Should I Give Tenant Back Deposit if They Leave Early?

tara73

Shades799 wrote: »

Ya it is amateur hour, because I bought a house at the wrong time, had to move for work and couldn't sell it because of the downturn. I'm sorry if this annoys you.

I was confused because I read contridicting statements all over the place, made worse by the fact that when I called the PRTB they appear to have told me wrong.

I started this thread because I was feeling conflicted about something I thought was my legal right and I could do with right now and something that I wasn't really comfortable with. I'm sorry if this offended or annoyed you.

Thanks everyone else for your help as always. My question is answered now but feel free to continue the thread for your discussion if the mods allow. Thanks.

OP, I have empathy to your situation and it's a relieve some people still consider some humanity and moral next to everything you might be entitled to regarding the law.
And I don't think it shows you are an amateur as some other poster stated, it shows you have a conscious and that's all in all very good!!


to your initial question, I think it's a tricky situation, you tell she was a good tenant but also a b***. but you had a reason to do the 1 year contract, she agreed by signing it.
she breached the contract without talking to you and didn't care.
it could have been you are very busy and not in the position to look for a tenant when she decides to move out.
I think you can keep the deposit without feeling too guilty. It should teach her a lesson!

Joe Hart

tara73 wrote: »

OP, I have empathy to your situation and it's a relieve some people still consider some humanity and moral next to everything you might be entitled to regarding the law.
And I don't think it shows you are an amateur as some other poster stated, it shows you have a conscious and that's all in all very good!!


to your initial question, I think it's a tricky situation, you tell she was a good tenant but also a b***. you had a reason to do the 1 year contract, she agreed by signing it.
she breached the contract without talking to you and didn't care.
it could have been you are very busy and not in the position to look for a tenant when she decides to move out.
I think you can keep the deposit without feeling too guilty. It should teach her a lesson!

Incorrect Tara. Please read the above document from the PRTB. Being too busy is not an excuse to reasonably mitigate a loss.

Con Logue

So, breach of lease by tenant = consequence free in Ireland? Interesting. That didn't wash legally when I broke a lease in England last year - the deposit was held in escrow and it was a breach of the terms, so no deposit, and the lease wasn't cancelled until the flat was relet. All legal, all in black and white. That's the sort of protective legislation that landlords and tenants need in this country, and would wash the cowboys out of the system.

Joe Hart

Con Logue wrote: »

So, breach of lease by tenant = consequence free in Ireland? Interesting. That didn't wash legally when I broke a lease in England last year - the deposit was held in escrow and it was a breach of the terms, so no deposit, and the lease wasn't cancelled until the flat was relet. All legal, all in black and white. That's the sort of protective legislation that landlords and tenants need in this country, and would wash the cowboys out of the system.

Legally the situation is the exact same here with even less protection for the tenant as the deposit is not held in an escrow.

tara73

Joe Hart wrote: »

Incorrect Tara. Please read the above document from the PRTB. Being too busy is not an excuse to reasonably mitigate a loss.

your posted link reads and even says, it is a guidance.
quote first sentence from your link:

The following is a general note for guidance only and individual circumstances of particular
cases may vary.

cases may vary. great, very clear..:rolleyes:

why did I read here so many times a landlord can pursue somebody for any outstanding rent if a tenant is in breach of a fixed lease contract? were they all wrong?
we already agreed that he can't pursue if a new tenant is moving in immediately but if the landlord is not in a position to find a new tenant for whatever reason, he's entitled to keep the deposit and sue for any losses. and that's what the OP is entitled to and CAN DO.
that's my understanding.

can anybody with real knowledge clarify? thanks.

Col1980

tara73 wrote: »

your posted link reads and even says, it is a guidance.
quote first sentence from your link:

The following is a general note for guidance only and individual circumstances of particular
cases may vary.

cases may vary. great, very clear..:rolleyes:

why did I read here so many times a landlord can pursue somebody for any outstanding rent if a tenant is in breach of a fixed lease contract? were they all wrong?
we already agreed that he can't pursue if a new tenant is moving in immediately but if the landlord is not in a position to find a new tenant for whatever reason, he's entitled to keep the deposit and sue for any losses. and that's what the OP is entitled to and CAN DO.
that's my understanding.

can anybody with real knowledge clarify? thanks.

Tara,

I can confirm you are correct, I have acted in many of these cases. I have tried to advise the less knowledgeable here but they feel they know better. (Joe Hart)

odds_on

tara73 wrote: »

your posted link reads and even says, it is a guidance.
quote first sentence from your link:

The following is a general note for guidance only and individual circumstances of particular
cases may vary.

cases may vary. great, very clear..:rolleyes:

why did I read here so many times a landlord can pursue somebody for any outstanding rent if a tenant is in breach of a fixed lease contract? were they all wrong?
we already agreed that he can't pursue if a new tenant is moving in immediately but if the landlord is not in a position to find a new tenant for whatever reason, he's entitled to keep the deposit and sue for any losses. and that's what the OP is entitled to and CAN DO.
that's my understanding.

can anybody with real knowledge clarify? thanks.

A landlord is under an obligation to mitigate his loss as quickly as possible. Until that loss has been remedied by a new tenant, the vacating tenant is liable for the rent. Once a new tenant is in place, the vacating tenant is no longer liable for the rent. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a landlord can pursue a tenant until the end of a fixed term lease.

Also, the landlord may only pursue the rent "as it falls due". Thus he cannot claim for two months rent (assuming that the tenant vacated 2 months early) immediately a tenant vacates.

Although a landlord can only justifiably retain the deposit (or part thereof) for an equal amount of arrears of rent and damage in excess of normal wear and tear (which may include vouched cleaning costs), he could also bring a case to the PRTB for damages in respect of a tenant breaking a fixed term lease. However, this rarely occurs as the PRTB are so slow in making decisions on claims.

However, it is not unknown for landlords to be awarded hundreds of euro for "distress, anxiety, loss, expense and inconvenience" of a tenant breaking a fixed term lease.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent Landlord has suffered distress, anxiety, loss, expense and inconvenience as a result of the breaches by the Appellant Tenant of the provisions of Act relating to the payment of rent and the termination of a fixed term tenancy. The Tribunal considers that the appropriate quantum of damages to award to the Respondent Landlord in the circumstances of this case is €500.

Joe Hart

Colmq wrote: »

Tara,

I can confirm you are correct, I have acted in many of these cases. I have tried to advise the less knowledgeable here but they feel they know better. (Joe Hart)

Question for you then Colm.

I'm a landlord renting a two bedroom apartment in D4 for €1500. A tenant signs a year lease. 3 months into the lease they say they are leaving in a month and will not be finding any replacement or paying the remaining rent.
I decide to leave the apartment empty in the assumption that they are still renting as per the year lease and are liable for the remaining rent.

Will I be awarded the €12,000 or so remaining rent?
Thanks.

Joe Hart

Here is an interesting tribunal order.

http://public.prtb.ie/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR209.2011.DR303.2011/Report.pdf

And another finding.

The Respondent Landlords suffered losses in terms of rent unearned arising from the
premature termination of the fixed term lease. In response to the early termination the
Respondent Landlords mitigated their losses by re-letting the Dwelling within a relatively
short period of time. However losses accrued in the interim until the new tenancy
commenced. Further losses accrued due to the lower monthly rent agreed in respect of the
ensuing tenancy. The gross loss incurred on the part of the Respondent Landlords amounts
to €1,432.14 and the net loss taking in to account the justifiably retained security deposit
amounts to €282.14 . The Respondent Landlords are entitled to be recompensed in respect
of these losses.

It's not about punishing a tenant for ending a fixed term it is about the legitimate financial loss.

cookie1977

Joe Hart wrote: »

Here is an interesting tribunal order.

http://public.prtb.ie/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR209.2011.DR303.2011/Report.pdf

And another finding.


It's not about punishing a tenant for ending a fixed term it is about the legitimate financial loss.

If you weren't so obnoxious in some of your posts people would hear you better.

Joe Hart

cookie1977 wrote: »

If you weren't so obnoxious in some of your posts people would hear you better.

I'm not trying to make friends here, just give out accurate advice.

cookie1977

Joe Hart wrote: »

I'm not trying to make friends here, just give out accurate advice.

And some of the advice is good but as it's a discussion forum your valid points can get lost in your efforts to avoid making friends.

Col1980

Joe Hart wrote: »

Question for you then Colm.

I'm a landlord renting a two bedroom apartment in D4 for €1500. A tenant signs a year lease. 3 months into the lease they say they are leaving in a month and will not be finding any replacement or paying the remaining rent.
I decide to leave the apartment empty in the assumption that they are still renting as per the year lease and are liable for the remaining rent.

Will I be awarded the €12,000 or so remaining rent?
Thanks.

Correct,

Assuming it was a fixed term lease and If you can not find a suitable replacement tenant in that time.


Plus your advice is very far from accurate and you should be careful in touting it around

Joe Hart

Colmq wrote: »

Correct,

Assuming it was a fixed term lease and If you can not find a suitable replacement tenant in that time.

Well then please read those determination orders above which completely contradict you.
In the example I gave a landlord would not be given any money and would have to return the deposit as they did not attempt to mitigate their loss in a timely fashion.

RATM

Shades799 wrote: »

Ya it is amateur hour, because I bought a house at the wrong time, had to move for work and couldn't sell it because of the downturn. I'm sorry if this annoys you.

I was confused because I read contridicting statements all over the place, made worse by the fact that when I called the PRTB they appear to have told me wrong.

I started this thread because I was feeling conflicted about something I thought was my legal right and I could do with right now and something that I wasn't really comfortable with. I'm sorry if this offended or annoyed you.

Thanks everyone else for your help as always. My question is answered now but feel free to continue the thread for your discussion if the mods allow. Thanks.

Look I'm sorry for your circumstances, I wouldn't wish it upon anyone and realise your life has had a lot of disruption because of the crash.

But I just get annoyed at the amateur nature of some Irish landlords. They want to charge €12,000 quid a year, not a small sum of money, yet the way they operate is often in a haphazard manner, all I want is a little bit of professionalism, after all it is their business. We have some landlords who got into bricks in mortar because they thought the value of it could never go down in value, compounded by the banks throwing money at them. This type of landlord seems to have just signed on the dotted line with no regard for doing due diligence because 'you can't lose money in bricks and mortar'. A lot of them don't seem to know the laws and regulations that govern their industry which is why we get so many threads on here about disputes concerning deposits, etc.

Like to prove my point regarding professionalism just take a look at the Entreprunerial forum- there is rarely if ever threads over there asking for adivce on the legal aspects of peoples businesses. People who run their own businesses educate themselves on what is and what isn't within the rules and laws of the country- because if they don't they may end up getting sued and having to pay out a large sum of money, which would be largely their own fault. I do them same in running my own business because if I get sued and lose then I'm looking at a potential bill in the tens of thousands.

I just wish some landlords would realise that renting property is a business like any other and people who get into it need to educate themselves on the ins and outs of it. This is especially true of accidental landlords like the OP- I have friends in the same position and they didn't know (until I told them) that they are now running a business and therefore have tax liabilities (and also can write some things off against tax too). The level of ignorance just astounded me, especially as they're sitting on an asset with such value. There are people in Ireland running chipper vans at the side of the road who have more knowledge of the rules of their industry than some Irish landlords do, if they cock up and ignore the rules then the Environmental Health Officer will close them down, therefore they ensure they know what is required of them in selling products to the public. I wish the same were true of some landlords.

All of the above points go equally for some tenants too, some of them need to learn what is and isn't acceptable. If we had that then the landlord-tenant relationship in Ireland might be a lot better without the need for all the grief that it typically throws up on a regular basis.

Victor

Joe Hart wrote: »

Unfortunately you've offered incorrect legal advice. Please don't post again.

Did I die ans someone made you mod already?

Moderator

djimi

Joe Hart wrote: »

Well then please read those determination orders above which completely contradict you.
In the example I gave a landlord would not be given any money and would have to return the deposit as they did not attempt to mitigate their loss in a timely fashion.

"Timely fashion" is a very ambiguous term in fairness. If a tenant bails on a fixed term lease at the end of a rental month then whos to say it wont take a few weeks to find a suitable tenant to replace them? Im not aware of anything in law that says that the landlord is obliged to take the first person that comes along just so as to let the departing tenant off the hook.

MMAGirl

At the very least you now have to pay a new PRTB fee that you would have not had to pay until at least the end of the lease for the next tenant.
If people kept doing that you might as well just give the PRTB access to your bank account.