Yes, oldnick there are a range of measures Landlords can use to evict tenants, but my point with bugler is that it's certainly not easy as he says.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.
That don't mean that they will leave on time. The LL could have to go to PRTB in order to evict them.
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.
.........
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.
What are you referring to as "an expired lease". After a tenant has been in occupation for 6 months he gains PART 4 rights (unless a valid notice of termination was served during the first six months) and therefore may remain in the property without signing any new lease. Therefore, he is protected by the laws of the RTA 2004.
In order for a landlord to fully comply with the 6 grounds available to him (under Part 4 laws) to evict a tenant, he must actually comply with the ground stated on a permanent basis. He cannot evict a tenant on the grounds that he or a relative will live in the property - he must actually do that. If after a month or two, he then rents out the property he has not complied with the law and a tenant may bring a case of unlawful eviction for which the landlord risks a heavy fine awarded to the tenant.
“The tribunal notes that no written complaint or notice was made to the tenants after any of the communications were received from the neighbouring residents or their representative.
“It is claimed that the tenants were requested to modify their behaviour, but there is no evidence that this was effective, or that the requests were accompanied by any threat of sanction if they failed to do so.”
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.
.. provided the Landlord has watertight proof such as Garda evidence.Where the tenant has done wrong, particularly serious anti-social behaviour as evidenced here, 7 days notice can be served.
Sorry if I'm one of the ones you think is off topic, I was responding to your general assertion earlier in this thread that is it easy to evict tenants, which in my experience as a Landlord who has had to evict on two separate occasions, is incorrect.Most of the landlords posting here are way off topic. This wasn't a thread about how difficult it is to evict tenants.
I don't think any of the landlords who have posted on this thread have any sympathy with the landlord in question, perhaps you could point out where sympathy has been expressed?I wonder would the landlords sympathising with him on this thread change their tune if such tenants moved in next door to their own homes.
Where a landlord cites, as his reason for evicting a tenant, on the ground that he requires the property for his own or a close family members use, he must state in the Notice of Termination, the the identity of that person and the expected duration of the occupation.The expired lease reference is relevant because even where there has been a lease, a landlord can wait it out and then serve a valid termination under Part 4. So really, there's no excuse for a serious issue going on with a tenant for years, even ignoring the fact that anti-social behaviour is grounds for terminating a lease also.
Also, come off it. Landlord wants tenant out, and tenant is part 4. Landlord serves notice:
"I am selling the house."
"I want the house for a relative."
"I am substantially renovating the house."
This is valid. Tenant leaves, presumably finds new accomodation, and doesn't lurk in the bushes outside their ex-home waiting to verify that yes, in fact someone related to the landlord has moved in. If the landlord wants to be cautious, he can put a price tag on the property and stick a sign up. Maybe he could ask for 50% more than the house is worth, just to be safe. He could move back into the house himself, or have a relative do it. Maybe the relative/himself only wants the house a certain number of days.
In what fantasy land does the ex-tenant come back into the picture and presumably reclaim the house, when they have moved on to a new dwelling?
"stated on a permanent basis"... - You mean they have to sell the house, "permanently"? Or that the relative has to move in, forever? How does the tenant verify that the new occupant is a relative of the landlord? Can they take a DNA sample from both?
There are so many holes in these get out clauses you could drive a movers' van through them. Whatever the intention of the legislation it makes it very easy to serve a valid notice of termination, and this is without the tenant doing any wrong. Where the tenant has done wrong, particularly serious anti-social behaviour as evidenced here, 7 days notice can be served. ........
. The TENANTS were the people who caused the anti social behaviour, what happens them ?? do they just walk of into the sunset to do it all over again to create havoc for some other LL or community,
The owner of the house is obviously not a good landlord however I have reservations around the issue of he being held liable for the actions of others. If this case is appealed and upheld how will local authorities escape being held responsible for the anti social behaviour of some of their tenants. There are serious anti social behaviour issues in a lot of local authority estates around the country. This case could have serious unintended consequences as I see it
Agree completely. It's a nonsensical system.It is high time local authorities were held responsible for their tenants also.... Saddest of all I think in all of this is that those anti social tenants will move on somewhere else and cause heartache and worry for others again. They suffer no penalties in all of this which I believe is wrong. I have seen tenants evicted from where I live only to be moved to another area and they behave in the same way all over again. It seems they are entitled to everything and yet responsible or accountable for nothing. Until a system is brought in that penalises the tenant also behaviour will not change.
Again, this is only logical - and I can't understand how we have a system that protects (and in some ways, rewards..) the worst of behaviour.oldnick said: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.
I'm aware of one case last year where the gardai told the landlord off the record there was nothing they could do - nor was there anything he could do. They told him to get heavies in to remove them! He did - and they did exactly what was required. However, how should anyone be put into the position of having to break the law in order to take control of their own property?bronte said:The only way I know if bribery or force. Both of which land you in serious hot water with the PRTB. So far I've only had to do the bribary route.
Will be interesting to see how quickly the PRTB react to complaints.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?