Totally on for this. Cream egg brought up three cases yesterday. I agreed with the prtb decision in each case. Why don't you pick the first of those for us to deal with as a starter.There have been a number of posts in this forum concerning aspects of the law surrounding residential tenancies and specifically the operation of the Rental Tenancies Board.
Some excellent points have been made and some genuine concerns raised, however there has also been an amount of unreasonable comment and some criticisms put forward about the operations of the RTB which are simply unfounded.
I thought it might be worthwhile to examine some decisions of the RTB and ground some some observations in fact.
The tenant went to the RTB for unlawful termination and was awarded €1,500 . The tenant appealed on the basis that
" 'it wasn't enough' to reflect the inconvenience and distress ".
The appeal body ruled the termination lawful, and awarded the landlord €1,800 because the tenant had failed to maintain the property.
Sorry I cannot post the link to the above. The case is
Report of Tribunal Reference No: TR0118-002812 / Case Ref No: 0917-37332
Perhaps some frequent poster could provide the link.
There are a lot of references to the Tribunal preferring the evidence of the landlord, which would appear to suggest that a number of facts were in dispute.
I think it would be better to start with a run of the mill case rather that start by looking at decisions that might be considered unreasonable or involving unusual sets of facts.
This case involves a dispute over the return of a deposit.
Timeliness.
First to look at the timelines. The tenant applied to the RTB on 20 Sept. The first hearing was on 19 Dec, so a 3 month wait. The decision was to award the tenant a partial refund of deposit €629.
The tenant appealed on 30 January and a tribunal was held on 18 April, so an 11 week wait. The decision was to increase the partial refund of deposit to €2,032.
Points to note in the decision.
The landlords had no evidence as to the state of the property before the tenant moved in, so their claim that the tenants had caused damage was dismissed.
The landlords were awarded cleaning costs, for what might be considered trivial matters, and this despite evidence that the tenants had employed a cleaner.
It was found that the landlords had unreasonably withheld part of the deposit, however no sanction was imposed in connection with this.
Bias in the decisions of the RTB
In my opinion some issues lend themselves to being easier for one party than the other. In this case we see two instances of this. The matter of cleaning being an easy point for the landlord. The matter of damage being very difficult, although that in the absence of moving in photos.
I see no reason to claim bias in the decisions of the RTB in this case.
Hi Sarenco
You and I could listen to conflicting evidence and we might validly make different judgements on whom to believe.
But this seems fairly damning to me:
7.2. Finding: The Appellant Tenant breached her obligations in accordance with s.16 (f) of
the Act by allowing the property to fall into disrepair. The Tribunal awards the Respondent
Landlord the sum of €1,800 in respect of the breach of the tenant's obligations to maintain
the property and in respect of the tenant’s failure to maintain the integrity of the landlord’s
furnishings, equipment and utensils provided at the beginning of or during the currency of
the tenancy.
Reasons: The Tribunal preferred the Respondent Landlord's evidence in the matter as to
the condition of the property on vacation by the Tenant. Also, the invoice for works was
not disputed. The Tribunal also preferred the Respondent landlord’s evidence in respect
of the contents of the apartment. It finds that the answers of the Appellant Tenant were
less than forthright.
Brendan
Is that the one where the tenant made off with the pots?
Absolutely, that was really my point. I don't have any issue at all with the Tribunal's conclusions but it was clearly based on a judgment as to what weight ought to be given to individual testimony.You and I could listen to conflicting evidence and we might validly make different judgements on whom to believe.
There have been a number of posts in this forum concerning aspects of the law surrounding residential tenancies and specifically the operation of the Rental Tenancies Board.
Some excellent points have been made and some genuine concerns raised, however there has also been an amount of unreasonable comment and some criticisms put forward about the operations of the RTB which are simply unfounded.
I thought it might be worthwhile to examine some decisions of the RTB and ground some some observations in fact.
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?