A tenant who was left on the side of a busy road wearing very little when evicted from the premises she was renting was awarded €15,760.80 in damages by the rental watchdog.
The tenant was renting a property in Phibsborough, Dublin and took a case with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) alleging her landlord had wrongfully evicted her as she was legally residing in the dwelling.
She disputed any suggestion of being a squatter and submitted that the landlord had not proved that she was ever made aware of the appointment of a receiver to the property.
The RTB Tribunal was told that the tenant on two occasions in 2020 was subjected to men entering the self-contained unit, which was once a shop.
In the first incident in June 2020, the tenant heard banging at the front of the dwelling.
A group of men were banging and trying to remove the door, at which stage they managed to remove it.
She told the Tribunal that she and other tenants rang the Gardaí and that the front door was re-secured and that the men left.
Her landlord informed her that he was still the owner when she contacted him about the incident.
In August 2020, when she was asleep she woke up due to banging and smashing and jumped out of bed where she saw approximately 15 men, all wearing masks, and that they came into her room.
She stated that she was not properly dressed and that they were shouting at her to get up and get out, but she fell down.
She indicated that they smashed a number of items including the toilet, her blender and her sound system and that she telephoned the Gardaí as she genuinely feared for her life as a group of unknown men were attacking her.
She stated that they continued to destroy her personal belongings and pushed her.
Right to dwelling
The tenant said that when the Gardaí arrived, they allegedly indicated that she and other tenants had no right to be in the dwelling and did not listen to them.
She stated that she ended up outside the dwelling and was “wearing very little which was very disturbing and seriously against her culture”. She further outlined that she had to remain outside the dwelling for 12 hours on that day almost three years ago.
She said that the men had smashed a number of items and carried them (away) from the dwelling.
The tenant further outlined that the golden jewellery she owned had gone missing and that it was in a box that was taken on the day, it was an inheritance and that she cherished it.
The woman further outlined that housing activists who were passing by saw what happened and a large number of activists came and helped them.
She indicated that after speaking to a solicitor on the following day, they were able to regain access to the dwelling. The tenant outlined that on regaining access, they saw a number of items had been smashed and items removed.
She explained that she and other tenants who were living in separate units were unable to sleep in the dwelling and that they gradually made the house habitable again over a number of weeks.
The former tenant alleged that the actions of the landlord had made the dwelling close to uninhabitable and much worse than it was before.
The Tribunal heard she had not paid rent because the men had damaged the facilities in the dwelling. She denied that she was allowed time to retrieve her belongings.
The landlord in the case submitted a number of court orders in previous proceedings involving one of the former owners of the dwelling; however, the Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord was bound by the tenancy agreement in this case.
The Tribunal said it was “satisfied” that the landlord was bound by the tenancy agreement in the case as it was entered into before the appointment of the receiver
The tribunal findings stated: “There is no real dispute over what happened as is evident from the videos.
"A large number of men, wearing masks, broke into the dwelling in this case and proceeded to damage a large number of items in the dwelling, including removing doors from hinges and breaking sanitary items, along with removing bannisters, beds and mattresses.
“The intention of these acts can only have been to render the dwelling uninhabitable and had the clearly foreseeable effect of inflicting considerable distress. This is evident from the videos submitted.”
Regardless of whether a dispute as to ownership of the dwelling (was known by the tenant), the actions of the men acting on behalf of the landlord can only have constituted the "most egregious breach” the tribunal found.
“The actions in question were egregious and carried out in wanton disregard of any rights.” the tenant and others may have had, the Tribunal stated.
While the Tribunal does not and cannot award exemplary or punitive damages, the manner of the attempted unlawful eviction is relevant to the level of loss suffered and relevant to the amount of damages in that respect.
The actions of the men were found to be an extreme invasion of the tenant’s privacy, unprovoked, and without warning.
