Paying deposit to person moving out

bill_lumbergh

Hi all!

I see that deposits seem to be a common point of discussion here, but I have a slightly different question to the other threads I see here.

I'm renting a room in a house and am looking to move to a different house. I don't expect to have any problem getting the deposit back at my current house, but what concerns me is a house that I recently viewed and am considering moving into.

The situation is that rather than pay the deposit to the landlord/landlady, I'd have to pay it to the person moving out (because he paid the person there before him, etc.). So it continually works in this cycle.

I'm a little uncomfortable with this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it puts the onus on you to recruit someone else to take over your room whenever you move out and if you can't do this before the time you leave, you could run the risk of losing your deposit.

Also, I know of two people who have been scammed by this in the past. A few years ago, a friend from Germany was staying in Dublin and actually paid her deposit to one of the guys still living in the house, who said he was going to forward it on the fella who'd moved out. But then when she was leaving and had been unable to find someone to take her room, he refused to do the same for her, saying that he only did it for the other fella because he was a close friend. (Presumably he ended up pocketing both their deposits.) And she lost about €500.
And the exact same thing also happened to my cousin a couple of years earlier.

I really like the room and house that I viewed, but this is the main sticking point for me.

Does anyone have any experience with this situation? Anyone else been scammed like this or do you reckon it's safe?

Thanks for your advice!!

Bill

Xiney

I wouldn't move into a house share with this situation going on. You are essentially not paying a deposit to the landlord anyway, so if anything goes wrong, he/she will go after you all for money in any case.

As long as you give notice, fulfil your lease obligations (ie, don't skip out early on a fixed term lease) and don't damage anything beyond wear & tear, you should be entitled to your deposit back.

NewFrockTuesday

I would pay the landlord and the landlord only. The only place Ive seen this system work is in LOndon with high turnover of occupancy - Oz and Kiwi houses in SheperdsBush for example. Its different here and with the rate of room occupany at an all time low, the chances of you getting your dep back are pretty low - unless you flip someone on into your room.

jimmycrackcorm

It only makes sense to pay a deposit to a person that you can actually get it back from otherwise it is a lending system.

bill_lumbergh

Thanks guys! Yeah, that's a very good point about it being more suitable for a big city with high turnover.
I think I'm going to play it safe and give this place a miss.

You'd wonder how this system first started... the 1st tenant wouldn't have had anyone to pay, but still collected from the 2nd tenant?

gagalina

honestly, I wouldnt worry about it... that's the way I've always done it. The first bunch of tennants would have paid the deposit, and it then just gets "recycled" through all the new tennants...
When the last bunch of tennants moves out, they get the deposit back from the landlord...
In our case it was just easier.

Gagalina

Xiney

gagalina wrote: »

honestly, I wouldnt worry about it... that's the way I've always done it. The first bunch of tennants would have paid the deposit, and it then just gets "recycled" through all the new tennants...
When the last bunch of tennants moves out, they get the deposit back from the landlord...
In our case it was just easier.

Gagalina

Except let's say you move in, pay your deposit to the leaving tenant. You all decide to move out at the same time, except the landlord won't return the original deposits paid to him because there's been things broken in the house, before you were even there.

I wouldn't do it. Too many opportunities for problems.

Woger

I used this method a few times and it worked ok (twice I knew people in the house laready but the last time I lost out a small bit but that had more to do with me moving overseas).
It's ok provided you find out from the landlord that they actually hold a deposit for the room as they might decide they want everyone to vacate the house for repairs etc
What is the effect of rising rents? Say the landlord holds a deposit for 300 but rent rises to 350 over time and you pay 350 but the landlord holds 300, you end up being stuck for the difference.
Just don't take the word of the current tenants get it officially from the landlord.

gagalina

Xiney wrote: »

Except let's say you move in, pay your deposit to the leaving tenant. You all decide to move out at the same time, except the landlord won't return the original deposits paid to him because there's been things broken in the house, before you were even there.

I wouldn't do it. Too many opportunities for problems.

You make a good point there... Guess we just had a great landlord and good people living in the house - if something got broke (and it was our fault) - we fixed it.

Xiney

oh no, don't get me wrong I see how it could work.

However I see a lot of ways that it could not, and personally, that's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Then again, I started my adventures of tenancy in a city with VERY strict tenancy laws that didn't even allow landlords to request a deposit at all. (Then again you'd be out on your ass a lot quicker than here if you messed up and didn't pay rent)