Problem with Landlord and deposit

calvin82

Hi guys just looking for some advice here on a dispute with my landlord. I'll give some background information.

I rented a room in a house just over 1 year ago sharing with two others. I passed on the deposit to the person who was leaving. I informed the landlord of this by message and asked her if she wanted to speak with me about anything. I got no response. I always paid the rent for the room directly into landlords account. I was never asked to sign a lease or made any verbal contract. The house has not been vacant for 5 years and always worked this way, a person moves and the new person pays them on the deposit.

Now one of the other people in the house has left (didn't give us much notice). The landlord is saying we have to cover the rent for the vacant room, we disagreed as we have no lease so no obligation. The landlord argued that she always rented out the house as a whole and had a previous lease (which is lapsed by 3 years and not signed by us) We declined to sign a new lease on the house so have given in our formal written 6 weeks notice.

Now the landlord is saying we owe her the rent on the empty room for the period until we leave. Obviously she will try to keep our deposit saying it's for this.

Can I get your opinions on this? Should I get my deposit back? I didn't sign a lease, I'm giving the correct notice, I think I should get my deposit back

Agent J

Is your landlord registered with the PRTB?

You would know about this because you would have gotten a letter about it to yourself.

I'm going to guess not if they cant even sort out a lease. Tell your landlord if they dont hand back your deposit you will report them and pursue the matter.

Techinically you should give 35 days as per below.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/types_of_tenancy

Did the other person get their deposit back? The landlord should have at least a months worth out of that alone.

Did you ever sign lease on that place? If you didnt then you have nothing extra to pay. If you did then it defaulted to a part 4 tenancy after it lapsed and tbh im not entirely sure where you stand but i cant see how you'd be liable.

goat2

calvin82 wrote: »

Hi guys just looking for some advice here on a dispute with my landlord. I'll give some background information.

I rented a room in a house just over 1 year ago sharing with two others. I passed on the deposit to the person who was leaving. I informed the landlord of this by message and asked her if she wanted to speak with me about anything. I got no response. I always paid the rent for the room directly into landlords account. I was never asked to sign a lease or made any verbal contract. The house has not been vacant for 5 years and always worked this way, a person moves and the new person pays them on the deposit.

Now one of the other people in the house has left (didn't give us much notice). The landlord is saying we have to cover the rent for the vacant room, we disagreed as we have no lease so no obligation. The landlord argued that she always rented out the house as a whole and had a previous lease (which is lapsed by 3 years and not signed by us) We declined to sign a new lease on the house so have given in our formal written 6 weeks notice.

Now the landlord is saying we owe her the rent on the empty room for the period until we leave. Obviously she will try to keep our deposit saying it's for this.

Can I get your opinions on this? Should I get my deposit back? I didn't sign a lease, I'm giving the correct notice, I think I should get my deposit back

have you got anything in writing, did you all come in as a group, or did the landlord find the tenants for each room
these questions are very revelent
when you entered that house, did you rent a room or the whole house,

goat2

I rented a room in a house just over 1 year ago sharing with two others

the above sentence is very important, if it is true

you should demand your deposit back
and you are only answerable for yourself, not others
give us more information on this

calvin82

The person who left didn't give the required notice. It would be fair enough for the landlord to keep their deposit I suppose. Me and the other tenant have given the required 6 weeks written notice.

We didn't sign a lease and paid for the rooms individually into landlords account. The landlord didn't find us, the previous person who was leaving would have advertised on daft and the deposit was passed on. That was back when it was easy to find a person. Landlord didnt care as long as the rent kept going to her account.

RentDayBlues

You are not liable for the rent - tell the LL that you have given your notice as required by law and that if there is any problems with the deposit being returned, you will go to the PRTB

goat2

calvin82 wrote: »

The person who left didn't give the required notice. It would be fair enough for the landlord to keep their deposit I suppose. Me and the other tenant have given the required 6 weeks written notice.

We didn't sign a lease and paid for the rooms individually into landlords account. The landlord didn't find us, the previous person who was leaving would have advertised on daft and the deposit was passed on. That was back when it was easy to find a person. Landlord didnt care as long as the rent kept going to her account.

i am a landlord with past ten yrs, and that landlord is wrong, you only had to give one month notice, you were paying your rent individually means you are not responsible for anyone only yourself, go to the prtb or who ever and they will say the same, you only rented a room, not the house so hard luck to the landlord, they are all wrong

petethebrick

So you're due to move out in six weeks? Don't pay the last months rent in lieu of the deposit maybe

calvin82

petethebrick wrote: »

So you're due to move out in six weeks? Don't pay the last months rent in lieu of the deposit maybe

No, i'd prefer to do things the right way. If i'm entitled to the deposit back I'm happy to bring a case to the PRTB.

Thanks for the replies.

fabbydabby

It doesn't matter if the landlord is PRTB registered or not, you are entitled to go to them as a tenant regardless of whether you are registered or not, the onus is on the landlord, not on you, to make sure that end of things is kosher.

Sometimes threatening the landlord with PRTB action is enough. It's enough to send a chill down the spines of most seasoned landlords - the PRTB's idiotic bureaucracy means that for relatively little effort on your part, you can cost a landlord a fortune in litigation and heartache while navigating through their ridiculous and convoluted appeals process while trying not to breach the private residential tenancies act which is in itself boarderline unconstitutional in the favouritism it affords tenants.

But that's no good to you realistically, short term. So what do you do? Demand your rent and say you're going to the PRTB if you don't get it. You probably will if the landlord has sense, but if he doesn't then go to the PRTB, sit back and let them do the rest (over about 3 faffing years ffs).

you have nothing to lose by going to them, whenyou think about it.

Graces7

fabbydabby wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the landlord is PRTB registered or not, you are entitled to go to them as a tenant regardless of whether you are registered or not, the onus is on the landlord, not on you, to make sure that end of things is kosher.

Sometimes threatening the landlord with PRTB action is enough. It's enough to send a chill down the spines of most seasoned landlords - the PRTB's idiotic bureaucracy means that for relatively little effort on your part, you can cost a landlord a fortune in litigation and heartache while navigating through their ridiculous and convoluted appeals process while trying not to breach the private residential tenancies act which is in itself boarderline unconstitutional in the favouritism it affords tenants.

But that's no good to you realistically, short term. So what do you do? Demand your rent and say you're going to the PRTB if you don't get it. You probably will if the landlord has sense, but if he doesn't then go to the PRTB, sit back and let them do the rest (over about 3 faffing years ffs).

you have nothing to lose by going to them, whenyou think about it.

While appreciating your anger, many of us out here are deeply grateful for the legislation that helps us to deal with landlords .

We have had to move several times because of bad landlords and without the help of Threshold and the PRTB would at this moment be homeless.

We would never take advantage of anyone and certainly not do what these people are doing to you; although we do not know their side of the story of course.

Our landlord has behaved dishonourably and without any awareness of the law and is costing us more than we have, simply. All we need is the money for a new deposit, moving costs and rent where we seek to be. ALL! May as well be a million Euro as things stand.

Yes we are "playing for time" but only to strive to get together the money we need to leave.

And not to be bullied and pushed around.

So please do not think we are all like your tenants.

Graces7

calvin82 wrote: »

No, i'd prefer to do things the right way. If i'm entitled to the deposit back I'm happy to bring a case to the PRTB.

Thanks for the replies.

Must be nice to be able to afford to do that.... ....

Stark

fabbydabby wrote:

the PRTB's idiotic bureaucracy means that for relatively little effort on your part, you can cost a landlord a fortune in litigation and heartache while navigating through their ridiculous and convoluted appeals process while trying not to breach the private residential tenancies act which is in itself boarderline unconstitutional in the favouritism it affords tenants.

Irish tenants have sfa rights when compared to tenants in European countries.

TouchingVirus

goat2 wrote: »

i am a landlord with past ten yrs, and that landlord is wrong, you only had to give one month notice

If you're a landlord then you seriously need to brush up on what happens when a tenant is renting a house where there is no current lease.

When there is no lease in effect, the amount of notice a tenant must give to leave a tenancy is:

Less than 6 months - 28 days
6 or more months but less than 1 year - 35 days
1 year or more but less than 2 years - 42 days
2 years or more but less than 3 years - 56 days
3 years or more but less than 4 years - 84 days
4 or more years - 112 days

So if you sign a lease, and that lease waives the statutory notice in favour of "30 days notice", then that's perfectly fine and that is all the notice a tenant is required to give. But if you sign that 12-month lease in 2008, and are moving out in 2010 (having not signed another lease in the mean time) then you are required to use the above table to figure out how much notice to give. Otherwise the landlord is fully entitled to keep some of your deposit, or chase you for money if your deposit does not cover the amount of days you were short on notice. Believe me on this, my cousin recently had a PRTB case go against her because she gave 30 days notice instead of 56 and the Landlord kept a lot of her deposit.

goat2

TouchingVirus wrote: »

If you're a landlord then you seriously need to brush up on what happens when a tenant is renting a house where there is no current lease.

When there is no lease in effect, the amount of notice a tenant must give to leave a tenancy is:


So if you sign a lease, and that lease waives the statutory notice in favour of "30 days notice", then that's perfectly fine and that is all the notice a tenant is required to give. But if you sign that 12-month lease in 2008, and are moving out in 2010 (having not signed another lease in the mean time) then you are required to use the above table to figure out how much notice to give. Otherwise the landlord is fully entitled to keep some of your deposit, or chase you for money if your deposit does not cover the amount of days you were short on notice. Believe me on this, my cousin recently had a PRTB case go against her because she gave 30 days notice instead of 56 and the Landlord kept a lot of her deposit.

in answer to that, i have a heart, and in these bad times i would give and take, once all utility bills are paid, and my house come back to me in sound order, i am willing to give them their deposit back, as they need it for the next place they are moving to, also i do not go into tittle tattle over broken delph or dining chairs, these can be easily replaced, especially if the person stayed there more than a year, i would be extra nice, as it is easy to get a bad name in this business, that is the way i always operated and have no notion changing from that,
rules are rules, but we do not have to adhere to them if they cause trouble for tenants,
its called
have a heart
if we dole out a bit of respect we get respect

athtrasna

To me the big issue is that the landlord does not have the OP's deposit, they have the original tenant's. The OP would have a clearer case if the money had been paid direct to the LL. Without a lease to clarify sub-letting arrangements, it's messy.

TouchingVirus

goat2 wrote: »

in answer to that, i have a heart, and in these bad times i would give and take, once all utility bills are paid, and my house come back to me in sound order, i am willing to give them their deposit back, as they need it for the next place they are moving to, also i do not go into tittle tattle over broken delph or dining chairs, these can be easily replaced, especially if the person stayed there more than a year, i would be extra nice, as it is easy to get a bad name in this business, that is the way i always operated and have no notion changing from that,
rules are rules, but we do not have to adhere to them if they cause trouble for tenants,
its called
have a heart
if we dole out a bit of respect we get respect

I completely respect your position on this but as a tenant I really suggest that everybody play by the "better safe than sorry" rule. My cousin's old landlady had a heart too, and told her that if she could be out before Christmas and settled up on bills then all was OK (on the phone, so there's no record of this).

Then she withheld the deposit and stopped answering phonecalls, only once answering to say if she kept being pestered she'd go to the Gardai. Pursuing through the PRTB resulted in a judgement against my cousin for failing to provide adequete notice because there was only one 12 month lease signed and she'd been in there for more than 2 years. All of this despite that landlady not being registered.

So I'm a bit dubious about these situations and was simply stating the correct notice periods when a tenant is out of lease

athtrasna wrote: »

To me the big issue is that the landlord does not have the OP's deposit, they have the original tenant's. The OP would have a clearer case if the money had been paid direct to the LL. Without a lease to clarify sub-letting arrangements, it's messy.

It's not all that messy to be honest. The OP paid whoever was leaving the deposit, which implies that the money the Landlord had from that old tenant is now their deposit. The only person who can really dispute this is the old tenant who can say they never got the deposit back and that the OP didn't give them money but I suspect even this will fail. The landlord had their chance to query/confirm/compain about this arrangement but didn't, after all it's been over a year since this took place.

With no lease in force, and with everybody paying the Landlord directly for their own room, I believe there's a high chance the OP will get their deposit back and the landlord can keep the deposit of the person who left without giving notice and chase them for any extra days rent they are owed.

calvin82

Hi All yes I gave the required notice as per the residential tenancies act. I sent this in formal writing.

As for the passing on of the deposit, the landlord was informed of this when I first moved in and didn't have any problem with it. This had been happening for 4 years or so with other people, she was quite happy not to have deal with deposits each time someone moved. The problem only arises now that its not easy to get tenants.

I suppose i'm lucky I have savings so can wait for the deposit if it has to go to the PRTB. I'll see what happens, I might still get the deposit back when I move, will have to wait and see.

Also I don't like to think of it as threatening to go to the PRTB, I just suggested it as a means of dispute resolution.

fabbydabby

Stark wrote: »

Irish tenants have sfa rights when compared to tenants in European countries.

If walking away from a twenty four thousand euro rent arrears debt with nothing more than a slap on the wrists is sfa in rights, it's makes me glad i never rented in 'European countries'!

Anyway I had to sell that place to avoid losing my home. Lesson learnt. The hard way. Back on topic - My point still stands - one can 'buy time' quite effectively, my guy bought about four years of rent-free time, and you can too!

Stark

Slight thread hijack but this might be of interest to people: http://www.threshold.ie/page.asp?menu=102&page=301

sesna

calvin82 wrote: »

I rented a room in a house just over 1 year ago sharing with two others. I passed on the deposit to the person who was leaving. I informed the landlord of this by message and asked her if she wanted to speak with me about anything.

Just a small thing I read in your OP. I f*ucking hated that system of passing deposits to a randomer, only to be left with the burden of renting a room out when leaving. That is NOT the job of the tenant, especially when rents were constantly dropping in the market and it was impossible to secure a tenant at previous rental prices. In latter years, I refused to engage in that c*rap, I'd only give desposit to landlord and get a receipt for it.

The stuff that goes on in the rental sector is beyond belief in this country, both on the part of landlords and tenants. The law is a complete ass in both instances also and offers minimalist protection.

Graces7

fabbydabby wrote: »

If walking away from a twenty four thousand euro rent arrears debt with nothing more than a slap on the wrists is sfa in rights, it's makes me glad i never rented in 'European countries'!

Anyway I had to sell that place to avoid losing my home. Lesson learnt. The hard way. Back on topic - My point still stands - one can 'buy time' quite effectively, my guy bought about four years of rent-free time, and you can too!

A few weeks suffices for me!!

We are not all cheats and grabbers.... I had planned to be here years.... He could and should have waited until the lease expired.