Neighbours of a tenant who they claimed regularly filmed them and left notes in common areas containing their “personal information” have failed to have their complaint upheld by a Residential Tenancies Board tribunal.
John Connolly lodged a dispute against Tuath Housing Association, claiming the landlord failed to address alleged antisocial behaviour by one of its tenants.
Mr Connolly told the tribunal he had lived in an apartment near Blarney Street, in Cork city, for five years, claiming he had been experiencing “significant issues” with his neighbour throughout that time.
Detailing some of this alleged antisocial behaviour, he claimed his neighbour placed notes in the main hallway and on doors which contained personal information about him and other residents.
READ MORE
He further claimed the tenant regularly filmed and took photographs of him, his family, other residents, and of cars outside the building, while on one occasion he had witnessed the tenant “banging doors late at night”.
On a separate occasion, he contacted Tuath because he had not been receiving any post, which he believed was due to “interference” by the tenant. Tuath subsequently replaced his post box, the tribunal heard.
Mr Connolly told the tribunal that “grease” had been placed on the windows and doors of the common areas within the building in a separate incident, saying he felt the tenant had done this.
Overall, he said he had complained to the landlord on four or five occasions, and although the alleged behaviour “would stop for a while” after Tuath engaged, he claimed it would ultimately recommence.
Judyta Kwiatkowska, another neighbour, agreed with Mr Connolly’s evidence, before claiming the tenant regularly photographed her car.
Both Niamh Kearney, Tuath’s housing services manager, and Melanie O’Driscoll, the antisocial behaviour officer, said they had acted on foot of Mr Connolly’s complaints by engaging directly with the tenant.
Because the tenant would modify their behaviour after engagement, they felt it was not necessarily “persistent”, they said.
The landlord’s representatives confirmed they had engaged with gardaí previously in relation to complaints made.
They told the tribunal they did not have “sufficiently robust evidence” of antisocial behaviour by the tenant to allow them to serve a warning letter or to issue a notice of termination.
They said they would continue to monitor the situation closely, and should they have sufficient evidence to serve a warning letter or notice of termination, they would do so.
The tribunal did not uphold Mr Connolly’s claim that Tuath had breached its obligations as the landlord, saying it was satisfied its engagement had the “desired effect” to modify the behaviour complained of, “albeit in the short term”.
Although Tuath’s actions had not yet resulted in the “complete cessation of the behaviour complained about”, it found it had “clearly proactively engaged” with the tenant with a view to enforcing their obligations and “exhausted all reasonable avenues open to it”.
