RTB Watch

C

cremeegg

Registered User
Messages
4,156
New user P O Flaherty started this thread. I moved some earlier posts into the thread to keep them all in the one place - Brendan

Original post by P

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.



https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0717-002495/TR0717-002495-DR0517-34062 Report.pdf

Here is an RTB tribunal report where the landlord forcibly evicted the tenant. The circumstances seem fairly extreme, in that the landlord acted in a fairly extreme manner, there were only minor rent arrears, the tenant ended up sleeping in his car.

The landlord was ordered to pay €4,500.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.rtb.ie/documents/TR0617-002448/TR0617-002448-DR0517-33923 Report.pdf

This is a goody. 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.
 
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.
 
I think it's fair to say that some posters perceive that the RTB's dispute resolution service is too slow and that the RTB displays a distinct pro-tenant bias in its determinations.

It's certainly true that the RTB was grossly under-resourced in the past but I don't think that's really the case any more (at least judging by the significant drop in the average time taken to resolve disputes in recent years).

I don't know where the alleged pro-tenant bias comes from - I can't see it myself.
 
P O Flaherty said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Very good idea your suggestion. As a landlord of many years I welcome this.
 
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.
 
cremeegg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether there is tenant bias in the RTB or not, but they clearly made the wrong decision in this case. The Tribunal's arguments seem clear.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan

I certainly don't disagree with the Tribunal's decision but I'm not sure this case was particularly clear-cut. 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.
 
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.
 
P O Flaherty said:
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.
Click to expand...

Link: results/listing/eyJyZXN1bHRfcGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaC1yZXN1bHRzXC9saXN0aW5nIiwia2V5d29yZHMiOiIwOTE3LTM3MzMyIiwiY29sbGVjdGlvbiI6ImFkanVkaWNhdGlvbl9vcmRlcnN8dHJpYnVuYWxfb3JkZXJzIn0

20 September 2017 Tenant lodges case
19 December case heard.

Deposit 3825, damages of 1915 (high) deposit returned of 1280 (so far not a bad landlord) but a sum of 629 was also wrongly kept by the landlord.

Opinion: 3 months is not bad, but the tenant is now 3 months out of pocket, so that's hard on the tenant.

Questions: Is the decision on the case on the 19th December immediately given to the two parties?

What happens in this case if the landlord decides not to pay the €625?
 
Last edited:
TRIBUNAL

An appeal was lodged a month later by the tenant, on 30th Jan 2018.

And a Tribunal was held on the 18th April (we are now 7 months with the tenant not having his deposit back)

Opinion: The PRTB were correct in their reasoning. It's a high end property. The landlords were nitpicking about the 1st of the month instead of the actual 5th of the month (like who does that !). The landlords did not supply before pictures, they presented a quotation for the floors instead of a receipt and in all reasonablness I'd say the floors were damaged by the previous tenants and never corrected as the cost of that makes no sense.
- Landlords shouldn't put in expensive flooring that is easily damaged.
- it would do my head in to have to supply 93 items of linen ! Never mind have to give precise instructions on what type of cleaning products to use.
 
Last edited:
Sarenco said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
P O Flaherty said:
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.
Click to expand...

- Surely it's unfair to the tenants who are out of pocket from August until at least April (9 months)
- I thought that witholding deposits was an absolute no no and that it was severly punished
- Worst of all is why such a turn around in the tenant's favour (which I agree with ) from the original case. That means the first hearing was incorrect.
- don't understand why landlords don't give back the deposit on the day of inspection
 
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess said:
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
Click to expand...

Is that the one where the tenant made off with the pots?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You and I could listen to conflicting evidence and we might validly make different judgements on whom to believe.
Click to expand...
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.
 
P O Flaherty said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you think of this case?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...ordeal-with-rentdodging-tenants-37317965.html

- 18,000 € in rent arrears
- 6,000€ damage caused by tenant
- 18 months to get the tenant out
- € unknown legal costs
- 3 noise complaints to landlord, what Ann the landlord didn't realise is that the RTB would make her responsible for the social behaviour of the tenant and they can take her to court to force her to act
- tenant played the RTB beautifully, and she did it twice, for those that don't know what that means, it's when the tenant telephones the RTB on the day of the hearing/meeting and tell the RTB they are sick, giving them another couple of months to do damange and pay no rent (for those cases the RTB should convene a meeting within the week, they should have a special panel for this, especially cases where there is no rent coming in)
- the termination order, was of course, useless. Toothless and pointless order. (why does the RTB allow this situation, why don't they ask for powers to enforce the termination orders without telling the landlord to go to court)
- clearly the RTB then washed their hands of Ann the landlord and told her, the only option now for her was to go to court, more costs, (Why does the RTB not go to court for the landlrods, we landlords are the one's who are paying for the RTB)
- Landlord finally had a court order, also useless, because now there's another procedure, the acquiring of an execution order, and then - more costs of hiring a bailiff/sheriff (the whole point of the RTB was that we didn't have to go to court, yet here once again we see that all the RTB does is delay the landlord getting their property back and the tenant playing the game by stringing it out for 18 months)
- When the landlord got into the property she discovered the damage. 6K worth. And of course neither the court order, not the RTB order cover those costs as the landlord would have to take another RTB case to find that she was entitled to those costs, you can be sure Ann isn't going to waste her time going down that route
- The RTB should have a name and shame section on their website, I'd like to know those tenant's name and I'd also like to see a link to the damage they did to warn other landlords, I can guarantee today that those tenant's are doing the exact same thing to another landlord.
- They can have a name and shame on landlords too
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top