The High Court has overturned a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) finding that a woman was lawfully given a notice to leave her residence by her landlord due to an alleged incident of anti-social behaviour by one of her children.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Garrett Simons upheld an appeal, brought on a point of law, by Carine Kapihga Iyaba against the RTB’s determination that her landlord’s decision to serve her with a notice terminating her tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour was valid.
The notice was issued in respect of a property at Boiroimhe, Swords, Co Dublin, where Ms Iyaba has lived for many years.
The judge, whose decision allows her to remain at the property, said the RTB had erred in its finding that Ms Iyaba had “allowed” the alleged incident of anti-social behaviour to occur. She was out of the country at the time of the incident, which took place at a property in the same housing estate where she resides.
Katie Taylor v Amanda Serrano: TV details, fight time and all you need to know
Paul Howard: I said I’d never love another dog as much as I loved Humphrey. I was wrong
Show Clint Eastwood some respect. His new film Juror #2 is no dud
Reusable cloth nappies vs disposables: would you put €500 a year in the bin?
[ The Residential Tenancies Board: Is it fit for purpose?Opens in new window ]
While that in itself was not a reason for setting aside the RTB’s decision, the judge said the specific facts of this were that she was not liable for, nor could she have reasonably anticipated nor prevented, the incident of anti-social behaviour.
The judge added that the court’s conclusions were reached due to the “very specific circumstances of this case”. He further ruled that it should not be remitted back for a rehearing by the RTB.
The RTB’s Tenancy Tribunal, which made the decision, “cannot lawfully uphold the notice of termination on the facts found by it”, he added.
The judge said the matter centred around an incident that occurred on November 21st, 2021, when Ms Iyaba’s eldest son is alleged to have turned up at the property of a neighbouring family in the company of 20 other people. It is claimed that he broke that property’s front door, two windows and damaged the owner’s van, resulting in gardaí being called.
The family living at that property claimed that they were left terrified as a result of the incident. The incident was alleged to have been sparked by the owner of the damaged property turning up at Ms Iyaba’s property and making a complaint about an incident where his young son was alleged pushed by Ms Iyaba’s younger son.
Ms Iyaba was not in Ireland at the time of the incident and her parents were caring for her children at the time.
The complainant denied claims that he used bad language or shouted at Ms Iyaba’s parents. He also rejected claims that he had assaulted one of her sons and had aggravated matters by using a stick.
Last December, the RTB found the landlord’s decision to issue a notice terminating her tenancy over the incident was valid.
Represented by Paul O’Shea, Ms Iyaba appealed that decision to the High Court on several grounds including that the RTB was wrong to rely on video evidence taken by a member of the complainant family, as well as a finding that the house where the anti-social behaviour allegedly occurred was in the vicinity of her residence.
It was further argued by Ms Iyaba’s lawyers that the RTB was biased against her because it was aware of allegations in relation to a subsequent unproven incident of November 26th, 2021.
The RTB had opposed the action, where the Dublin Simon Community was a notice party.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Simons rejected all of the applicants’ grounds except the claim that the board had erred by finding she had allowed the alleged incident of anti-social behaviour to occur.
She had not breached her obligations of the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act to allow other occupier or visitors to the dwelling to behave within it or in the vicinity in a way that is anti-social.
The RTB had erred in law when making that finding and that the notice of termination of Ms Iyaba’s tenancy from her landlord was valid, he concluded.