned on, cooking with no lids on saucepans etc.

The landlord said there were no problems with other apartments in the block, so you do wonder whether it was tenant lifestyle.

I think it is bias in the RTB - they have to find something in favour of the tenant even when the tenant isn't paying the rent.
Click to expand...
This is clearly not a tenant issue. As landlords we are all well aware of tenant's not opening windows etc. This is not that type of case. You are too biased. The landlord should have fixed the roof, should have ensured there is good ventilation, and found out the underlying cause. This was no normal mould.

There is no doubt that Ireland has a damp problem. But we landlords must do our best. This landlord did not. As an example, my electrician in a recently renovated property didn't put in a timed extractor in the bathrooms, his reasoning was there was windows, so after he was finished he had to come back as no way was I relying on a tenant to open the windows.

Another landlord who has a ground floor shower-room has installed a dehumidifier as the area it's situated in is prone to damp. Which I thought was a great idea. My number one issue with rentals is worry over damp. Oddly in two properties, one of which I lived in and one which I stayed in, there was no damp, but my goodness over time with tenant's it always arises. Particularly in bathrooms. I know full well they are not putting on the extractors or opening the windows, that they dry clothes on radiators. This case is not that.

After this article we are warned that the RTB will not tolerate unlivable conditions. And rightly so.
 
Bronte said:
- There was a leak in the roof
- Landlord is blaming the apartment management company
- This is not the tenant's problem
- Seven years of mould of an unbelievable level
- Two "attempts" in 7 years to fix the roof - like seriously !
Click to expand...
Again just blame the landlord.. jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts

How bad is the leak?
Where is the leak, in bathroom / living room?
Where did you see 7 years for 2 attempts to fix leak? Was the leak there for 7 years?
"He said there was mould on their towels" - how long were those towels out for?
Is the leak 100% cause of mould?
Or is more due to tenant behaviour?
Did the tenant make any reasonable attempts to improve things i.e. open windows, run dehumidifier, like any normal person would (as he claims) was affecting health!

And Im sure the tenant will receive the 5k damages, and the landlord wont see the 4700 in rent arrears :)
If it was the other way around, sure their would be another IT article about this, but as its the vile landlord that didnt get its money - who cares!
 
Last edited:
Bronte said:
The landlord should have fixed the roof,
Click to expand...
It is an apartment complex. The landlord said it was a management company issue, which may well be correct. The landlord could not fix the roof in those circumstances.

Two attempts were made by the landlord to fix the mould issue. Both obviously failed, but no explaination as to why. The landlord also seems to have other apartments in the complex, these do not have mould problems.

Without hearing all the evidence in full and examining the apartment, it is impossible to tell which side is correct here.

My issue is that mould is always the landlord's fault, even though it is often tenant's lifestyle which causes it.

Bronte said:
My number one issue with rentals is worry over damp. Oddly in two properties, one of which I lived in and one which I stayed in, there was no damp, but my goodness over time with tenant's it always arises. Particularly in bathrooms. I know full well they are not putting on the extractors or opening the windows, that they dry clothes on radiators. This case is not that.
Click to expand...
You are correct here. It is another reason to be very wary of the PRS. Mould issues are extremely common these days. They were certainly far less common in the past - I say this as a landlord with over 3 decades experience. It is invariably the landlord's fault for not 'doing something' even though I suspect most mould is caused by a mixture of tenant lifestyle and climate change.

As we see from this case, significant compensation will be payable to the tenant.

Unscrupulous tenants can also use mould as a reason not to pay rent or demand a reduction - the RTB will be fully on board.
 
Colin4444 said:
Again just blame the landlord.. jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts
Click to expand...
I read the article:

tribunal held that Tempus Realty Holdings (Ireland) Limited failed to properly maintain the property and was liable for the “inconvenience, stress and upset” caused to tenants

The RTB tribunal was satisfied on the evidence, including photographs, that there had been and continued to be problems with mould, mildew and damp at the property. A report from Dublin City Council from last October mentioned mould being present, while the evidence of the tenants was “most compelling”, the tribunal said.

It rejected the landlord’s suggestion that the management company was responsible for maintaining the property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top