The Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) has condemned the action of a landlord who attempted to evict a 92-year-old tenant in order to raise rent beyond designated limits, describing his actions as “morally reprehensible”.
Patrick Molloy has been directed to compensate his elderly tenant at The Elms, Charleville Square, Rathfarnham, Dublin, with a sum of €3,750 for failing to comply with his obligations as a landlord, and for causing her undue distress.
Ita McDonnell, the tenant, has made the apartment her home for the last 13 years at a rent of €1,150 per month. The property was purchased by the landlord in May 2022 and within few months, he desired to hike the rent to €1,340, in addition to service charges. Merely three days after his proposal, he delivered a tenancy termination notice, as reported by the tribunal.
The RTB panel, in their latest judgement, deemed both the rent increase and termination notice as invalid. The panel stated that the latter was “born out of annoyance” when Ms. McDonnell resisted the rent increase, and no authentic intent to sell the property was shown by Mr. Molloy.
In their findings, the three-member adjudication board asserted that the termination notice was a ploy “to coerce the tenant into conceding to the raised rent” and to free up the property in order to secure a new tenant and bypass pressure-zone limits. The tribunal expressed its strong disapproval of the landlord’s actions, especially towards an elderly female tenant, which they deemed as “morally unacceptable”.
They decreed that Ms. McDonnell should continue to cover any unpaid rent at the existing rate of €1,150 per month, whilst Mr. Molloy is obligated to pay her €3,750 in damages.
Ms. McDonnell approached the RTB in February 2023, which led to her case being taken to mediation. Subsequent to this, Mr. Molloy lodged an appeal to the board, laying charges of rent arrears, violation of tenant duties and overstaying beyond a valid termination date against the lady.
The occupant lodged an appeal, contending that the eviction notice and rent revision were not legally sound. Her legal counsel, Tom McDonnell, argued that the landlord had no real plan to sell the property, but rather issued the eviction notice as a knee-jerk response to penalise her for questioning his rent revision.
Additionally, the occupant voiced grievances about the significant disruption and distress she experienced due to recent refurbishments in her flat carried out by the management company. She expressed that she was not given prior notice, and as a result, her privacy was violated and she was rendered unable to utilise her kitchen, bedroom or TV for several days as workmen came and went at their convenience.
In response, the landlord claimed that he was compelled to expend around €10,500 on fire-resistant renovations, instructed and enforced by the managing company. He stated that he requested the workmen to communicate directly with the tenant.
Upon rigorous questioning, the landlord refuted allegations that the eviction notice was induced by the occupant’s resistance to his proposed rent hike. Instead, he insisted he was intending to sell the property and had extended an offer to the tenant to purchase it, which she declined.
Although he admitted to potentially raising his voice on occasion, he vehemently denied demanding or shouting at the tenant concerning the rent.
The tribunal held the view that it was obligatory for the landlord to make provisions for the fire-resistant works, hence there was no violation of maintenance duty. While they agreed that the execution of the works was “justified”, they criticised his lack of consideration regarding the effect of a solid six days of work on his elderly tenant.
The adjudicators concluded that it was the landlord’s responsibility to provide the tenant with comfortable and exclusive residence, and in failing to do this, he shirked his legal obligation. As such, they sided with the tenant in their ruling.