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.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
RESIDENTS OF DUBLIN’S Tathony House intend to stay put in the property beyond this Friday, saying they have nowhere else to go.
As the eviction date has inched closer, tenants have become increasingly vocal about their landlord’s decision to sell the property and evict 34 households in the process.
Now, with just 48 hours to go, the residents are planning another rally at midday on Friday to protest what they deem an illegal eviction.
The ten remaining households were ordered to move out by 2 June, but say will remain in situ until their case with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) has concluded, as is their legal right.
There were 34 households in the building when the eviction notice was served, but some who moved out since have had to relocate to places like Meath and Dundalk as they were unable to find a home in Dublin.
Madeleine Johansson, a People Before Profit councillor and Tathony tenant of 14 years, told TheJournal there was “no indication” that the landlord wanted to sell before the notice was served in October.
“We’ve just assumed that we’d be able to stay here.”
The tenants argued that the mass eviction violates the Tyrrelstown Amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act of 2016, which prevents property owners from evicting 10 or more units of their property, unless they would be caused “undue hardship” financially by allowing the tenants to stay.
Johansson believes that people who work in Dublin should be able to live there too.
“That’s very simple that that should be the case.
“We’re not going to volunteer to go outside of Dublin because it just doesn’t make any sense if we work here.”
She said that the landlord’s decision has affected the mental health of tenants, which include a cancer patient, a lone parent and healthcare worker.
“It’s been very stressful because you’re constantly sort of thinking ‘okay, where are we going to be in six months’ time?’ That not knowing part of it is really hard,” she said.
“It’s mentally very stressful.”
The landlord could hypothetically sell to Dublin City Council and keep the tenants in situ but, according to tenants, when the council contacted him, he didn’t respond.
The landlord did not respond to a request for comment from The Journal.
Johansson and her partner James O’Toole have spearheaded the tenants’ campaign, with O’Toole saying that there has been a “profound change” in the attitudes of the building’s tenants since the eviction ban was lifted.
Johansson said: “We wouldn’t have known our neighbours very well here before… you’d just say hello to people in the corridor and that would be it really.
“But I suppose we felt it was important to get in touch and let our neighbours know what rights they have – because we thought that this was not a legal eviction – to make sure that people were aware that they could take the case to the RTB.”
If the eviction is found to be illegal, the notice period will restart from when a new legal notice is served, giving tenants like Johansson another 224 days to find somewhere else.
“It does give us more time but in reality I don’t believe that the housing crisis will be sorted in nine months’ time because obviously we’re seeing lots of people with notices to quit and where are all those people going to go? There’s not going to be enough space for those people,” she said.
“I don’t see that changing in that period of time, which is why we’re saying that we shouldn’t be evicted, full stop.”
Johansson is originally from Sweden, but has lived in Dublin for 18 years. All her family are still in Sweden.
“A lot of people in this building are migrant workers who are here working, contributing to our society, but most of them wouldn’t have family here and wouldn’t have that option,” she said.
“If they were evicted, they wouldn’t have been able to go and stay with family, so they would have to go into emergency accommodation.”
Gianluca Pollastro came here from Italy 10 years ago and has been living in Tathony House for the last three.
He has just finished chemotherapy for lung cancer, which he is still recovering from.
Speaking to TheJournal, he said: “In six months I couldn’t find a place to move, so I’m really worried to be homeless. I don’t know where to go … there is no place to go.
He described “crazy pricing” – €1,400 for a room – and the struggle to get a viewing, or even a response from landlords he contacted.
There is no place to go.
Pollastro has no family in Ireland that he could stay with while he finds permanent alternative housing.
“I’m on my own here,” he said.
“I feel quite desperate honestly, because I’m in Dublin three years. That’s my country, I choose this country.
“But if I don’t get accommodation, I have to work in Italy. You know, leave everything, leave my life here… live with my mum again like 24 years ago.”
He said that while he was confident the RTB will rule in the tenants’ favour, “they took too long”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
They should stay.
@Mary Nugent:
Surely you’re entitled to sell your own property
@Mary Nugent: On what grounds should they stay? So because the owner previously rented accommodation to them, now that he wants to sell up, he should not be allowed do that? Who would be a landlord is all ill say.
@Dramafree 2023: Who would want to see a group of people without a home based on one’s decision to sell.. Ruthless during a time like this.
@Cat Reid: maybe they want to retire! They should be allowed to sell! I would NOT be a landlord under these conditions. Should rules change in regards to rental so everyone knows the rules, yes, but I do not believe I should not be able to sell my property and “get out” of my investment. And no I’m not a landlord btw.
@Cat Reid: maybe he has no choice but to sell financially? It is not always an option to keep things. I myself had to sell in order to house my children.
@Cat Reid: So you don’t believe in private property rights?
@Cat Reid: they have an offer from the council to buy at market value. This would keep the tenants from becoming homeless and get the building owner the same amount of money that he would get from the buyer he has lined up. He is refusing to engage with the council. There are laws in place to protect tenants in buildings with over 10 units. This landlord is trying to get around those legal protections.
Johansson the ‘poor’ radical marxist who wears a lovely Belstaff coat @ €1250.
@McMahon G: why , is she not entitled too. We’re you ever questioned as to how you dress. Would you prefer her to be in a track suit
@McMahon G: should we care less? Maybe he had to invest in a warmer coat to keep himself warm in a poorly insulated apartment. Regardless of that its a pathetic observation and you are completely missing the point of the article.
If it causes undue financial hardship then let the RTB cover the additional costs until they find somewhere else to live.
So heres the thing, I’m probably like a lot of people who met someone later in life. Both my partner and myself have houses. I’m pretty much moved in with her full time, but I’m not ready to sell nor do I plan on selling in the near future.
I could rent my property, but why would I, what if things broke down and I needed my place back to live in, I’d have to rent for 2 years while I go through the RTB and courts to have my tenant removed… No thanks… much easier to just leave it idle and let it increase in value.
People here really need to cop on with their approach to landlords. Most are decent people who have an extra property or vacant property through inheritance, meeting someone later in life or changes in personal circumstances.
They are not evil money grabbing opportunists that the media are making out them to be
@Turbofresh: your situation is different than this landlords. As a landlord with only one property you’re not obligated to follow the rules of the Tyrellstown agreement. You would have no issue if you wanted the property to move into or even to move family into. You would just have to give your tenants the required notice. This situation involved a building with over 30 units. There are different rules for corporate landlords.
@Gearóid MacEachaidh: You obviously didnt see Paul Murphy grandstanding in the dail the night they lifted the evicition ban telling people to flout the law and overhold and explain how difficult and long a process it would be for the landlord to remove the tenant
The Landlord owns the property, gave loads of notice, can do as he pleases. They have no legal right to stay
have your say