Former landlady wants money for structural issues

Danniboo

Hi,

Moved out of property some time ago and landlady couldn't have sang my praises more as a tenant. There's been a damp problem in my room and the damp was in a corner in the bedroom which is at the front of the house. Received a message from landlady saying she's had to replace X, Y and Z due to the damage and a guy that came to look said it's purely down to me not using the extractor fan. How he knows I do or don't use the fan is incredible for a start. Landlady thinks I should pay half, ie to replace the mattress bed linen and a picture and painting, all these items are at least 5 years old and I fail to see how damp is my problem. Any suggestions/advice on how to tackle this situation?

Tell her that it's nothing to do with you and you won't be contributing any cash towards her repairs, refer her to the PRTB if she persists in annoying you.

It's obviously the gable end being damp, common enough issue in older houses that aren't cavity walled.

Ray Palmer

She can't be sure you are the casue of anything. As she can't prove it you have no obligation. It is more an educated guess. You shouldn't need to use a fan in a bedroom. Damp doesn't come from no where.

Interesting you never stated if you did use the fan or not

blackboots

Why is there an extractor fan in the bedroom? This sounds like a problem that would be in a bathroom.

Although she cannot prove that you caused the problem, you were obliged as the tenant to inform the landlord of any repairs which need to be carried out. This is especially important when it comes to things like damp as it gets worse the longer it is left untreated.

We had a tenant once who didn't tell us his extractor fan in the bathroom had broken. We found out when he moved out six months later and the bathroom was covered in mould. We took the cost of repair out of his deposit. Before anyone shouts at me, it is specifically mentioned in our lease that we are to be informed if any extractor fan breaks.

Former landlady suggests that you no longer live there - how long ago did you move out?

I don't see how damp in a bedroom could be your fault.

tricky D

Op she is chancing her arm. This damage is beyond wear and tear so you are in the clear.

EI_Flyboy

tricky D wrote: »

Op she is chancing her arm. This damage is beyond wear and tear so you are in the clear.

Costs for normal wear and tear can't be claimed from a tenant either. Seeing as the bed and linens can be written of against tax as they depreciate their full value after four years she shouldn't be claiming for them either. I mean, she is paying her taxes, right...?

Ray Palmer

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Costs for normal wear and tear can't be claimed from a tenant either. Seeing as the bed and linens can be written of against tax as they depreciate their full value after four years she shouldn't be claiming for them either. I mean, she is paying her taxes, right...?

It would still cost her money regardless of whether she can get some of it back in taxes. 50% of nothing is a lot less than 50% of something every time. Still she can't really claim money after checking the place and returning the deposit. Although this nearly sounds like a boarder situation rather than a standard LL. Who provides linen to a tenant?

Danniboo

blackboots wrote: »

Why is there an extractor fan in the bedroom? This sounds like a problem that would be in a bathroom.

Although she cannot prove that you caused the problem, you were obliged as the tenant to inform the landlord of any repairs which need to be carried out. This is especially important when it comes to things like damp as it gets worse the longer it is left untreated.

We had a tenant once who didn't tell us his extractor fan in the bathroom had broken. We found out when he moved out six months later and the bathroom was covered in mould. We took the cost of repair out of his deposit. Before anyone shouts at me, it is specifically mentioned in our lease that we are to be informed if any extractor fan breaks.

En-suite, there's always been damp in the room since I moved in seems to have got worse quite recently.

Danniboo

Don't thinks landladys registered

Chuck Stone

I think I would laugh at her tbh.

EI_Flyboy

Danniboo wrote: »

Don't thinks landladys registered

Call her bluff so, tell her all the things she's looking for you to cover are consumables so she should be able to write them of against tax, she should talk to her accountant or that you'll be happy to call the Revenue to check with them. Something indirect like you're doing her a favour, it's nice to be nice.

For a definitive answer http://www.threshold.ie would be a good place to take it, these guys know their stuff. Website seems to be down right now though.

antoinolachtnai

What does tax have to do with anything? Just because you can 'write them off against tax' doesn't mean goods don't have to be paid for. (This is quite a different matter from the OP's question.)

EI_Flyboy

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What does tax have to do with anything? Just because you can 'write them off against tax' doesn't mean goods don't have to be paid for. (This is quite a different matter from the OP's question.)

Ok, she's looking for money out of Daniboo's pocket because she feels out of pocket. If the paint, bed and linens are "consumables" it means that they are depreciable and as such get written off against tax over the course of four years. When the landlord files her tax return, the deadline passed yesterday, the amount payable should have been lessened by 25% of the cost of the consumables as should have been done over the previous three years. The cost of the consumables should ultimately come out of the Revenue's tax take and neither the landlord's nor Daniboo's pocket. The fact that the landlord feels out of pocket shows she is ignorant to this, it implies she is unaware of how her tax liability is calculated and as such probably isn't paying her fair share, either paying more or less than she should if she's paying at all. I'm pretty sure that the paint, bed and linens are allowable under current tax law but if you want to check, you'll find Eason's carry the current year tax handbook which you'll find in the basement of their main Dublin branch on O'Connell st. The silver one, taxation summary finance act 2011:

http://www.taxireland.ie/events/34780.aspx

It's full of lots of good stuff.

antoinolachtnai

Since you have this documentation to hand, could you explain the connection between depreciation and the taxation of rental property, making specific reference to the Finance Acts?

Could you also tell me which section of which Finance Act requires the Revenue Commissioners to give full credit for the replacement of taxpayers' assets if they are destroyed? (If you can point me to this section, I would be very grateful, because it would mean that I would no longer need to pay for insurance on assets.)

EI_Flyboy

My bad, it's 12.5% over eight years making up 100% depreciation. 62.5% after five years , that's still more than the 50% she's looking from Daniboo so there's no reason she should feel out of pocket.

http://www.irishlandlord.com/index.aspx?page=infocentre_article_view&id=42

antoinolachtnai

Doesn't say anything there about either

(a) depreciation

or (b) the revenue paying for the full value of the destroyed item.

The Revenue Commissioners are not in the business of compensating landlords for their losses, i.e., destroyed items.

EI_Flyboy

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Since you have this documentation to hand, could you explain the connection between depreciation and the taxation of rental property, making specific reference to the Finance Acts?

Could you also tell me which section of which Finance Act requires the Revenue Commissioners to give full credit for the replacement of taxpayers' assets if they are destroyed? (If you can point me to this section, I would be very grateful, because it would mean that I would no longer need to pay for insurance on assets.)

Unfortunately I don't have it to hand, I have one at home but am not home right now! I haven't worked in insurance so I can't help on that but quite often insurance is a bit of a scam really. Insurance merely buys you peace of mind, the question you'd have to ask is do you feel comfortable you have enough in reserve to cover the speedy replacement of these assets to insure you're not out of pocket in the long run? A minimum of three months income is the general rule of thumb for savings.

EI_Flyboy

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Doesn't say anything there about either

(a) depreciation

or (b) the revenue paying for the full value of the destroyed item.

The Revenue Commissioners are not in the business of compensating landlords for their losses, i.e., destroyed items.

Capital Allowances
Relief against income tax is allowed on items that are purchased to furnish the property. The current allowance is 12.5% of the cost over 8 years (effective since Dec 2002) For example, if you purchase a suite of furniture for €1,000 a capital allowance of €125 per year can be off-set against the rental income for tax purposes for the next 8 years.

That's your depreciation right there. That's saying that you owe the taxman €125 less per year over eight years. The language is confusing is all, this is how professionals make their money, it's called information imbalance.

antoinolachtnai

No, that is a capital allowance. A capital allowance is not the same as depreciation.

I haven't worked in insurance so I can't help on that but quite often insurance is a bit of a scam really. Insurance merely buys you peace of mind, the question you'd have to ask is do you feel comfortable you have enough in reserve to cover the speedy replacement of these assets to insure you're not out of pocket in the long run?

If the revenue are going to pay me to replace my broken stuff, as you say, why would I need to even consider buying insurance? It really would be helpful to know more about the specifics of how this works. This will mean that I will never need to be out of pocket for either breakages or insurance premia again.

exaisle

EI Flyboy....you're slightly off.

Capital allowances @12.5% on a €1,000 item would reduce a landlord's taxable income by €125 times their marginal (highest) rate of tax.

If the landlord's highest rate of tax was 20% then this would mean that his/her tax bill for the year would be €25 lower and not €125.

If an asset is destroyed or scrapped, the landlord may claim a balancing allowance as follows:

Original cost (in 2009 for example) 1,000
Capital allowance claim 2009 (1000 x 12.5%) 125
Written down Value 31/12/09 875
Capital allowance claim 2010 125
Written down value 31/12/10 750

The balancing allowance in this case would be €750, claimable against rental income in 2011 if the item was scrapped in 2011.

exaisle

Before anybody rushes in with all guns blazing, I'm just referring to Income Tax here...not PRSI or USC....

amdublin

blackboots wrote: »

We had a tenant once who didn't tell us his extractor fan in the bathroom had broken. We found out when he moved out six months later and the bathroom was covered in mould. We took the cost of repair out of his deposit. Before anyone shouts at me, it is specifically mentioned in our lease that we are to be informed if any extractor fan breaks.

Eh how long did you keep their deposit for that you still had it six months later?!!

*shocked face*

Danniboo

Guys the landladys not registered so I don't know how any of this tax info is relevant??

blackboots

amdublin wrote: »

Eh how long did you keep their deposit for that you still had it six months later?!!

*shocked face*

Sorry that was perhaps unclear, we always return deposits promptly without any unnecessary deductions.

The state of the bathroom came to our attention on the day he handed back his keys, we estimate that the fan must have broken 6 months earlier for the mould to be that bad.

Also although I do sympathise with a the OP's former landlady for not having had the opportunity to address the problem before it got really bad, unless she has proof that the problem only occurred during the OP's tenancy I don't really think she has a leg to stand on. Were photos or a description of the condition of the property signed by the OP?

Ray Palmer

Danniboo wrote: »

Guys the landladys not registered so I don't know how any of this tax info is relevant??

No connection to PRTB registration to tax. It is pretty difficult to check if she is registered any way as they quite often mix up who is registered or not. THe website is a complete joke and never up to date.

Anyway if you casued the damage you can be held liable but really difficult to tell so not reason to pay.

With regard to tax it makes no difference to the tenant they pay for replacement not how much the LL gets from the tax man.

Danniboo

blackboots wrote: »

Sorry that was perhaps unclear, we always return deposits promptly without any unnecessary deductions.

The state of the bathroom came to our attention on the day he handed back his keys, we estimate that the fan must have broken 6 months earlier for the mould to be that bad.

Also although I do sympathise with a the OP's former landlady for not having had the opportunity to address the problem before it got really bad, unless she has proof that the problem only occurred during the OP's tenancy I don't really think she has a leg to stand on. Were photos or a description of the condition of the property signed by the OP?

Just to be clear there is no damp in the bathroom, just in the bedroom.

BostonB

Its too late you're gone from the property, and she didn't raise it as an issue at the time. Thats the reality. Its also very dubious expiation of the damp which isn't backed up with by professional expertise in this field.

If you want to be polite, I would reply politely saying that you don't believe the damp damp in the bedroom has anything to do with you. A qualified heating/ventilation professional would perhaps be the best person to a professional survey and find out exactly what's going with the damp. She should clarify with the PRTB and/or Threshold who is responsible for the costs.

Etc.

JustAThought

Damp & " structural faults!!" are not redeemable from tenants; particularly after they have had their property checked, signed off & the deposit returned months ago!!!

She's chancing her arm; forget her. Game over.

She may have seemed to be a nice person but if she's trying to guilt money out of you she's not really that nice.
Be nice; make it short & professional .
If she keeps harassing you for money then, Drop her; set a different ring tone for her calls and don't engage with her; shell get the message. A sheet costs e10 in Dunnes, she can pick up a framed print for half nothing in Ikea & the matters can be got in Bargain town for less than a hundred. Does she try this on with everyone when they go? What a shame.

robd

Danniboo wrote: »

Just to be clear there is no damp in the bathroom, just in the bedroom.

The reality is that extractor fans are not designed for use in bedrooms or living rooms. They're specifically designed for use in high moisture areas such as Kitchen's, Utility Rooms and Bathrooms. They're specifically designed to extract high moisture from air that appliances and showers give off.

An extractor fan in a bedroom to control damp is nothing short of a Gerry Job. It would likely make the room very cold and thus unsuitable for habitation or at the least waste a huge amount of the energy going into heating the room.

So in conclusion. This is not your problem. Landlady should provide a room that is free from damp in the first place using conventional techniques such as double glazed windows, attic insulation and dry lining of walls.

BostonB

Why would you assume the extractor is in the bedroom?