RTB no teeth ?

[CorkHome2022]

I am neither a landlord or a tenant but I find this one interesting.
From yesterdays Irish Times.

My understanding is RTB is there to protect both sides from abusing the rental process .
From reading the article it looks like a bogus eviction yet the RTB only give under 1400 in compensation to the evicted tenants.
So is it a viable financial gamble for a landlord to go down this route go move on existing tenants and get new ones in for better rent ?
When you consider what the tenants here would have to pay to secure new accommodation and what they would have spent on the private investigator the just under 1400 would no way cover their expenses .
If RTB is setting this as a benchmark for breaching agreements then tenants out their are on dodgy ground .

As I said above I have no skin in the rental market but this is an interesting ruling .

Tenant who hired private investigator to surveil home after eviction notice awarded damages

Investigator watched D4 property for period and tried to make deliveries to see whether home was occupied

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Absolutely. Most landlords would be delighted to pay €1,400 to get rid of a tenant.

The circumstances are a bid odd. Usually in cases where the landlord gives a bogus reason for ending the tenancy, the landlord relets the property at a much higher rent. But in this case, they don't appear to have relet the property at all to either the daughter or anyone else.

 

[Wavelly]

I agree, I thought the compensation granted to the tenant in this case seemed very low compared to other cases that have appeared in the news lately, for example the 80 year old whose husband passed away so she didn’t move in as originally planned (in her case from memory she had to pay around €20k in compensation).

It seems there is no consistency with the RTB, so I still wouldn’t take my chances as a landlord.

 

[bipped]

it looks like a bogus eviction

How so? The tenants left pretty soon after they received the NoT. Maybe the owners daughter was renting somewhere else and had to give notice to her landlord, maybe she was relocating from a different county or country, maybe she was separating, getting divorced. The PI said he watched for two months, maybe the daughter moved in later on. Maybe the owners or the daughter wanted to carry out some work eg painting and decorating before moving in, maybe they were waiting on tradespeople who are very busy especially coming up to Christmas time. The majority of property owners do work on properties before they move in, some older properties or ex-rentals can take months. So many possibilities why the daughter didn’t move in immediately. Jumping to a ‘bogus eviction’ is not the reality here and it’s just another swipe at demonising landlords.

Was there anything in the tribunal hearing to say the daughter never moved in? Was there a ruling that the NoT was invalid? How was the agreement breached? Where does it say new tenants were in the property?

Dodgy landlords are held to account by the RTB but it’s very disturbing to read that disgruntled former tenants hired a private investigator to carry out surveillance on their ex-landlord in the hopes of getting a cash payout. No wonder landlords are running for the exit door.

 

[Greenbook]

Dodgy landlords are held to account by the RTB but it’s very disturbing to read that disgruntled former tenants hired a private investigator to carry out surveillance on their ex-landlord in the hopes of getting a cash payout. No wonder landlords are running for the exit door.

Based on an FB group I lurk on, this seems to be an increasing problem. If you get on the wrong side of the tenant at all, in revenge problems suddenly turn up and they are off to the sympathetic RTB Tribunal for compensation. This will get worse with the 6 year/permanent tenancies.

It seems there is no consistency with the RTB, so I still wouldn’t take my chances as a landlord.

The Tribunal is taken from panels so a different mix of adjudicators everytime. That would give rise to inconsistency. The same could happen with judges of course. It is pot luck which judge you pull. They must follow the law from previous cases though so there is far less scope to lurch one way and then the other. That doesn't seem to be the rule with the Tribunal.

 

[Premos]

The LL might also have been worried about getting the property vacant for their need so proceed early with the notice.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

it's a very strange case.

Why did the landlord not attend the hearing?

If there is an innocent explanation e.g. "I gave 6 months' notice because I knew I would need it in 6 months, but the tenant moved out early so the property was vacant until my daughter moved in..." , they would presumably not have been fined.

 

[stormy]

The tenants in this case asked for an acknowledgment, not money. Mr Murray told the Tribunal that if he had to choose between the two he'd take the acknowledgment. I haven't seen a tenant do that in any published report. The Tribunal put a price on it anyway: €837.90.

Which makes the thread title a disappointing one, given how much RTB output has been documented on this forum over the past year. The RTB has teeth. The evidence is about who they get used on.

From reading the article it looks like a bogus eviction yet the RTB only give under 1400 in compensation to the evicted tenants.

The Irish Times misread the order. The case is TR0001645 (Murray & Judge v Ryan & Bleahen, Anglesea Mews, Dublin 4). The tenants produced receipts for van hire and cleaning of €337.90. The Tribunal added €500. €337.90 + €500 = €837.90, and that is the whole order. There is no separate €500 on top.

And the Tribunal said why it was low. It listed the losses it would normally compensate: a Part 4 tenancy of unlimited duration gone, a longer commute for one tenant, rent over €400 a month higher. Then:

"These factors would normally be reflected in an award of substantial damages. However, the Applicant Tenants very fairly noted that they were not seeking substantial damages..."​

​

So €837.90 isn't the RTB's price for a false ground. It's what two unusually forgiving tenants asked for. The landlords' absence from the hearing cost them nothing. The tenants' restraint cost them thousands.

Absolutely. Most landlords would be delighted to pay €1,400 to get rid of a tenant.

True if every tenant is Mr Murray.

TR0001023 was the same ground, a family member, with a re-let at 50% more: €15,000. The ceiling is €20,000 (s.115(3)). A landlord using 1645 as a price list is betting on the tenant, not the RTB.

On re-letting, there's no finding either way, and the Tribunal didn't need one, because the test is objective:

"the occupation by the person concerned does not take place within a reasonable time after the service of the notice of termination" - s.56(1)(c)(ii) RTA 2004​

​

...the 80 year old whose husband passed away so she didn't move in as originally planned (in her case from memory she had to pay around €20k in compensation).

Your memory is right: TR0001469, €19,522.50, and it's the same subparagraph. s.56(1)(c)(ii) has two limbs: the person doesn't move in within a reasonable time, or the landlord fails to make the offer back.

• 1645 failed the first limb. No evidence the daughter ever lived there. Landlords absent. €837.90.
• 1469 failed the second. The Tribunal accepted her intention was genuine. Her husband died in May 2025, she short-let the flat rather than leave it empty, and she never offered it back. The tenant's loss was counted from the day her husband died. €19,522.50.

And the two Tribunals treated the claim in opposite ways. In 1645 the award stayed below the losses the Tribunal itself identified, because the tenants asked for less. In 1469 the tenant claimed €10,584 for the rent difference and was awarded €17,022.50 under that heading.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It's what two unusually forgiving tenants asked for. The landlords' absence from the hearing cost them nothing. The tenants' restraint cost them thousands.

curiouser and curiouser - they were very forgiving but yet they hired a private detective.

 

[Bronte]

My understanding is RTB is there to protect both sides from abusing the rental process .

That might be your view, that is not the experience I've concluded from reading RTB cases. Your thread title is misleading, the RTB has oodles of teeth. They also have money.

From reading the article it looks like a bogus eviction

You cannot rely on any reporting of RTB cases in the newspapers, it's lazy journalism with click bait headlines and messy facts. In this case the actual Determination Order itself is messy as to facts. The RTB even relied on hearsay evidence.

So is it a viable financial gamble for a landlord to go down this route go move on existing tenants and get new ones in for better rent ?

Clearly the newspaper headlines are working. All us landlords are all out to evict our tenants every day to get higher rents.

When you consider what the tenants here would have to pay to secure new accommodation and what they would have spent on the private investigator the just under 1400 would no way cover their expenses .

Yep the poor tenants. Who hired a PI and are innocent victims.

If RTB is setting this as a benchmark for breaching agreements then tenants out their are on dodgy ground .

Oh lord.

 

[Bronte]

it's a very strange case.

Why did the landlord not attend the hearing?

If there is an innocent explanation e.g. "I gave 6 months' notice because I knew I would need it in 6 months, but the tenant moved out early so the property was vacant until my daughter moved in..." , they would presumably not have been fined.

Actual case

https://rtb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/1645-Tribunal-report.pdf

- We have nearly zero info on the landlords opinion on what transpired
- The tenants and the landlord's agents, or the landlord, seem to have had an issue over a terrier dog
- Seems the dog was allowed under the lease, but it somehow became an issue over a second dog the second tenant Aisling brought into the flat

Timelines

1511/24 - Tenancy commences
3/9/25 - Notice of Termination (reason was daughter moving in)
Tenant notifies they are leaving
15/9/25 - Tenant leaves
25/11/25 - RTB case taken
4/2/26 - notice period
13/3/26 Medication case heard (no idea what happened at this)
20/3/26 appeal of the medication by tenants
7/7/26 -- Tribunal

Evidence by tenant Sean

That the CAO offers had come out the week the notice was served, no evidence the notice was related to this (in any case the termination would have been February of the following year.

Something about change of management company and dogs

Hearsay evidence about what the other tenant had said (who was not at the tribunal). The gist was the agent told the other tenants about the daughter and the flat being close to UCD

Sean then googled the landlords and daughter, found out she'd done the Leaving cert 10 years ago and was working ........ that she had a job in Dublin that started in September (in my opinion that's probably why the notice was served) . Sean went into a lot of personal stuff about the landlord and daugter (prominent people, linked in, horses)

Much confusion about conversation with the management company, daughter .... anyway Sean decides the best course of action is to hire a PI (as you do .....)

Sean says his partner Aisling noticed an ad for a room, on the 9th Oct, and this photo was of their spare room, no physical evidence of this supplied ....

Mad stuff about lights on on two days and a car parked their on one occasion

Evidence by tenant Aisling

She said on the 3rd Sept, which happens to be same day as the Notice of T - that she found another apartment, she emailed agent on 5th Sept that they would be leaving on 15th Sept.

New place had a garden (I suppose important for the dog)

Stuff about the dog, a family solicitor and a second dog (this is better than Judge Judy, except Judy wouldn't wouldn't have lasted this long)

PI Magnium (James Boyle)

He has a friend in the same complex. ......... so James checked out the place 30 times while visiting the friend (I think that's the gist) over 2 whole months - he did confirm the dwelling was unoccupied, apart from lights on on 2 occasions and a car parked once. Cleanng buckets and dust brought into evidence - which - surprise, proved the dwelling was unoccupied.

Anyway it is good Irish taxpayers can feel certain the RTB is doing good work, the tenant's wanted compensation as they were upset and hurt. But they did not want substantial compensation which is why the low award was made.

 

[Bronte]

Based on an FB group I lurk on, this seems to be an increasing problem. If you get on the wrong side of the tenant at all, in revenge problems suddenly turn up and they are off to the sympathetic RTB Tribunal for compensation. This will get worse with the 6 year/permanent tenancies.

This bit @stormy might add to his list of cases because it's unreal that now hearsay evidence is fine for the RTB

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hearsay evidence is fine in this case.

The landlord could have attended to challenge it.

 

[Bronte]

Hearsay evidence is fine in this case.

The landlord could have attended to challenge it.

I’ll bear that in mind the next time I’m at an RTB hearing where my tenants don’t bother to show up. And quite a tale I have to tell on many of my tenants. But you know what, I’ve the feeling it wouldn’t be allowed.

 

[Colin4444]

Clearly the newspaper headlines are working. All us landlords are all out to evict our tenants every day to get higher rents.

Yeah to get higher rents More like to get out of the farce that is the PRS...
Last today for me, I hope... sale should complete tomorrow