In Court With "Tenant" For Non Payment of Rent

K

Kerrigan

Registered User
Messages
378
Guys,

Do you think I'm shooting fish in a barrel or should I keep my money in my pocket?

Long story short, I have a commercial building that was leased to a small business. The tenant moved out and moved another tenant in, without my consent.

The original lease holder has now left the country and cannot be located.

The "new tenant" for want of a better word refused to pay rent from day one. They finally left when I changed the locks.

I am currently in the process of serving them with a court summons for unpaid rent, commercial rates etc.

Is this a wise move or have I any leg to stand on? Keeping in mind I did not have a lease agreement with them.
 
From my experience you should leave it and move on.

If you have no lease I don't see how there was ever any agreement to be broken. How can you prove the debt exists ? The tenant could say he paid the original leaseholder rent , messy and expensive IMO.

Move on and chalk it up to experience , stay on top of things better in future, collect the rates with the rent to make sure rates get paid as you are on the hook for up to previous two years rates if tenant does a runner.

It will be hard to rent now with unpaid rates on the unit, unless you can clear them from any new deposit you get.
 
Kerrigan,

I'm in exactly the same boat, got some tenants and when trading got difficult they left owing rent, rates, water charges, building service charges etc.. but still held on to the retail unit. As a landlord I'm responsible to Dublin City Council for these outstanding charges.

I'm now serving them a "section 14" notice for re-possession - giving them 28 days notice to vacate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm assuming that Dereko's question re nationality refers to a comment that has since been edited. I hope it wasn't edited for silly PC reasons.

I'd love to have read it because I believe that the nationality of tenants is very germane, especially when it comes to commercial tenancies.
If, for example, Kerigan's tenants are foreigners forget it.
If anyone's commercial tenants are foreigners then in cases as described in two posts above then ,again, forget it.
 
In my case they are Irish.

The only proof I have of the debt existing is the fact they have admitted being there

They had no agreement in place with the head tenant.

Is this still a non runner?
 
You are on a hiding to nothing. You will be facing a costs bill for what a judge will ultimately dismiss.
 
Thanks for the feedback. I normally would not be going down the court route but this crowd have really taking the biscuit.

I've been to two solicitors, one advised me to forget about it, while the other said they would take the case on and seek to have a joinder allocated between the the head lease holder and the crowd they unlawfully allowed gain entry to the building.
 
The main thing is that the sub-tennant is now gone so the situation is resolved.

It would appear pointless throwing more good money after bad especially if the parties involved are elusive, missing, emigrated or whatever and especially if they dont have any money. Is it a case that the Solicitor will just add more cost with no guarantee of a result.
 
I don't see why my post was censured, it was not a query. I was just stating fact that my tenants were Algerian, and have had several encounters with Gardai, Social Welfare fraud, Irish Courts and now have run up serious debt with me.
 
Kerrigan said:
Do you think I'm shooting fish in a barrel or should I keep my money in my pocket?

.
Click to expand...

This is really easy, keep the money in your pocket. And thank your lucky stars they are gone. Learn from the experience and hire the solicitor who gave you the excellent advice to not proceed. You've found a good one there.
 
Brumel said:
I don't see why my post was censured, it was not a query. I was just stating fact that my tenants were Algerian, and have had several encounters with Gardai, Social Welfare fraud, Irish Courts and now have run up serious debt with me.
Click to expand...

IMO, it is much easier for a "foreigner" to up and leave the country leaving debts behind and not be found than it is for an Irish resident who just vanishes to another place in Ireland.

Although I am not familiar with the commercial side of renting, on the residential side, I would always seek a higher deposit from a foreign tenant than an Irish tenant. This I know from experience!
 
Doesn't matter where they are from. Even if they are Irish, you have no way of finding them if they move to another part of the country. Its not like Social Welfare or their work are going to tell you where there are.
 
I depend on foreigners for renting both residential and commercial. Indeed if the foreigners left Dublin the rental market would collapse ,as well as much of the retail sector. Dublin and Ireland would be a drabber place.

When it comes to renting residential as long as they've a deposit and hopefully a tuthful reference then it makes no difference whether they're Irish or foreign. In either case the tenant usually is the winner in any dispute

But for commercial ,in my case retail, I know that if there's a nasty problem as described in the OP then there's no chance of getting redress when dealing with a foreigner, whilst generally speaking one does stand some chance with an irish person (as long as one 's checked that he/she has references,address and hiopefully some equity elsewhere).

I speak as a LL of many years in Dublin city centre . And as a 100% foreigner with no irish connections.
 
I don't see why my post was censured, it was not a query.
Click to expand...
In all your other posts you refer to a more generic 'foreign national (non eu)' which, as oldnick, states is a fair point to make for reasons mentioned. I don't think it's fair to narrow it down to a particular country. I'm not in the pc brigade but let's stick to generic rather than allowing someone an opportunity to go down a different route. Now back to the original question .....
 
I got some funny feedback today ~sigh~

The solicitor who had said he would take on the case decided to contact the solicitors for the defendant, "off the record".

The "tenants" said they would seek damages if I pursued them further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top