RTB Case studies

Apologies if I’m in the wrong thread but has anyone posted a draft tenancy agreement that protects the landlord from all of these RTB landmines or am I fantasising?
 
@Dave Byrne

It looks as though there is no certainty of contract available to an Irish landlord because:

a) the way the Act as written means the agreed rent is essentially just a placeholder suggestion until the RTB determine it counts as "market rent"
b) as @stormy has demonstrated that the RTB appears to make and enforce arbitrary and capricious decisions to the detriment of the landlord

The logical market response would be for landlords to 'self-insure' against the additional risk of that environment by setting, and only being willing to agree to, a significantly higher rent which would compensate for the additional risk being taken.

Note that the Tenancies Act enacted in March requires the market rent to 'have regard to' the terms of the contract. A new contract not only transfers property rights l(ike the right to vacant possession for a sale) away from the owner, but the reality of all its terms must be viewed and valued in the context of the likely behaviour of the RTB.

Your answer then is to only agree to create a lease at a rent level which adequately compensates you for what you view as "landmines".
Unfortunately the RTB is also in control of what rent you and your prospective tenant are allowed to agree to - and you circle back to the fact that any rent you agree on is just an aspirational placeholder until RTB Enforcement gets round to considering it.

Without drifting into the realm of financial advice, it would not be surprising if a competent financial adviser suggested you find an alternative investment.
 
TR0001763 - tenant reimbursed EUR 2,040 without invoices. Case published on RTB website yesterday.

The Act requires the tenant to vouch his expenses, and the Tribunal waived it.

Landlords lose for want of receipts the Act doesn't require. That is a double standard.

The tenants withheld rent and claimed EUR 2,340 for repairs they said they paid for between 2020 and 2025. The Act required them to vouch those expenses. The landlord pointed out at the hearing that the only receipt produced was for a EUR 300 mattress. The tenants still produced nothing: the report records that they "had not uploaded their invoices to the case files". The Tribunal awarded them EUR 2,040 anyway, as "the balancing amount", and cancelled the arrears.

The tenant's right under the Act is conditional on vouching:
reimburse the tenant in respect of all reasonable and vouched for expenses (s.12(1)(g) RTA 2004)​
​
The landlord's deduction for damage is measured by what reasonable remedial steps would cost, not by money already spent:
the costs that would be incurred by the landlord, were he or she to take them (s.12(4)(a)(ii) RTA 2004)​
​
Now look at what happens to landlords without receipts:
  • TR0001641 (Douglas): EUR 100 to clear a blocked sink and EUR 60 to dump beds the tenant left behind were both refused for want of a receipt. The landlord's time removing adhesive hooks the tenant admitted leaving was refused because "no expense has been incurred".
  • Dunmore East (Bergin v Hobbs, reported in Waterford Live, September 2026): the landlord said he paid EUR 90 to fix a forced bedroom door, EUR 300 for a stained mat and EUR 200 to steam-clean beds and furnishings. With no start-of-tenancy photos and no receipts, the full EUR 1,500 deposit was ordered back.
  • TR0001085 (Portlaoise): the damage claim failed because the remedial invoice came from a firm owned by one of the landlords and so was "not entirely objective".
  • TR0001646 (Dublin 1): a EUR 400 deduction for utilities was refused because the bills hadn't been produced and the apportionment hadn't been worked out.
  • TR0725-008934 (Ballyconnell): the tenants didn't attend, and the agent said the EUR 1,910 owed at the start of February 2025 had never been disputed. The Tribunal refused it anyway because there were no bank statements or rent schedule and the agent had the figure from the landlord. That one point lost the landlord the EUR 1,910, the warning notice and the notice of termination.
  • TR0001467: with no inventory, no dated photos and no verified invoices, the landlord recovered nothing for damage.
Tenants do sometimes lose for want of proof (TR0001455, TR0001722). But in TR0001763 the Act itself required the tenants to vouch, the landlord asked for the receipts, and the tenants couldn't produce them. They recovered EUR 2,040 anyway.



Cases cited
 
Very odd case here from the Connacht Tribune. A tenant claimed that workmen were picking the locks of her apartment, breaking in and going through her belongings. Her health had been affected because dangerous sustances had been sprayed in the apartment by the workmen. She made many other similarly strange allegations as well.

She lost. But the landlord was Cluid, who tends to be believed by the Tribunals. Public landlords are 'good'. Also, Cluid had plenty of witnesses, records and maintenance logs.

You would wonder how an ordinary private landlord would have faired here. He would have lacked detailed records and witnesses for one thing. Would some part of the tenant's allegations been upheld, getting her compensation.

Also, you can imagine the stress for a private landlord of dealing with these constant allegations. Cluid had a team of staff to deal with them.
 
Stormy thank you for the work in getting those RTB cases - it's nice to bring a summary of decisions - very helpful to understand the rulings etc. There's a lot of work to doing that. So really appreciate it. (and the rest of you who find cases too - one of them was helpful to a sibling recently in making decisions and gaining knowledge).

In addition, I was last weekend in Ireland, and met an in-law, they don't have a lot of money and were worried about their car insurance hike, I suggested gently they rent a room (perfect set up, can give a full bathroom to the room, can even put in a separate sitting etc ) I explained that they would NOT be a landlord, how to get someone, suggested DAFT and Rent.ie etc, and in particularly emphasised that if they don't like the person they can get them to leave immediately.

Discovered another inlaw is renting a room to a student (en suite but it's the downstairs shower room). This came up when we were looking at their utility air to water pump and they said they wished they had a toilet there when I said it was great they didn't ! When they built the house I had suggested at the time they build on a granny flat with it's own front door !
 
TR0001331 - O'Brien v Tlou - Cobh, Co. Cork

A landlord who hasn't raised the rent in eight years, who sends a tradesman out the day a problem is reported, and who offers his tenant two other flats at the same rent when he needs to sell. Here is what the system does with him.

He let the house to the same tenant in 2017 at €700 a month. It is still €700. On the Tribunal's record there was "not a cross word" between them in that time. He put in new radiators four or five years ago, replaced the front windows and doors with double glazing, put down a new kitchen floor and supplied a new washing machine in the last year.

Two years ago he told her he was selling. He served two notices of termination. Both failed. His evidence was that they were "deemed to be invalid due to technical issues", and the Tribunal recorded that without detail: not the defects, not who found them, not whether the tenant disputed them.

The dates are suggestive. He told her he was selling around mid-2024, so the notices were served in 2024 and 2025. Through that whole period the RTB's website told landlords to send the RTB its copy "on the same day you send it to your tenant". In March 2026 Simons J held in Argutinski v RTB [2026] IEHC 225 that a posted notice is served when it reaches the tenant, not when it's posted. A copy sent to the RTB on the posting date is therefore sent before service, and under what was then s.39A the notice is invalid. TR0001481 (Tyrrelstown, May 2026) shows how that plays out: the Tribunal found the landlord had "probably followed the RTB's own published guidance in treating the date of posting as the operative date", called it a "lacuna", and voided both his notices. If this landlord's "technical issues" were the same, he lost two notices and two years for following the instructions on the RTB's page. The RTB has since rewritten that page without saying so.
He then offered her two apartments nearby at the same €700. She refused both. He still cannot sell.

She then lodged a s.12(1)(b) standards complaint: the shower, the toilet cistern, mould in the kitchen, the back windows, the floors. The adjudication was heard on 30 July 2025. The report doesn't say what the adjudicator decided, but he appealed, so it can't have gone his way. The Tribunal sat on 9 June 2026, a year after her application. She didn't turn up. The case officer rang her twice. No answer.

The landlord attended with a witness and gave evidence under affirmation. The Tribunal found:
  • Four shower call-outs since 2022, each attended, each paid for by him, the shower working every time.
  • The cistern was never reported to him, and was working when inspected.
  • The mould came from a vent cap knocked off by works next door. He replaced the vent, treated the mould and painted twice. No complaint since.
  • Fire blanket and extinguisher in place.
Claim not upheld. Appeal allowed. No order against her, because the Act has nothing to order. A tenant can lodge a claim, put a landlord through adjudication and a full Tribunal, not attend, and walk away at no cost.

Now the arithmetic of being nice. He was entitled to review the rent every year within the RPZ caps. Had he done so, the rent would be somewhere around €900 by now, and the forgone rent over eight years is roughly €10,000 or more. That money is gone. Worse, the caps are applied to the rent actually set, so the €700 base is locked in for as long as this tenancy runs. The 6-year reset doesn't reach him: it applies only to tenancies created on or after 1 March 2026. The Act rewards the landlord who increases every year by the maximum and punishes the one who doesn't.

And the standard he was measured against is the one in s.12(1)(b):

"the interior of the dwelling all such repairs and replacement of fittings as are, from time to time, necessary so that that interior and those fittings are maintained in, at least, the condition in which they were at the commencement of the tenancy"​
s.12 RTA 2004 (revised)

He exceeded it, and was still made to prove it.

Report defects, for the record:
  • The tenant is "Tania" in the header and "Tanya" in the determination.
  • The witness is "Purthill" in the attendees list and "Purtill" in the evidence.
  • The adjudication was 30 July 2025 and the appeal was lodged 10 December 2025. Under s.100 an appeal must be lodged within 10 days of the adjudicator's report issuing, so either the report took over four months to issue or something else happened. The report doesn't say which.
  • A report of an appeal that never states what was appealed from.
Timeline: application June 2025, adjudication July 2025, appeal December 2025, Tribunal June 2026, published September 2026. Fifteen months for a claim nobody turned up to support.

Two failed notices, a year on an abandoned complaint, eight years at €700, and he still has the house. If the notices fell to Argutinski, the one party in this story who did nothing wrong is the one paying for it.


Links


https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001331
https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001481
 
stormy said:
TR0001641 (Douglas): EUR 100 to clear a blocked sink and EUR 60 to dump beds the tenant left behind were both refused for want of a receipt. The landlord's time removing adhesive hooks the tenant admitted leaving was refused because "no expense has been incurred".
Click to expand...
Landlord is at fault for not having receipts. I bought drain block last month for a tenant around a tenner, I got a receipt. As a landlord our work is not allowed by revenue. We all know this. I most certainly will not be claiming for my time driving to B&Q for the drain block.
stormy said:
Dunmore East (Bergin v Hobbs, reported in Waterford Live, September 2026): the landlord said he paid EUR 90 to fix a forced bedroom door, EUR 300 for a stained mat and EUR 200 to steam-clean beds and furnishings. With no start-of-tenancy photos and no receipts, the full EUR 1,500 deposit was ordered back
Click to expand...
No receipts, in 2026, seriously.


stormy said:
TR0001085 (Portlaoise): the damage claim failed because the remedial invoice came from a firm owned by one of the landlords and so was "not entirely objective".
Click to expand...
Well it’s a bit odd, I’d have to read the case.


stormy said:
TR0001646 (Dublin 1): a EUR 400 deduction for utilities was refused because the bills hadn't been produced and the apportionment hadn't been worked out.
Click to expand...
That’s proper order, you have to provide the bills and apportion, which is why in one of my properties with 2 flats i left the tenants put one bill in each of their names and let them work it out, in another property as I really didn’t want to split the bills I just included it in the rent and write it off as a cost for tax.
 
Last edited:
stormy said:
TR0725-008934 (Ballyconnell): the tenants didn't attend, and the agent said the EUR 1,910 owed at the start of February 2025 had never been disputed. The Tribunal refused it anyway because there were no bank statements or rent schedule and the agent had the figure from the landlord. That one point lost the landlord the EUR 1,910, the warning notice and the notice of termination.
Click to expand...
Wow, bank statements, thanks to my accountants advice I have a bank account dedicated to rental income and costs.

Each rent in allocated to where it came from, now I’ve an agent I get a rental income statement, which matches the amounts paid into the bank.

What is a rent schedule? (I don’t want to fall foul of that)


stormy said:
TR0001467: with no inventory, no dated photos and no verified invoices, the landlord recovered nothing for damage.
Click to expand...
These are not good examples of RTB bias. You of course need to have a wear and tear list, adding as you purchase new items, you’ll have invoices, it’s advisable to take photos before letting, and also take photos of any damage.

You CANNOT go into the RTB unprepared, some landlords need to go back to landlord school, read a lavdlord book, watch Judge Judy or do a landlord course with the IPOA. Or hand everything over to a reputable agent to do for you.
 
Bronte said:
Landlor is at fault for not having receipts.
Click to expand...
On good practice, agreed. Keep every receipt, photograph everything, put it all in the case file. That isn't the point I was making, though. The point is which side the Act actually requires to vouch.

The tenant's right to recover repair costs is expressly conditional on it:
reimburse the tenant in respect of all reasonable and vouched for expenses (s.12(1)(g) RTA 2004)​
​
In TR0001763 the tenants had no invoices, the landlord pointed that out at the hearing, and they were awarded €2,040 anyway.

There is no equivalent provision for the landlord. A deposit deduction is measured by what the work would cost, not what has been spent:
the costs that would be incurred by the landlord, were he or she to take them (s.12(4)(a)(ii) RTA 2004)​
​
So the Act requires a receipt from the tenant and doesn't require one from the landlord. In 1763 the Tribunal waived it for the tenant. In the other cases it insisted on one from the landlord.

Taking your points in turn:
  • The sink in TR0001641: the landlord said he had provided a receipt; it wasn't in the file. Under s.12(4) a reasonable cost for clearing a drain shouldn't need one.
  • The hooks: the Revenue rule that you can't deduct your own labour is a tax rule. It has nothing to do with s.12(4), which asks what the work would cost if the landlord had it done. The tenant admitted leaving the hooks, and the claim was refused because "no expense has been incurred". That's the wrong test under the Act.
  • Dunmore East: no receipts is careless, I agree. But under s.12(4) the landlord needn't have paid anyone yet. A quote for the door and the mat would have done.
  • TR0001085: here the landlord had an invoice, and it still wasn't accepted because the firm was connected to him. A receipt isn't always enough either.
  • TR0001646: fair point. If you deduct for utilities you need the bills and the split. That one I concede.
None of this means landlords should be sloppy. It means the standard is being applied the wrong way round: strictly where the Act doesn't require proof, and waived where it does.
 
Bronte said:
These are not good examples of RTB bias.
Click to expand...

How can they be more clear that there is a double standard?

Your reply is a list of things landlords must do to win: inventory, dated photos, invoices for every purchase, receipts for a tenner's worth of drain unblocker, a course with the IPOA, Judge Judy.

Agreed on all of it. Now look at what the tenants in TR0001763 did. They withheld rent for months, claimed €2,340 for works going back to 2020, produced no invoices, had the landlord point that out to the Tribunal, and were awarded €2,040. Not one of the things on your list. The Act says their claim is for "reasonable and vouched for expenses", and it was never vouched.

That's double standard. Landlords are held to a litigation standard the Act doesn't impose on them, and a tenant was excused the one the Act does impose. "Not having receipts is the landlord's fault" is a fair comment on the landlord. It's no answer at all to why the tenant with no receipts won.

And on the standard itself: s.12(4) measures a deposit deduction by what reasonable remedial work would cost, not by money spent. A landlord with a quote has met it. A landlord who did the work himself has met it. The Tribunals keep refusing those claims for want of a receipt that the Act doesn't ask for.
 
Last edited:
Stormy we have to be the professionals, we are in the landlord business. The standard we are held to is higher because of that. Show me a case where a landlord with receipts was denied payment?


stormy said:
The sink in TR0001641: the landlord said he had provided a receipt; it wasn't in the file. Under s.12(4) a reasonable cost for clearing a drain shouldn't need one
Click to expand...
That’s the landlords fault. He’s supposed to have receipts, that’s what is reasonable. If he lost the receipt he should be able to should be able to show his bank statement showing he has paid it, in addition it woukd have been on his tax return. (Replacement cost probably)

stormy said:
The hooks: the Revenue rule that you can't deduct your own labour is a tax rule. It has nothing to do with s.12(4), which asks what the work would cost if the landlord had it done. The tenant admitted leaving the hooks, and the claim was refused because "no expense has been incurred". That's the wrong test under the Act.
Click to expand...
Agreed it’s a tax rule, I think it’s a petty item to claim for by the landlord. Do you think I charged for cleaning manky fridges and encrusted ovens? As I’m beyond that life now I’ll pay someone to do it or just throw the destroyed hob out.

BUT what WE need to do is receipt for everything, absolutely everything, pay someone to do stuff. Or just offer it up, dealing with the hooks, as part of the job.
stormy said:
Dunmore East: no receipts is careless, I agree. But under s.12(4) the landlord needn't have paid anyone yet. A quote for the door and the mat would have done.
Click to expand...
That’s not careless, that’s plain stupid.

I do get you’re able to quote the Act requirement, that axquotecis good enough, we knew the RTB is not a court, we now we know nada. So get receipts. This is not arduous or complicated.

stormy said:
TR0001085: here the landlord had an invoice, and it still wasn't accepted because the firm was connected to him. A receipt isn't always enough either.
Click to expand...
Well I do wonder if the bill was “padded”.


stormy said:
TR0001646: fair point. If you deduct for utilities you need the bills and the split. That one I concede.
Click to expand...
LOL. I’m learning loads from your case analysis, you hopefully realise I’m trying to be fair, also I’m playing devils advocate, you know I know the RTB is biased against us, but you also know some landlords are rogues. They do none of us any favours.


stormy said:
None of this means landlords should be sloppy. It means the standard is being applied the wrong way round: strictly where the Act doesn't require proof, and waived where it does.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I loath the RTB ! And think they are grossly incompetent and biased.
 
stormy said:
Your reply is a list of things landlords must do to win: inventory, dated photos, invoices for every purchase, receipts for a tenner's worth of drain unblocker, a course with the IPOA, Judge Judy.
Click to expand...
At a basic level it’s common sense we need to be professional. We need the receipts for revenue in any case, so yes I got a receipt for the drain block! It’s now in my rental file, and put on my excel. My sibling takes photo’s of everything, and loads them into the excel. All correspondance in writing.


stormy said:
Now look at what the tenants in TR0001763 did. They withheld rent for months, claimed €2,340 for works going back to 2020, produced no invoices, had the landlord point that out to the Tribunal, and were awarded €2,040. Not one of the things on your list. The Act says their claim is for "reasonable and vouched for expenses", and it was never vouched.

That's double standard. Landlords are held to a litigation standard the Act doesn't impose on them, and a tenant was excused the one the Act does impose. "Not having receipts is the landlord's fault" is a fair comment on the landlord. It's no answer at all to why the tenant with no receipts won.

And on the standard itself: s.12(4) measures a deposit deduction by what reasonable remedial work would cost, not by money spent. A landlord with a quote has met it. A landlord who did the work himself has met it. The Tribunals keep refusing those claims for want of a receipt that the Act doesn't ask for.
Click to expand...
Any tenant withholding rent is wrong. Why on earth was the tenant carrying out work/repairs/purchasing items?
 
Bronte said:
Show me a case where a landlord with receipts was denied payment?
Click to expand...

Gladly. All from this thread.
  • TR0001085 (Portlaoise): the landlord had an invoice. Refused, because the firm was connected to him. No finding that it was padded. The Tribunal just didn't like the paper.
  • TR0001763 (Clonmel): the landlord proved her arrears with spreadsheets and matching bank statements. The Tribunal accepted every cent. Then it handed the tenants the same amount for repairs with no invoices and netted it to nil. Perfect receipts. Nothing paid.
  • TR0522-005471 (Blackrock): €22,100 of documented, undisputed arrears. The Tribunal went back to a 2016 rent review nobody had challenged, reset the rent, and the landlord left owing the tenant €750.
  • TR0525-008744 (Blarney): over €7,000 of documented arrears, warning letter correct to the rent actually being paid. Notice voided for a sentence missing from a 2021 form. She gets €600 a month over 13 months and starts again.
  • TR0001393 (Carlow): the landlord's ledger was right to the cent. The letter said €913 instead of €903. Notice gone, year gone.
Five landlords with the paperwork. Five landlords who didn't get paid. Receipts were never the problem.

Bronte said:
we have to be the professionals, we are in the landlord business. The standard we are held to is higher because of that.
Click to expand...
Says who? Not the Act. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, for both sides. The only express vouching requirement in s.12 is on the tenant, and in 1763 it was waived. The "professional standard" is something the Tribunals invented, apply to one party only, and award no costs for meeting. Most landlords are one property, no agent, no adviser, facing Threshold on the other side or a Tribunal doing Threshold's job for an absent tenant. "Be more professional" is sound advice to them. It is not an argument that the system is working.

On the rest, we agree. Receipts for everything, pay someone rather than do it yourself, photographs before and after, let the hooks go. The Dunmore East landlord has no excuse. And yes, rogue landlords exist and damage all of us. I'd welcome the RTB chasing them with the energy it spends auditing a warning letter for €10.

The difference between us is this. You see landlords who didn't prepare. I see a Tribunal that wrote its own rule for landlords, enforces it to the euro, and ignores the one the Oireachtas wrote for tenants.
 
Last edited:
stormy said:
Now look at what the tenants in TR0001763 did. T
Click to expand...
This is a messy complicated case. Tenants did not submit invoices, but they did supply photos.

- tenants ordered to pay rent arrears
- landlord ordered to pay for repairs the tenants did in 2020, 2021 & 2025, decision made in their favour based on photos and based on landlord not being properly contactable, plus not doing the repairs, case ongoing.

Their claims were for €1,050 in 2020, €1,000 in 2021, and €290 in 2025, linked to mould cleaning, painting, plumbing, gutter cleaning, roof and ceiling repairs, slab and plastering work. They submitted that the Landlord was in breach of her standards and maintenance obligations. They had not uploaded their invoices to the case files. They referred to images of the condition of thedwelling in Case File 5.

It is NOT a good case, the rental sounds like it has a lot of issues. Tenants should NOT ve dealing with mould, plastering, slab work, that’s madness. Plus the handyman Joe! I hope the tenants were not getting up on the roof!
 
stormy said:
TR0001393 (Carlow): the landlord's ledger was right to the cent. The letter said €913 instead of €903. Notice gone, year gone.
Click to expand...
Yes this is pure lunacy, that county councillors, Threshold, RTB are looking for crack pot errors in our notices. Meanwhile the RTB can put up incorrect advice, change their advice without stating a) they’ve changed it b ) acknowledging they were wrong , they can make errors in law, fully agree with you.
 
stormy said:
The difference between us is this. You see landlords who didn't prepare. I see a Tribunal that wrote its own rule for landlords, enforces it to the euro, and ignores the one Parliament wrote for tenants.
Click to expand...
Actually we are more in agreement than you think. In order to win, I have to be aware of the fact that I’ve to be whiter than white. It’s not fair. The system is biased against landlords in implementation. The difference between us is that I know beating the system means learning the system and accepting I’ll have to navigate how to avoid the RTB altogether. Because the system always wins. Or you die trying to fight it.

I had to not send an email recently to a council. Which really really upset me. City always Wins.
 
Bronte said:
This is a messy complicated case. Tenants did not submit invoices, but they did supply photos.
Click to expand...

Three corrections from the report.
  • The landlord was not “ordered to pay for repairs”: the €2,040 was set off against the arrears, net nil, no payment order.
  • The case is not “ongoing”: the determination is made, and what’s ongoing is her arrears notice, which now has to start again against arrears the order wiped out.
  • And photos of mould prove there was mould. They don’t prove €1,050 was paid to anyone in 2020.
s.12(1)(g) has three conditions:
  • the expenses must be reasonable and vouched;
  • the landlord must have refused or failed to do the repairs when asked, or been uncontactable after all reasonable attempts (s.12(5));
  • and postponing them must have been unreasonable because of a significant risk to health or safety or a significant reduction in the living environment
The Tribunal found the second. It made no finding on the third, no finding that the landlord breached s.12(1)(b), and it waived the first. Then it awarded €2,040 against a claim of €2,340, because €2,040 was the arrears figure. It worked backwards from the number that made the rent disappear.

“Messy” isn’t an answer to any of that. So I’ll ask it plainly: do you accept that the Act requires the tenant to vouch, and that this Tribunal awarded €2,040 for expenses that were never vouched? If yes, that’s the double standard, because you’ve spent this thread telling landlords they lose for want of a receipt the Act doesn’t require of them. If no, show me the vouching in the report.

On the tenants doing slab work and roofs: agreed, madness. And the Act agrees. The remedy for a landlord in breach is a referral under s.12(1)(b) with damages under s.115, or do the urgent work, keep the receipts and claim under s.12(1)(g). Not stop paying rent, which the Tribunal itself said they couldn’t do, before handing them the same result through the back door.


Bronte said:
The difference between us is that I know beating the system means learning the system and accepting I’ll have to navigate how to avoid the RTB altogether. Because the system always wins. Or you die trying to fight it.
Click to expand...

Then we agree on the diagnosis and differ on what to do about it. Two things.

First, the system doesn’t always win. Mr Argutinski took the RTB to the High Court over a notice voided for following the RTB’s own same-day guidance, and won. The RTB has since rewritten that guidance three times, silently, without once saying it had been wrong, and TR0001481 and TR0001618 are the landlords who lost in the meantime for doing what the website told them. Stulpinaite went to the High Court too, and the burden of proof on sale notices is settled because of it. The rules on this thread aren’t the ones that were there two years ago. They moved because people didn’t accept them.

Second, “learn the system and avoid it” assumes the system holds still. It doesn’t. You say yourself in post #138 that the RTB puts up incorrect advice, changes it without saying so, and makes errors in law. So what, specifically, are we supposed to accept?
  • The RTB rent calculator rounds the time since the last review down to whole months, so a landlord loses up to a month of the 2% a year that s.19(4) actually allows. Are you using it as published? Thread
  • The same calculator measures “annual” inflation over ten or eleven months of data rather than twelve. Are we to call that the rent cap? Thread
  • S.I. 470, the ministerially prescribed statutory declaration every landlord signs under penalty of false statement, cites “the Residential Tenancies Act 2024”. There is no such Act. A landlord’s €10 error voids his notice; the State’s non-existent statute is in a form it was mandatory to use the day before it was gazetted. Post
  • The RTB’s online notice-of-termination form still tells landlords the RTB copy must be sent within 28 days of service, a rule abolished in 2022. Its “how to end a tenancy” page still says a pre-2022 landlord can end for no reason at the end of every six-year cycle, which has been wrong since the 2021 Act. Thread
  • The RTB’s own tenancy agreement template is wrong on the grounds and the notice periods, and says it accepts no responsibility. Thread

Learning the system is the minimum. I do it, you do it, and I’ve no quarrel with a word of your advice on receipts and photos. But if the only response to a Tribunal applying a rule the Act doesn’t contain, and waiving the one it does, is to be whiter than white and hope, then the rule stands for every landlord who hasn’t read this thread. Remember, two-thirds of landlords have a single tenancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top