Waterford tenant owed over €20,000 in rent and left apartment in ‘terrible state’

A Waterford tenant who owed over €20,000 in rent and left her apartment in a “terrible state” has had her Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) case dismissed.

Jennifer McCarthy made an application to the RTB over her tenancy at Convent Lodge, Mitchel Street, Dungarvan.

Ms McCarthy argued that the landlord, Focus Housing Association, had breached its obligations as a landlord by removing her belongings from the property after her eviction.

The matter was referred to mediation before Focus Housing submitted an appeal to the RTB.

A tribunal subsequently heard evidence of the dispute that arose between the two parties.

Housing Manager Grainne Murphy gave evidence on behalf of Focus Housing.

Ms Murphy told the tribunal that rent arrears had always been an issue during Ms McCarthy’s tenancy.

She said that in 2023, an RTB adjudicator ruled that a Notice of Termination served on the tenant in June 2022 was valid.

At the time, the tenants were in rent arrears of €9593.14.

This determination found that the tenant and any other persons residing in the dwelling should vacate and give up possession of the dwelling within 14 days.

After this determination, the tenant was asked to remove her belongings.

Subsequently, the landlord got an order in its’ favour from the Circuit Court in February 2024.

The sheriff gave a hand delivered notification to the tenant with regard to the order for repossession on May 15, 2025.

Ms McCarthy was subsequently removed from the dwelling by the sheriff on June 3, 2025, in the presence of the caretaker, John Nolan of Focus Housing Association.

Prior to this, Focus Housing had carried out two inspections of the dwelling, in January 2023 and March 2025.

Under all headings of the inspection report, the dwelling was classified as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

Ms Murphy stated that Focus Housing had an office on site, and a support worker had advised the tenant to remove whatever items she wanted to take prior to the sheriff’s arrival.

The tribunal heard that the tenant never kept any arrangements or collected any of her property.

On July 4, 2025, one month after the tenant vacated, the landlord instructed its security company to come and clear out the dwelling of furniture, appliances and flooring and to clean the dwelling.

Ms Murphy said that Focus Housing had a responsibility and a duty to the local authority to have the property ready for reletting as soon as possible.

A report from the security company stated that each room had to be completely cleared of all domestic waste and furniture.

It further said that the floor coverings throughout the dwelling had to be removed and disposed of and that the internal walls had to be deep cleaned and repainted.

The shed in the back garden had live wiring in it connected to the dwelling which had to be dismantled for safety reasons.

The roof of the shed had collapsed and everything underneath was buried for a long time and was beyond repair.

The security company disposed of the items in the shed.

Ms Murphy told the tribunal that Ms McCarthy had arrears of rent totalling €21,469.58.

Furthermore, €1,940 worth of damage had been done to the electrics at the dwelling.

The removal of debris and cleaning cost €2,213, whilst the repairing of the apartment cost €2,100.

Therefore, Ms Murphy concluded that €27,728.86 had been expended on the dwelling due to the tenant’s lack of maintenance and her rent arrears.

Caretaker John Nolan also gave evidence on behalf of Focus Housing Association.

He began by stating that he was present when the sheriff removed Ms McCarthy from the dwelling on June 3, 2025.

He said, on that day, the apartment was in a “terrible state”. He said that the only thing the tenant took with her was her dog.

The shed in the back garden was “full of rubbish”, and the smell was “unbelievable”.

The caretaker said he heard the sheriff say to the tenant to leave and take what property she wanted.

He stated that the entire dwelling was full of dog faeces, filthy, dirty, and that everything was covered in mould and only fit for the bin.

Mr Nolan said that there was no question of letting the dwelling to anybody else until a big clean-up was carried out, as nobody could possibly move in when the dwelling was in that condition.

Meanwhile, Ms McCarthy told the tribunal that she was given half an hour to remove her possessions when the sheriff arrived to remove her from the apartment.

She stated that she had phoned the landlord numerous times trying to arrange for the collection of her belongings but the phone was never answered.

When asked about the condition of the apartment, the tenant stated: “I know how I was living.”

Ms McCarthy said that there were €15,000 worth of possessions belonging to her in the dwelling and that she now has nothing.

When asked by the tribunal if she knew the sheriff was coming, she stated that she did but did not know the date.

When asked why she did not remove her possession prior to the sheriff coming, she stated that she had no storage and had nowhere to go.

Ms McCarthy concluded by saying that all she had was her apartment and she was now sleeping on the couch of family members.

The tribunal found that the tenant’s claim that Focus Housing had breached its landlord obligations was not upheld.

It said that the landlord had undertaken every possible step to engage with the

Ms McCarthy both prior to and after the sheriff had carried out the eviction.

It argued that the tenant was afforded ample opportunities to arrange collection of her belongings.

It further noted that once a tenancy has officially concluded, a landlord is not responsible for storing or maintaining a tenant’s personal items.

Therefore, the tribunal determined that Ms McCarthy’s application in respect of breach of landlord obligations was not upheld.