Named Galway tenant who alleged men broke into home has claim dismissed
The tenant claimed workmen had broken into her house 20 to 30 times citing instances when they allegedly sprayed chemicals in the property when she away
A woman who alleged that workmen repeatedly broke into her home in Galway and smeared substances on her ceiling and door handles has had her claim dismissed by a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal.
Ann Connolly had been living at 29 Saint Joseph’s Court, Clifden since May 2023, renting from social housing provider Clúid Housing. She also alleged that men had picked her locks and sprayed chemicals on her carpets while she was away.
She told a tribunal hearing that the landlord’s repairmen entered her home without notification whenever she reported maintenance issues, claiming that they waited for her to go shopping or attend appointments before entering.
She alleged that this had occurred between 20 and 30 times since the tenancy began, citing instances where workmen allegedly fixed a leak and sprayed chemicals in the house when she wasn’t home.
Ms Connolly told the tribunal that her health had deteriorated as a result and that her GP had referred her to a counsellor. She installed a security camera, but suggested that the electricity had been turned off to disable it and prevent her from gathering evidence.
After a worker had cleaned her bathroom ceiling following a complaint, she said an oil-like substance was placed on the ceiling and on door handles.
She alleged that individuals had entered the property, going through her belongings, and leaving marks on items to show they had been inside. Ms Connolly suggested workmen gained access by picking the lock or removing the lock from the door entirely.
She added that she had also complained about a downstairs neighbour, had changed the locks four times since moving in, had never given a spare key to any third party, and claimed the landlord was reluctant to investigate anti-social behaviour.
In response, Clúid housing manager Deirdre O’Donnell rejected the allegations in their entirety, telling the tribunal that nobody held a key to the dwelling because Ms Connolly had been removed from the master key system and had subsequently changed the locks herself.
Ms O’Donnell stated that all maintenance complaints were properly logged, investigated, and inspected prior to sending tradespeople such as plumbers or electricians.
She confirmed that a spot of mould had been cleaned following a complaint, but denied that the landlord had caused any contractor to spray the ceiling, door handles, or carpet with any substance.
Ms O’Donnell said the housing body had received no reports of picked locks, had been presented with no evidence of unauthorised entry, and had received no reports of anti-social behaviour.
Housing officer Olivia Murphy confirmed that Ms Connolly had been removed from the master key system shortly after taking up occupancy at her own request. The landlord’s representatives also told the hearing that they had submitted a letter of support to the local authority to assist Ms Connolly’s application for a housing transfer.
In its findings, the tribunal ruled that Ms Connolly’s claim under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 – alleging a failure to allow peaceful and exclusive occupation – was not upheld.
The tribunal noted that the landlord’s records indicated that Ms Connolly was present on each occasion a workman attended the property. It said it was unlikely that a tenant suspecting interference with her locks would fail to report this matter urgently to her landlord.
Finding that the alleged interference with locks and personal belongings was based on pure speculation, the tribunal noted that Ms Connolly could not identify who had allegedly cut power to her camera.
Concluding that there was no evidential basis to support any disruption to her peaceful and exclusive occupation, the tribunal determined that no breach of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act had occurred.