A Dublin landlord has been ordered to pay €19,522.50 to a former tenant after an RTB Tribunal found that the tenant was unfairly deprived of the apartment following the termination of his tenancy.
The case involved Gerda McLoughney and former tenant Fernando Lima, who rented an apartment at Drury Hall, 23-27 Stephen Street Lower, Dublin 2.
Lima had been paying €1,200 a month for the property before leaving in January 2025.
The tenancy was ended after McLoughney notified Lima that the apartment was required for occupation. Lima complied with the notice and remained in the property for the required 180-day period before moving out.
The circumstances surrounding the property later changed.
Landlord’s plans changed after husband’s death
McLoughney had intended to occupy the apartment after Lima’s departure. However, her plans changed following the unexpected death of her husband.
The RTB Tribunal accepted that the bereavement could have resulted in a genuine change in circumstances.
However, the Tribunal found that this did not remove the landlord’s responsibility to deal with the property in accordance with the commitment made when the tenancy was terminated.
In particular, the apartment was not offered back to Lima before other people were subsequently allowed to stay there.
McLoughney’s representative, Anne-Marie Matthews, told the Tribunal that, looking back, the property should have been offered to Lima again.
Matthews also maintained that McLoughney had not sought to benefit financially from the situation and had not pressured Lima to leave.
Tenant found alternative accommodation at higher cost
Lima told the Tribunal that finding another home was particularly difficult because of conditions in the rental market.
He eventually secured accommodation at Grand Canal Harbour. The rent was €2,650 per month for the first year. After another tenant took the second room, his share of the rent fell to €1,550 a month.
The significant increase compared with the €1,200 rent he had previously paid became an important part of his compensation claim.
Lima later became concerned about the use of his former apartment.
After leaving Drury Hall, he recorded what he observed and submitted a video to the RTB recorded on 9 July 2025.
The Tribunal report said the footage showed another person at the apartment. According to the report, that person indicated that he was staying there until the following day.
Lima argued that this raised concerns about the property being used for short-term accommodation despite the reason originally given for ending his tenancy.
RTB examines termination grounds
The Tribunal noted that Lima’s tenancy had begun on 4 May 2021.
Because he had remained in continuous occupation for more than six months, he was covered by the statutory protections applying to longer-term residential tenancies.
A landlord can only rely on certain grounds to terminate such a tenancy. One of those grounds is where the dwelling is genuinely required for occupation by the landlord or, in specified circumstances, a family member.
The termination notice issued to Lima stated that the property was required for occupation and that the intended occupation was to be indefinite.
Lima initially accepted the termination and the statutory declaration provided with it. He subsequently left the apartment after completing the required notice period.
The dispute arose after the property was not ultimately used in the manner set out in the termination documentation.
Tribunal finds tenant was unjustly deprived
In its decision, the RTB Tribunal concluded that the landlord had not complied with the undertaking contained in the statutory declaration.
Tribunal chairperson Michael Vallely found that Lima had consequently been unjustly deprived of possession of the dwelling.
The finding did not depend solely on the fact that McLoughney’s circumstances had changed. The Tribunal considered that, even after the change in circumstances, the property should have been offered back to the former tenant before being made available to others.
Lima told the Tribunal that the situation had placed him under additional financial and personal pressure.
He sought €30,084 in compensation, including losses associated with the higher rent for his replacement accommodation and the impact of having to relocate.
He also requested a further €9,500 in aggravated damages.
The RTB said it did not have jurisdiction to award aggravated damages.
€19,522.50 compensation awarded
The Tribunal ultimately awarded Lima €19,522.50.
The calculation took account of the additional rent he would have incurred on his replacement accommodation, with the Tribunal considering that the original tenancy could have continued until 2027.
The award also contained €2,500 for the worsening of an existing stress disorder.
The case demonstrates that when a landlord terminates a tenancy on the basis of personal or family occupation, the subsequent handling of the property can remain relevant if the stated plans change.
In this case, the RTB Tribunal found that the change in circumstances following McLoughney’s husband’s death did not remove the obligation arising from the original termination undertaking.
