Inconsiderate landlord taking advantage?

BostonB

If you thought it needed extraction why did you rent it?

hognef

borderlinemeath wrote: »

hognef wrote: »

I'm renting a house built about 15 years ago, at which time I would have thought (but I could well be wrong on this) building regs would have required extraction, yet there's no such thing in either the en-suite or the main bathroom. We do try to open windows whenever the en-suite shower is in use, yet there is dampness and mold appearing. My conclusion is that it's not simply a case of opening windows - the room is not fit for purpose (regardless of building regs, really).

It can also be caused by poor insulation and also lack of heating. If you have rads turned off in rooms that you don't use, check them regularly.

True. There is no heating in the en-suite.

hognef

BostonB wrote: »

If you thought it needed extraction why did you rent it?

As you'd expect, it is easy to miss details during a short viewing.

BostonB

You'd have to take shorter showers, and/or leave the windows open for longer. If neither of those is acceptable I would consider moving.

Victor

Can we get back on topic

Moderator

markas

I rented about .. 15+ places in Dublin (no for myself only) and from that experience know that the deposit usually stays with landlord, no matter what was the condition of the place. This is the norm, (not once but twice I was literally told by less professional landlords - that deposit is not refundable). There was always delays in response, then there were some ridiculous exuses used ad infinitum, in few cases only the deposit was eventually paid back. Reporting for non payment of taxes is irrelevant - does not affect the deposit. Sorry, but being a foreigner does not help - so I think this is an important detail, the general public may not be aware of.

I just do not underestand why suddenly so much discussion about a single case...
I suspect that now, in contrast to previous period, every 'good' business rises more envy ;-)

The_Conductor

Totally aside from this single case- there is an obvious issue out there that *needs* to be addressed. If a landlord unfairly retains a deposit, and they are brought to the PRTB- there is a documented case against him or her, along with the outcome- that any potential tenant has access to, before deciding whether or not to do business with them.

If you believe your deposit has been retained unfairly by your landlord- report the issue to the PRTB. What is the reticence in doing this? It is *not* a normal business practice for professional landlords to retain deposits- we do seem to have a startling number of amateurs out there who haven't got a clue what they're doing, and what they're supposed to be doing- and who seem to be giving the entire sector a bad name.

hognef

In this country there appears to be a complete lack of understanding of the fact that the deposit is the property of the tenant until the landlord can prove otherwise.

What we need is an independent, regulated, third party to hold the deposit.

Not sure how this is done in other countries, but the system used on Norway would be one example of such:

The deposit is lodged into a special deposit account, which is a free product offered by most banks. The account itself is a version of a joint account, meaning both landlord and tenant are named on the account. However, any interest accrued belongs to the tenant (interest rates, I believe, would be akin to savings accounts).

At the end of the tenancy, the deposit will be returned to the tenant automatically after a short period of time, unless the landlord has opened a dispute within that time frame. This system ensures that the landlord will never ever be able to unilaterally decide to keep even part of the deposit.

Of course something like this would require a shift towards protecting the (relatively) vulnerable tenant, rather than the (relatively) stronger landlord.

ghogie91

I think its a case of two sides to the story

As you said you have a cat, now in my personal experience I wouldnt let a cat within 100 yards of a property i owned!!

Then again, you could have managed your pet extremely well, given the couch was damaged but as you said you replaced it, obviously the condition on the couch is the deciding factor for that part of the story, I mean you cant replace a black leather recliner with a brown bargin basement couch, that just isnt fair

as for carpets, if they are free of cat piss, poo, hair, and are generally just showing signs of wear and tare then i wouldnt do a single thing with them

As for finger prints on the wall, this is a total case of wear and tare, providing they are not excessive and in places where, lets face it, fingers should not be!!

I think over all you should get 75% of deposit back if you have paid rent to date on what i have heard

Ray Palmer

My understanding is any costs for REPLACEMENT is what you charge the tenant. No consideration for depreciation as suggested. The ability to write off expenditure for tax is not considered.
You can write off things within 5 years but the goods themselves would be expected to last longer. That extra expenditure is a result of tenant neglect therefore their liability and deducted from the deposit.

The suggestion here is that if somebody damages a 5 year old sofa the tenant owes nothing.

There really should not be acceptance that a tenant can mistreat a place as normal. It is expected that a tenant treats the place as their own. Reality is they won't but that doesn't mean you let it slide every time.

markas

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There really should not be acceptance that a tenant can mistreat a place as normal. It is expected that a tenant treats the place as their own.

This means nothing. It is subjective - determined by the landlord only, and post factum. Some more resonable criteria should be taken into account.

eg. I would gladly throw away thad ugly stinky sofa, but I am not allowed. I would change locks for secure ones, but.. etc, etc.

I believe all could be agreed between the parties, but the reality is that many landlords, especially the professional onces, take their lordship too literally.

Victor

Ray Palmer wrote: »

My understanding is any costs for REPLACEMENT is what you charge the tenant. No consideration for depreciation as suggested. The ability to write off expenditure for tax is not considered.

You seem to be the first person to explicitly mention depreciation and tax.

While I agree, that an asset is still worth something after X years and can't be discarded willy-nilly, it is unlikely to be worth anything like it's initial price.

One of the early PRTB cases dealt with a landlord would deducted bed clothes from a deposit after three years, as if those bed clothes would be foisted on another party. :eek:

BostonB

markas wrote: »

This means nothing. It is subjective - determined by the landlord only, and post factum. Some more resonable criteria should be taken into account.

eg. I would gladly throw away thad ugly stinky sofa, but I am not allowed. I would change locks for secure ones, but.. etc, etc.

I believe all could be agreed between the parties, but the reality is that many landlords, especially the professional onces, take their lordship too literally.

A before and after photo isn't subjective.
Don't rent somewhere with a ugly stinky sofa or bad locks or get them changed before you move in.

Renting unfurnished is the way to avoid a lot of grief IMO.

markas

BostonB wrote: »

A before and after photo isn't subjective.
Don't rent somewhere with a ugly stinky sofa or bad locks or get them changed before you move in.

Renting unfurnished is the way to avoid a lot of grief IMO.

photo - oh well can be taken anytime, no proof. None of landlord was interested anyway. I always asked. 'No need' (if a written contract is too much of a hassle..)
The choice is limited, especially of unfurnished places. I always ask. Never an option. Take it or leave it

Dear landlords - bare walls - thats the biggest value of the place, not the junkyard inside.

BostonB

The PRTB seem happy enough with no photos, or reciepts or anything. Photos would be just gravy for them.

odds_on

Ray Palmer wrote: »

My understanding is any costs for REPLACEMENT is what you charge the tenant. No consideration for depreciation as suggested. The ability to write off expenditure for tax is not considered.
You can write off things within 5 years but the goods themselves would be expected to last longer. That extra expenditure is a result of tenant neglect therefore their liability and deducted from the deposit.

The suggestion here is that if somebody damages a 5 year old sofa the tenant owes nothing.

There really should not be acceptance that a tenant can mistreat a place as normal. It is expected that a tenant treats the place as their own. Reality is they won't but that doesn't mean you let it slide every time.

As Ray says, the tenant is responsible for the replacement - like for like. Using a sofa as an example, a landlord is not not entitled to a better sofa than was in the property at the beginning of the tenancy.

Like for like would include things like colour, quality, normal wear and tear and to a degree the age of the item. A landlord is not allowed to make a "gain" i.e. the value of a replaced item must be the same. If, after x number of years in use, a sofa is worth 150 euros, and the tenant damages it beyond use, the landlord can expect either 150 euros or a replacement on a like for like basis. The landlord cannot expect a replacement to be better.

If a tenant decides to replace the sofa with a better one, at say 250 euros the landlord should pay the tenant for the betterment i.e. 100 euros. However, the landlord and tenant must first agree that the replacement offered is suitable to the landlord. The tenant cannot go and replace the sofa with a better one without the landlord's permission and expect to be paid the difference.

TheTurk1972

The landlord does not have to accept a replacement from the tenant at all and can replace it themselves and pass the cost on to the tenant instead.

The landlord could reasonably charge you for what the sofa is worth plus any costs involved in dumping the old damaged one and delivery of the new one.

I know someone who put cigarette burns,beer nd food stains all over a couch in an apartment and ended up getting a bill for about €2000. When they queried why the couch was so expensive it turned out that the landlord had only lived there for the year before and then moved in with her boyfriend and rented out the house, so putting the expensive excess furniture in the house and renting it. There was only 1 other tenant and they only stayed 6 months before moving away. So a €2500 couch was only 1.5 years old when the guy moved in, and he destroyed it.

Not a normal situation as most landlords are sensible and only put hard wearing inexpensive stuff in their properties, but you see how it can cost you if you're not careful.

I believe also that if its a suite and part of it gets damaged the tenant will have to pay for the whole suite to be replaced or repaired. If it has to be replaced the tenant can keep the remainder of the suite if a suitable match cannot be found. In practice though, the max a landlord can really get is the deposit.

odds_on

A landlord must give the tenant the opportunity to "remedy the defect" before embarking on the work/replacement himself. If the work/replacement is not to the satisfaction of the landlord, and he can provide evidence, then he can do the work/replacement himself and either deduct the cost from the deposit or, if that is not possible, via a claim with the PRTB.

However, if the lease has terminated, that gives the (ex) tenant very little leeway as he has no right to enter the property.