Couple who owe landlord €12,000 also trashed house, court told

Colin and Sally Devitt have one week to leave house in Tyrconnell Park, Inchicore

General view of Tyrconnell Park in Inchicore, Dublin.

General view of Tyrconnell Park in Inchicore, Dublin.


Tenants, who owe their landlord almost €12,000 in unpaid rent, also trashed the furniture in the house they still live in, the Circuit Civil court was told on Thursday.

Judge Jacqueline Linnane enforced a possession order granted to landlord Christine Vial for her property at Tyrconnell Park, Inchicore, Dublin, which gives the tenants a week to leave.

She also granted Ms Vial judgment for €11,961, jointly and severally, against tenants Colin and Sally Devitt.

Judge Linnane said a letter had been filed from Ms Vial outlining the damage done to the house. Holes had been knocked in walls and wardrobes and furniture broken down and put in the attic.

“I am told the house needs a deep clean and Ms Vial does not know what state her curtains are in as they had been taken down and also put in the attic,” Judge Linnane said.

She said there was no way the rent security deposit of several hundred euro was going to go anywhere near rectifying the damage “these people” have done to the property.

Ms Vial, in her letter, stated: “I could not face entering the property last night to see the damage for myself, but I will do so. I imagine more damage will come to light.”

Judge Linnane said the Residential Tenancies Board had already granted Ms Vial a determination giving her possession of her property and “the day of reckoning” had arrived for the tenants.

A solicitor for the Devitts told the court they had buried their heads in the sand regarding their problems, but now wanted to face up to the matter. He asked that no order be made against his clients at this stage.

Una Cassidy, counsel for the Board, said she had been instructed to go ahead and seek enforcement of the Board’s decision and judgment against the tenants.

Judge Linnane, granting the Board its legal costs for the court application to enforce its determination, said the Board’s decision had been appealed and a tribunal had to re-hear the matter at the expense of the taxpayer.