tenant rights

irelandunfree81

Hi, I have been living in private rented accomodation for the last year. When I moved in the walls in every room were manky and looked like they hadn't been painted in years. The carpets in every room also the same, filthy looking and extremely old. I was just wondering do I have to pay for repainting the house and carpets or does the landlord have to take responsibility??

odds_on

You should leave the house in the same condition as it was when you took up the tenancy less normal wear and tear.

If you did not sign an "inventory" detailing the furniture, white goods, flooring, walls, ceilings, windows etc etc and their condition, then the landlord cannot claim that you have "damaged" the property beyond normal wear and tear.

It might well be a case that if the landlord does not return you deposit, you will have to make a claim with the PRTB, in which case, also claim for damages for inconvenience, stress etc and the landlords failure to return the deposit under the RTA 2004.

The_Conductor

Can you prove the state of the property at the commencement of the tenancy (aka did you photograph it)? If not- you are liable for any damage to the property over and above normal wear and tear. Determination of what constitutes normal wear and tear- will probably entail the aforementioned trip to the PRTB. If you're vacating the property- I'd suggest getting the ball rolling!

odds_on

smccarrick wrote: »

Can you prove the state of the property at the commencement of the tenancy (aka did you photograph it)? If not- you are liable for any damage to the property over and above normal wear and tear. Determination of what constitutes normal wear and tear- will probably entail the aforementioned trip to the PRTB. If you're vacating the property- I'd suggest getting the ball rolling!

I think it is a case where the PRTB will side with the tenant where the landlord cannot prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.

The_Conductor

odds_on wrote: »

I think it is a case where the PRTB will side with the tenant where the landlord cannot prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.

Not necessarily by any means.
There is no presumption of guilt or innocence.
Its all down to the documentation supplied and the strength of the case made by both parties.
They are an adjudicator- with the power to issue enforcement edicts. They are not there for the tenant- or for the landlord- they are there to enforce the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act, along with its later amendments.

odds_on

smccarrick wrote: »

Not necessarily by any means.
There is no presumption of guilt or innocence.
Its all down to the documentation supplied and the strength of the case made by both parties.
They are an adjudicator- with the power to issue enforcement edicts. They are not there for the tenant- or for the landlord- they are there to enforce the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act, along with its later amendments.

While I agree with what you say, from reading different Determination Orders, I get the feeling that in the event of doubt, the tenant gets the benefit, partly because "landlords" are meant to be professionals and have all supporting documentation, where as the tenant is only an "amateur" and not fully conversant with all the Residential Tenancy laws.

Thus, if a landlord cannot prove the condition of a property at the commencement of a tenancy, the tenant who brings a claim re damage in excess of normal wear and tear, will be the winner and have any deposit "unjustifiably retained" returned, often with damages for breach of landlord obligations under the Act.

It may also be a case where the Appellant tenant states "I didn't do that" and it is the Respondent landlord who has to prove that the Appellant did breach the the law - however, without the proof of a detailed inventory, signed by the tenant, the LL will have great difficulty with any proof. That is, unless there was new furniture, flooring etc for which the LL has invoices/receipts.

However, in the OP's situation, everything was old and "the walls in every room were manky and looked like they hadn't been painted in years."

djimi

I do wonder if this were to go before the PRTB would they ask the question why the OP lived there for a year and only brought up the state of the place once they were leaving? I could be wrong but in my eyes that may go against the OP.

As for the initial question; OP the best thing you can do at this stage is see what the landlord comes back with and take it as it comes. If you dont have any evidence of the state of the place when you moved in and the landlord does try something that you are going to be in for a battle Im afraid.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

I do wonder if this were to go before the PRTB would they ask the question why the OP lived there for a year and only brought up the state of the place once they were leaving? I could be wrong but in my eyes that may go against the OP.

As for the initial question; OP the best thing you can do at this stage is see what the landlord comes back with and take it as it comes. If you dont have any evidence of the state of the place when you moved in and the landlord does try something that you are going to be in for a battle Im afraid.

If the OP has no evidence of the entry condition of the property then I hazard a guess that the landlord does not either - therefore he cannot prove that the tenant (the OP) has caused any damage in excess of normal wear and tear.

The fact that the OP has lived in the property for a year has no bearing on whether or not the OP has caused the condition of the property to deteriorate more than fair wear and tear.

The_Conductor

Its a pretty classical 'he said, she said' scenario. Its not clearcut- and if it goes to mediation- it really could go either way.

On that note- I propose to close this thread, as we're needlessly bickering.