A LANDLORD HAS been ordered to pay almost €20,000 to a former tenant after she evicted the man before then using the apartment for short-term lettings.

The Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) has ordered landlord Gerda McLoughney to pay the sum of €19,522.50 to Fernando Lima for the “unjust deprivation” of the apartment at Drury Hall, 23-27 Stephen Street Lower in Dublin 2.

The RTB heard the case arose after McLoughney, aged in her 80s, had planned to occupy the property when Lima left, but changed course following the sudden death of her husband last year.

The RTB accepted that the death of McLoughney’s husband may have caused “may have caused a genuine change” in her plans, but said that this did not relieve her of her “obligation to offer the dwelling back” to the tenant before letting it to third parties.

Lima had complied with the original eviction notice, which provided him the statutory 180 days before vacating, and left Drury Hall in January 2025, where he had been paying rent of €1,200 per month.

The tenant told the RTB that the reason given for the notice of termination was that the landlord “required the property for her own occupation and expected to reside there indefinitely”.

Lima initially accepted the validity of the termination notice and the Statutory Declaration that was served on him.

After struggling in a “very difficult” rental market to secure new accommodation, Lima found a property at Grand Canal Harbour, where he told the RTB he was paying €2,650 per month for a year until another tenant rented the second room. He has been paying €1,550 monthly since.

However, after leaving Drury Hall, Lima said he “became aware” that the apartment appeared to be occupied by someone other than the landlord. The RTB heard this led the former tenant to have “documented what he observed and submitted a video recorded on 9 July 2025″ directly to the board.

According to a report published by the RTB’s tribunal, which handles cases, Lima had said this “clearly showed another person in the apartment who confirmed he was staying there until the next day”.

The former tenant argued was evidence that the landlord was offering short-term lets despite previously claiming that she needed it for her own occupation.

Lima argued that he acted in good faith by complying with the eviction notice, but had faced uncertainty and increased financial
pressure due to the new apartment search.

His discovery that the property was being used for short-term lets had “significantly worsened his stress and anxiety at a time when he was already undergoing treatment for an anxiety disorder”, and had been prescribed medication.

When outlining its reasons for its decision, the RTB noted that the tenancy commenced on 4 May 2021, meaning that Lima had acquired protections having remained in continuous occupation of the apartment for more than six months.

One of the limited number of reasons that a landlord can terminate a tenancy in such a scenario is where the landlord requires the property for their own occupation or for a family member.

In McLoughney’s notice of termination, she said that she required the dwelling for occupation by a family member and that it was “to occupy the dwelling indefinitely”.

According to the RTB, a representative for McLoughney, Anne-Marie Matthews, had “stated in hindsight that the property should have been re-offered back to the tenant”, but that this did not happen.

However, Matthews had stressed that McLoughney was never motivated by “personal gain” and had “never put pressure” on Lima to leave.

In a decision signed by tribunal chairperson Michael Vallely, the report said that the RTB had ruled:

“On foot of the aforesaid evidence presented, the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with the undertaking contained in the statutory declaration and that the appellant tenant was unjustly deprived of possession of the dwelling.”

Lima had sought total compensation of €30,084, due to the increased rent he had to pay, as well as the stress, anxiety and pressure caused by the urgent relocation, including medication prescribed for his condition.

While Lima sought a further €9,500 in “aggravated damages”, the RTB said that it does not have jurisdiction to make such an award.

Noting that the tenancy would have run until 2027, the RTB awarded Lima €19,522.50 – this was calculated as the difference in the rent he had paid and will have paid by then for his new apartment.

The award includes €2,500 in damages for the “exacerbation of an existing stress disorder”, the RTB tribunal added.