entitlement to deposit if breaking a fixed term lease

--LOS--

When I moved into shared accomodation back in September I signed a lease to stay until 30th June. The place turned out to be way too noisy, I've had nothing but problems with the housemates and so made the decision at the start of February to give my notice that I would be moving out at the end of the month (start of march).

I'm having problems now getting my deposit back from the landlord, he is saying I signed a lease till 30th June and he has every right to keep my deposit. Is this right?

I've been through my lease and there is nothing on it about terms of breaking a fixed term lease.

I read this on citizen's information....

If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice.

What I understand from this is that I am entitled to my deposit back since I gave the required notice unless it says otherwise in my lease (which it doesn't) and since there is no rent owing and no damage to the property etc.

Is this right??

the_syco

--LOS-- wrote: »

What I understand from this is that I am entitled to my deposit back since I gave the required notice unless it says otherwise in my lease (which it doesn't) and since there is no rent owing and no damage to the property etc.

Is this right??

Um... you no. From the piece you quoted;

If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice.

I can't see it any clearer than "they you may lose their your deposit if they you leave before the term stated in the lease". And by "may" they mean if the landlord doesn't want to.

You could get a replacement tenant, but if you've already left, it may be too late to do so.

not even wrong

--LOS-- wrote: »

I'm having problems now getting my deposit back from the landlord, he is saying I signed a lease till 30th June and he has every right to keep my deposit. Is this right?

Yes. You need to find a replacement tenant if you want your deposit back.

--LOS--

the_syco wrote: »

Um... you no. From the piece you quoted;


I can't see it any clearer than "they you may lose their your deposit if they you leave before the term stated in the lease". And by "may" they mean if the landlord doesn't want to.

You could get a replacement tenant, but if you've already left, it may be too late to do so.

you didnt really need to do that!
That's not really an answer, I'm wondering does the 'may' refer to if the lease states that the landlord can retain your deposit if you leave before the end of the lease then you may lose your deposit, otherwise not.

not even wrong wrote: »

Yes. You need to find a replacement tenant if you want your deposit back.

The landlord himself has a new tenant lined up and he does not use an agency.
If anyone can point me to something specific which states these terms explicitly that would be very helpful.

odds_on

A Fixed Term Lease is just that - you are fixed into it for the term of the lease - there is not get-out. That is why you did not find a clause in the lease regarding terms for breaking the lease - you cannot break such a lease, unless there is a breach of obligations.

However, Irish law, in its great wisdom, provides tenants (but not landlords) with a get out option - you can ask the landlord for permission to assign your part of the lease to another person who then takes over all the responsibilities and leaves you free.

However, as it is you who is breaking the lease, it is your responsibility to find the "assignee" who is acceptable to the landlord after his vetting and reference checks. If the landlord has to find the new tenant, you are also liable for his reasonable expenses (advertising etc.) You are also liable for the rent until your place has been filled if this takes two months - you are liable for the two months rent.

If the landlord refuses to let you assign the lease, you are free to leave with the return of your full deposit excepting any damage.

Sorry, you must have written your post while was doing mine.

The landlord himself has a new tenant lined up and he does not use an agency.

In this case the landlord cannot retain your deposit (except for any time your room is vacant) because he not allowed to take rent for the same room for the same period from two people at the same time. However, he is entitled to keep some deposit to cover his reasonable expenses (he should provide receipts for same).

--LOS--

odds_on wrote: »

A Fixed Term Lease is just that - you are fixed into it for the term of the lease - there is not get-out. That is why you did not find a clause in the lease regarding terms for breaking the lease - you cannot break such a lease, unless there is a breach of obligations.

However, Irish law, in its great wisdom, provides tenants (but not landlords) with a get out option - you can ask the landlord for permission to assign your part of the lease to another person who then takes over all the responsibilities and leaves you free.

However, as it is you who is breaking the lease, it is your responsibility to find the "assignee" who is acceptable to the landlord after his vetting and reference checks. If the landlord has to find the new tenant, you are also liable for his reasonable expenses (advertising etc.) You are also liable for the rent until your place has been filled if this takes two months - you are liable for the two months rent.

If the landlord refuses to let you assign the lease, you are free to leave with the return of your full deposit excepting any damage.

Sorry, you must have written your post while was doing mine.



In this case the landlord cannot retain your deposit (except for any time your room is vacant) because he not allowed to take rent for the same room for the same period from two people at the same time. However, he is entitled to keep some deposit to cover his reasonable expenses (he should provide receipts for same).

ok that does clear it up a bit, as far as I was aware new tenants were the landlord's responsibility.

He has a new guy lined up for the room, he even wanted him to move in over a week before I'm due to move out so he is losing nothing. I didn't go through an agency to get the place, I am certain he didn't use an agent to acquire the new tenant, he didn't even put an ad up on daft! Now he is approaching me about "intro fees" which I understand relate to an agent introducing the new tenant to the landlord but this doesn't apply in this case.
The way I see it, if the new guy wanted to move in a few days early, then I have paid more rent than I should have for that month which negates any so-called "intro fees" ?

Marcusm

--LOS-- wrote: »

ok that does clear it up a bit, as far as I was aware new tenants were the landlord's responsibility.

He has a new guy lined up for the room, he even wanted him to move in over a week before I'm due to move out so he is losing nothing. I didn't go through an agency to get the place, I am certain he didn't use an agent to acquire the new tenant, he didn't even put an ad up on daft! Now he is approaching me about "intro fees" which I understand relate to an agent introducing the new tenant to the landlord but this doesn't apply in this case.
The way I see it, if the new guy wanted to move in a few days early, then I have paid more rent than I should have for that month which negates any so-called "intro fees" ?

You may have signed a document titled "Fixed Term Lease" but if I understand your posts correctly, you were one of a number of people sharing a house where you had all separately contracted with the owner. If this is the case, technically you are not a tenant (as you did not have exclusive use of the property) but more likely a licencee (which is what hotel guests are also). This generally means that your rights are whatever is set out in the agreement and the Residential Tenancies acts don't apply.

If your agreement doesn't specify a penalty fr moving out early,I do not think the "landlord" has any right to keep any part of your deposit. The logic of this is that you have breached the contract between the two f you and he is entitled to compensation, generally referred to as "damages". He has an obligation to minimise the damage he suffers, ie look fr a new tenant. As e as found a new tenant and has no void period (and presumably no reduction in rent), he as suffered no loss and is entitled to zero damages.

the_syco

--LOS-- wrote: »

you didnt really need to do that!

Ah, in A&P sometimes you really need to paint it in black and white. No offence meant.

--LOS-- wrote: »

The landlord himself has a new tenant lined up and he does not use an agency.

Check with Threshhold, as to keep the deposit you'd need to give a replacement before you leave, not sure what the story is if you don't, but the landlord does?

Agent J

Marcusm wrote: »

You may have signed a document titled "Fixed Term Lease" but if I understand your posts correctly, you were one of a number of people sharing a house where you had all separately contracted with the owner. If this is the case, technically you are not a tenant (as you did not have exclusive use of the property) but more likely a licencee (which is what hotel guests are also). This generally means that your rights are whatever is set out in the agreement and the Residential Tenancies acts don't apply.

That's only true if the landlord is living the property with the OP. Otherwise no. See below & the link.

What is a Licensee?

A licensee is a person who occupies accommodation under licence. Licensees can arise in all

sorts of accommodation but most commonly in the following four areas;

(b) persons staying in hotels, guesthouses, hostels, etc.,

(b) persons sharing a house/apartment with its owner e.g. under the ‘rent a room’ scheme or ‘in digs’,

(c) persons occupying accommodation in which the owner is not resident under a formal licence arrangement with the owner where the occupants are not entitled to its exclusive use and the owner has continuing access to the accommodation and/or can move around or change the occupants, and

(d) persons staying in rented accommodation at the invitation of the tenant.

&

What is a Licensee in Private Rented Accommodation?

A licensee residing in a private rented dwelling is living there at the invitation of the tenant as the arrangement enabling a licensee to live in rented accommodation is made with the tenant and not with the landlord.

Source PRTB


To OP. "Intro fees"? No, just no. Thats set off my BS alarm. Contact threshold asap.

In the mean time, Are you PRTB registered? Did the landlord ask you for a PPSN at any stage to register? It's a legal obligiation that landlord must fulfill.
Might be worth mentioning to the landlord if he hasn't.. The PRTB would love to hear from you if he hasn't complied.

odds_on

There are two main instances when the landlord does not have to register the "tenancy" with the PRTB.

1. When a room is rented out to someone and the landlord is living in the property. This might be someone renting out a room in their own house/apartment. However, a tenant renting out a room in the property he is renting also becomes a live-in landlord if the rent is paid to the tenant and not to the owner of the property. In these cases, the person is a licensee or lodger.

2. In a house share where each individual tenant has a separate lease with the landlord for a bedroom and shared facilities in the property.

However, probably the more usual form of people sharing is if the property is rented out as a single unit to two or more people. The tenants are able to choose their bedrooms among themselves and each pays into a central rent payment. Each tenant is also jointly and severely liable for any debts (rent, damage etc) and this type of tenancy must be registered with the PRTB.

--LOS--

Agent J wrote: »

That's only true if the landlord is living the property with the OP. Otherwise no. See below & the link.



&



Source PRTB


To OP. "Intro fees"? No, just no. Thats set off my BS alarm. Contact threshold asap.

In the mean time, Are you PRTB registered? Did the landlord ask you for a PPSN at any stage to register? It's a legal obligiation that landlord must fulfill.
Might be worth mentioning to the landlord if he hasn't.. The PRTB would love to hear from you if he hasn't complied.

Ye I'm registered with the prtb, I got my letter out in the post when I moved in and have kept that.

I'm sure the landlord is capable of faking these 'intro fees' as he would have a lot of contacts but I wonder does he still have to give me my full deposit since that can only be retained for rent owing and damages and let me pay the intro fee separately.

I am going to call the prtb today to clear it all up, just couldnt do anything over the weekend.

pawnacide

A tenant breaking a lease is actually liable for all the rent up until the expiry of the lease. Landlords in the residential sector will rarely sue for the rent of the remaining months as it's not cost effective but it happens all the time in the commercial market where leases are longer.

You are entitled to assign the lease to a third party so basically the Landlord isn't out of pocket.

07734

Agent J wrote: »

To OP. "Intro fees"? No, just no. Thats set off my BS alarm.

this.

can he produce a receipt for these fees? are they reasonable? if you, then i would say that you are responsible for them. otherwise, no.