We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Alamy Stock Photo

High Court dismisses tenant's appeal against RTB's decision in favour of landlord

The tenant argued that the RTB shouldn’t allow her tenancy to end after her landlord said she would not accept rent in the form of HAP.

THE HIGH COURT has dismissed a tenant’s appeal against a finding by the Residential Tenancies Board that the landlord of a property in Galway was entitled to terminate the tenancy.

The appeal, which was dismissed by Justice Garrett Simons, was brought by Regina Fitzpatrick who claimed that the board should not uphold the validity of the notice to terminate her tenancy after the landlord Sinead Brett had said she would no longer accept rent in the form of a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).

In his decision, the judge noted that the landlord’s indication was given after the notice of termination of the tenancy of a house located at Roscaoin, Roscam, in Galway had been given.

The Residential Tenancies Board (RTB), is a public body that regulates the housing rental sector.

Its remit includes resolving disputes between tenants and landlords.

In his ruling, the judge said that the most serious part of the action against the RTB, where the landlord was a notice party, was the claim that she was discriminated against under the 2000 Equal Status Act.

It was claimed that the act prevents discrimination in the provision of accommodation on the grounds that a person is in receipt of the Housing Assistance Payment.

It was also argued that the RTB is required under the 2014 Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act to take action to eliminate discrimination.

The court noted that Fitzpatrick, who had represented herself in the matter, was one of two tenants of Brett’s property.

In 2017, she entered into a tenancy agreement where the rent payable was €1,470 per month, and a security deposit of €1,300 was paid.

In early August 2021 a warning letter was sent to Fitzpatrick over arrears of rent of over €4,200 that were due and owing at that time.

The judge noted that Fitzpatrick had apologised for this and had said that she intended to pay the arrears once she was paid an inheritance she was due to get.

On 31 August 2021, notice of termination of the 2017 agreement was served.

The matter went to adjudication before the RTB, which in early 2022 found in favour of the landlord.

Fitzpatrick appealed that decision to a tribunal of the RTB.

In March 2022, the landlord said in a WhatsApp message to Fitzpatrick that she would no longer be accepting rent in the form of the HAP.

In June 2022, an RTB tribunal upheld the earlier decision in favour of the landlord.

Fitzpatrick appealed the tribunal’s decision on a point of law to the High Court.

The judge, who said that it was “difficult to identify the precise point of law relied on” by Fitzpatrick in the appeal, said the application should be set aside for several reasons.

These included that the argument raised by the tenant the appeal had not been raised before the RTB’s tribunal, and therefore could not be considered by the High Court, the judge said.

An appeal against an RTB tribunal’s decision can only be made on a point of law arising from the determination under appeal, the judge said.

The judge said that the tenancy had validly come to an end in September 2021 and the landlord’s decision not to accept HAP payments was communicated in March 2022.

It would not have been open to the tribunal to consider the events of March 2022, the judge added.

He said that he had also refused a request made to the court by a friend of the applicant to adjourn the case, when it came before him earlier this month.

The only evidence put before the court in support of the adjournment was a report from Fitzpatrick’s GP which he said did not address if her medical condition affected the tenant’s ability to participate in legal proceedings.

Aodhan O Faolain