Landlord claims PRTB determination was to 'rubberstamp' previous decision

A landlord has claimed that a determination by the Private Residential Tenancies Board was made to "rubberstamp" a previous decision while that body was illegally constituted, the High Court heard.

Mr David Pratt was today given leave to challenge a determination made by the PRTB, in a dispute with two of his former tenants, which was originally made while two serving local authority members, Cllr Dessie Larkin FF and Vincent Martin (Green) sat on the board between July and September. Elected representatives are not permitted to sit on the PRTB.

Mr Pratt, of 'The Beeches', Pluckstown, Athboy, Co Meath is seeking a declaration that the determination made on September 19 last and issued by the Board on October 7, 2008 is null and void, has no binding effect and should be set aside.

He further argues that the order was made without lawful authority and that the board cannot re-open and reconsider the matter.

Leave was granted by Mr Justice Michael Peart on an ex-parte (one side only) basis, who made the matter returnable to a date next month.

Today Counsel for Mr Pratt, Mr Cormac Ó Dúlacháin SC, told the High Court that an application for relief against his client was before the board by two former tenants over a property at Heather Hill, Graiguecullen, Co Carlow.

An adjudicator found against Mr Pratt and an award of €1,470 was made against him. That was appealed, and was heard by a Tenancy Tribunal on August 28 last.

In a decision, made on September 9, Mr Pratt was ordered to pay his former tenants a total of €17,535.

It came to light that when that decision was made the Board was unlawfully constituted in that two of its members were elected councillors. Mr Pratt only became aware of the fact when the matter appeared in the national media.

Mr Ó Dúlacháin said that documentation was received that the board called a special meeting "to consider anew" the cases and decisions made when the two councillors were members of the PRTB.

Correspondence was received that during that meeting, held on September 19, more than 100 cases were revisited.

It was Mr Pratt's claim that no proper or adequate consideration could have been given to his or any other case.

That meeting, counsel added, was nothing more than to "rubberstamp" the decision's made when the board was unlawfully constituted.

Mr Pratt further claims that the Tribunal erred in law on grounds including that it awarded damages at the higher end of the scale, and failed to apply the general principals of mitigation, failed to consider evidence he put forward, and awarded compensation to a claimant who was not present at the hearing.

Counsel said that his client has also brought an appeal on a point of law to the High Court in relation to the PRTB's determination. Counsel said that an application will be made to have the matters consolidated and heard together.

The PTRB was established in 2004 and one of its functions is to determine disputes between landlord and tenants.

It has the power to make orders that are enforceable in civil proceedings. It can also bring prosecutions for non-compliance with its orders.