Landlord doing U-Turn on deposit.

TheMilkyPirate

Hi we moved out of our last house about 5 weeks ago, Now we left the house spotless apart from scuff marks on the walls (We have a young son) and there was burn marks in the carpet in the sitting room from the fire spitting out embers. There was also a small burn mark on the carpet in the upstairs bedroom. The landlord inspected the house and rang me to say that there was a few problems but had come to the conclusion that if we got the hoover fixed he would return our deposit. Fair enough I thought.

Now 4 weeks later we recieve a letter in the post saying that he will not be returning any of our deposit. Citing €700 for the two carpets, €80 for the vacuum cleaner, €200 to clean the house, €650 to repaint the interior of the house, €80 for cushions, throw, fire irons and mattress protectors.

I have no idea what he is on about with the last one as none of those items were in the house when we moved in. I also thought landlords couldn't keep your deposit for cleaning? And also is the paint not covered under normal wear and tear?

I'm really worried as I got a loan for the deposit on our new house from my parents and now I can't pay them back. It's really a cheap shot on his part after promising to return our deposit if I got the hoover fixed and then pulling this.

Would I have a case at all if I went to the PTRB? Or has anybody any advice for me?

Thanks

djimi

He needs to provide receipts/invoices for all deductions, and he needs to be able to provide evidence to justify all deductions. From what you have described, the replacement of the carpets sounds fair enough, but the price sounds very high (I have no idea how much carpet costs in fairness or how good the carpet was to begin with). Only you know whether or not the rest of the deductions are justified.

Did you take any photographic evidence of the state of the property before you left?

Wrt the cleaning/painting deduction, the landlord can only deduct for cleaning/decorating work which they have paid someone else to do. They cannot deduct for their own time. The going rate for cleaning is about €15 an hour, so to deduct €200 he would need to prove that you left the place in enough of a state to warrant about 12 manhours of cleaning.

You have the option of taking a case with the PRTB if you wish to dispute it.

D3PO

as Djimi has said.

Id also agree the carpet deduction sounds perfectly reasonable, and it seems that the hoover is too the tone of your first post seems to indicate you don't dispute you broke the hoover.

The painting and cleaning are questionable I say this as you say your son marked the walls, you say scuffs but without any photographs its hard to for us to say weather the normal person would consider them scuffs or not as you really haven't provided any detail in that regard and you haven't given any detail on the cushions. However I doubt you paid a deposit of over 1700 in the first place ?

First things first ask him for receipts for the deductions, secondly be aware he can only replace like for like, he cant go replacing a crappy carpet with a luxurious deep pile one form your deposit. 350 a carpet would be an above average quality carpet so this does seem a bit high given its a rental.

If your not happy with the answer you get then lodge a complaint with the PRTB, who may find in or partially in your favour.

That said I think from your opening post everybody will agree you wouldn't be entitled to all your deposit back.

Pawwed Rig

D3PO wrote: »

350 a carpet would be an above average quality carpet so this does seem a bit high given its a rental.

A carpet could be any amount depending ion the area it needs to cover.

If the landlord inspected and told you the burns were ok and that he wasn't going to deduct for them I think you have a case.
A couple of scuffs on the wall do not warrant complete repainting either.
I think an appeal to the PRTB should be in order in this case. There is nothing to be lost anyway.

D3PO

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A carpet could be any amount depending ion the area it needs to cover.

and that's why I said average, based on an average sized room in an average sized house with an average per sq m cost :rolleyes:



If the landlord inspected and told you the burns were ok and that he wasn't going to deduct for them I think you have a case.

I doubt the LL specifically said the burns are ok. So I don't think they have a case if the OP used the fire and didn't use a fireguard then that's negligent and they are libel for the cost.

A couple of scuffs on the wall do not warrant complete repainting either.

Which everybody agrees to. Its amazing what one person considers a scuff though when it comes down to them getting a deposit back, without photos we cant really tell the OP if its genuine or not.

I think an appeal to the PRTB should be in order in this case. There is nothing to be lost anyway.

I agree there's nothing to be lost by the OP and my feeling without obviously seeing the things myself is that a partial deduction sounds valid but not a complete withholding of the deposit.

TheMilkyPirate

Thanks for the replies everyone, The sitting room is quite large but the carpet was old and it was the same carpet upstairs. The hoover I didn't even know was broke but my sister thought it was something as simple as replacing the filter, I'll never know now as I never got a chance to look at it so it's his word against mine there.

When he originally rang he mentioned the carpets and everything else yet he still said if I just got the hoover replaced that he would refund the deposit.

Also the like for like thing is interesting as when I called up the other day to get the hoover there was a man there replacing the carpet in the sitting room with wooden floors.

I agree there is nothing to lose with going to the PRTB, Should I ask him to provide reciepts for all the work (that he claims) was carried out along with a reciept for the hoover? Or just go straight to the PRTB?

Thanks again.

Pawwed Rig

baraca wrote: »

I agree there is nothing to lose with going to the PRTB, Should I ask him to provide reciepts for all the work (that he claims) was carried out along with a reciept for the hoover? Or just go straight to the PRTB?

Thanks again.

There were questions asked by the other posters on this thread that would need answers ie evidence/photos.
Please read other posts.

Also bear in mind any comments made here are on the basis that your posts are 100% factually correct ie scuff marks - I am picturing a couple of small scuff marks rather than the wall being in bad shape.

Also he gave you the option of replacing the hoover which you seemingly didn't do. Why is this? From a legalistic perspective he made an offer which you declined by not replacing the hoover.

The PRTB will be a long road. It will most likely take over a year before your case is heard so better to try and sort it out without involving them. That is not to say you shouldn't go through PRTB if given no choice.

hfallada

He cant just charge you for a brand new carpet. As far as I know he must make deductions for the fact the carpet was old. As I think scruffs would be under wear and tear. I wouldnt bother with the PRTB. Use them as a last resort, as they are extremely slow ( as in except several months before they do anything).

D3PO

hfallada wrote: »

He cant just charge you for a brand new carpet. As far as I know he must make deductions for the fact the carpet was old.

That's not correct. Whilst it would be reasonable to expect a landlord to only deduct for example 50% of the cost of a 4 year old carpet as the capital depreciation on his tax returns would have accounted for the other 50% there is nothing in law to say this is the case.

He or she is entitled to replace the carpet with something of like in terms of standard and cost.

djimi

hfallada wrote: »

I wouldnt bother with the PRTB. Use them as a last resort, as they are extremely slow ( as in except several months before they do anything).

Slow as they might be, if the OP wishes to dispute this then the PRTB is the only avenue to do so.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

That's not correct. Whilst it would be reasonable to expect a landlord to only deduct for example 50% of the cost of a 4 year old carpet as the capital depreciation on his tax returns would have accounted for the other 50% there is nothing in law to say this is the case.

He or she is entitled to replace the carpet with something of like in terms of standard and cost.

If the OP can prove that the carpet was old and/or worn when they moved in then I dont think the landlord would get much time from the PRTB if he tried to replace it with a brand new carpet that was equal to the standard/value of when it went in first, even taking the burns into account. A landlord cannot look to profit or improve on something by means of a deposit deduction.

djimi

baraca wrote: »

When he originally rang he mentioned the carpets and everything else yet he still said if I just got the hoover replaced that he would refund the deposit.

This will be your word against his; unless you can back this up I would forget about what he said.

baraca wrote: »

Also the like for like thing is interesting as when I called up the other day to get the hoover there was a man there replacing the carpet in the sitting room with wooden floors.

Id be interested to see what the PRTB would have to say about this. Technically he cannot deduct for what he cannot provide a receipt/invoice for, and if he is not replacing the carpet with like for like then there will be no receipt/invoice. It may be a case that he will have to go and get a quote for the cost of replacing the carpet and then deduct that, but Id be inclined to get onto someone like Threshold and see what they reckon.

baraca wrote: »

I agree there is nothing to lose with going to the PRTB, Should I ask him to provide reciepts for all the work (that he claims) was carried out along with a reciept for the hoover? Or just go straight to the PRTB?

Thanks again.

Get him to provide receipts first and then plan your next move accordingly. I dont know what kind of property you live in and I dont know what state you left it in, but some of the figures that you mentioned seem very high for what he is deducting for.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

If the OP can prove that the carpet was old and/or worn when they moved in then I dont think the landlord would get much time from the PRTB if he tried to replace it with a brand new carpet that was equal to the standard/value of when it went in first, even taking the burns into account. A landlord cannot look to profit or improve on something by means of a deposit deduction.

true but there is no second hand carpet market. It doesn't exist as carpets are cut to measure for a room and therefore the LL has no option to go and get a replacement second hand.

He is entitled to replace it as it has been damaged and the burn marks could be seen as making the property harder to rent out than it should be.

He would be entitled to replace it with something of a similar standard and therefore it perfectly reasonable to replace it with a new carpet of that standard as no alternative is possible.

The landlord is not looking to profit or improve something in that regard he is applying a reasonable expense to rectify the situation at the lowest possible cost.

TheMilkyPirate

I'd just like to point out that we left the house spotless, We steam cleaned all the floors and had everything exactly as it was before we moved in with the obvious exception of the carpet.

I've asked for the reciepts so I'll see what he says now and then see where I can go from there.

Thanks everyone for the replies so far.

djimi

D3PO wrote: »

true but there is no second hand carpet market. It doesn't exist as carpets are cut to measure for a room and therefore the LL has no option to go and get a replacement second hand.

He is entitled to replace it as it has been damaged and the burn marks could be seen as making the property harder to rent out than it should be.

He would be entitled to replace it with something of a similar standard and therefore it perfectly reasonable to replace it with a new carpet of that standard as no alternative is possible.

The landlord is not looking to profit or improve something in that regard he is applying a reasonable expense to rectify the situation at the lowest possible cost.

The point is though that if the carpet is on its last legs and was going to need replacing anyway, then the landlord cannot use a couple of burn marks to replace a dead carpet with a brand new one. Doesnt matter what standard the carpet might have been when it was new. I get what you are saying, but I would have thought that it would be up to the PRTB at least to decide if the deduction is fair.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

The point is though that if the carpet is on its last legs and was going to need replacing anyway, then the landlord cannot use a couple of burn marks to replace a dead carpet with a brand new one. Doesnt matter what standard the carpet might have been when it was new. I get what you are saying, but I would have thought that it would be up to the PRTB at least to decide if the deduction is fair.

True but what exactly determines a carpet being on its last legs ?

Unless there are worn patches or its frayed badly, stained badly then I see it as perfectly serviceable. I'm a perfectly reasonable person and Id suggest so are most of those on any PRTB tribunal panel are to.

Id venture a carpet would have to be in a pretty bad way for any judgment to go in the OP's favor.

#clutchingatstraws :pac:

foggy_lad

There is also the issue of the burns on the carpet being caused by an open fireplace and this in my opinion would be considered reasonable wear and tear if part of the heating in the house is lighting the fire.

djimi

foggy_lad wrote: »

There is also the issue of the burns on the carpet being caused by an open fireplace and this in my opinion would be considered reasonable wear and tear if part of the heating in the house is lighting the fire.

Not a chance; the OP would be told that they should have used a fire guard.

Pawwed Rig

I think that is common sense more than something that needs to be specifically laid out.

I note the OP is being very selective with the questions he is answering so I am beginning to suspect we are not seeing the whole story here.

TheMilkyPirate

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think that is common sense more than something that needs to be specifically laid out.

I note the OP is being very selective with the questions he is answering so I am beginning to suspect we are not seeing the whole story here.

Not at all, I'll answer any questions anybody has.

I'm not sure what I'd gain by lying on here, Because for all intents and purposes the advice I would get then would be no use to me.

Pawwed Rig

baraca wrote: »

Not at all, I'll answer any questions anybody has.

I'm not sure what I'd gain by lying on here, Because for all intents and purposes the advice I would get then would be no use to me.

Noone is saying you are lying but numerous questions have been asked that you haven't responded to which would be vital information relating to any advice the good folks on this forum may provide.
Also there are three sides to every story.

djimi wrote: »

Did you take any photographic evidence of the state of the property before you left?

D3PO wrote: »

The painting and cleaning are questionable I say this as you say your son marked the walls, you say scuffs but without any photographs its hard to for us to say weather the normal person would consider them scuffs or not as you really haven't provided any detail in that regard and you haven't given any detail on the cushions. However I doubt you paid a deposit of over 1700 in the first place ?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Also bear in mind any comments made here are on the basis that your posts are 100% factually correct ie scuff marks - I am picturing a couple of small scuff marks rather than the wall being in bad shape.

Also he gave you the option of replacing the hoover which you seemingly didn't do. Why is this? From a legalistic perspective he made an offer which you declined by not replacing the hoover.

djimi wrote: »

Not a chance; the OP would be told that they should have used a fire guard.

ie did you use a fire guard?

The people on this forum are happy to help and provide advice but you need to be more forthcoming with information.
We still do not know how scuffed the walls were, what happened to the fire irons, whether the landlord said the burn marks were ok. Cushions etc

foggy_lad

djimi wrote: »

Not a chance; the OP would be told that they should have used a fire guard.

Even with a fire guard carpets can be scorched and get very dirty from open fires regardless how careful people are about cleaning them out and bringing out the ashes and in the coal.

D3PO

foggy_lad wrote: »

Even with a fire guard carpets can be scorched and get very dirty from open fires regardless how careful people are about cleaning them out and bringing out the ashes and in the coal.

I've used an open fire for 7 years without causing any burn marks. Granted ive had soot on the ground but ive a wooden floor so nothing a mop and bucket cant fix.

If I had a carpet then id be clever about things like my sister in law who puts a mat down in front of the her fire before using it and she also used a fire guard as do I.

You have a duty of care to the property there is no excuse for causing damage and if you cant use the fire without causing damage then don't use the fire stick to the central heating.

UCDVet

Is it customary to move-out without getting the deposit back?

My understanding was that you wouldn't leave the apartment/house until you'd received the deposit?

(sorry if slightly off-topic, but I'll be going through this process shortly)

TheMilkyPirate

I didn't take any photos when I was leaving as to be honest I didn't see that many problems and it just never occured to me.

The only part of the paint in the house that had scuff marks was the wall alongside the stairs, From carrying things down and from the young fella hitting his toys off the walls. The walls were not filthy or damaged in anyway and you had to look to notice them but I'll admit that that particular part of the walls did need repainting. The kitchen, sitting room and upstairs rooms, Not so much. What I'm saying is that the damage to paintwork was nothing beyond normal wear and tear. That I am sure of.

The cushions, Fire irons, Throw and mattress protector I still have no idea what he is on about. We never had fire irons. A throw for what? cushions? There was none in the house we have our own. Mattress protectors were not there either, We have our own sheets which we placed directly on the mattress. Surely he must provide evidence that these were even in the house in the first place? How would I lose all of those items?

Yes we did use a fire guard (We have to we have a young child) the burns were caused by cleaning out the fire and when shovelling coal on bits dropping. The carpets needed to be replaced I'll admit that it's just the price seems ridiculously high. He also didn't replace them with carpets, He replaced them with wooden floors.

His cleaning bill is ridiculous as well, €200? We had that house spotless leaving, From the oven right down to the floors.

D3PO

baraca wrote: »

I didn't take any photos when I was leaving as to be honest I didn't see that many problems and it just never occured to me.

The only part of the paint in the house that had scuff marks was the wall alongside the stairs, From carrying things down and from the young fella hitting his toys off the walls. The walls were not filthy or damaged in anyway and you had to look to notice them but I'll admit that that particular part of the walls did need repainting. The kitchen, sitting room and upstairs rooms, Not so much. What I'm saying is that the damage to paintwork was nothing beyond normal wear and tear. That I am sure of.

The cushions, Fire irons, Throw and mattress protector I still have no idea what he is on about. We never had fire irons. A throw for what? cushions? There was none in the house we have our own. Mattress protectors were not there either, We have our own sheets which we placed directly on the mattress. Surely he must provide evidence that these were even in the house in the first place? How would I lose all of those items?

Yes we did use a fire guard (We have to we have a young child) the burns were caused by cleaning out the fire and when shovelling coal on bits dropping. The carpets needed to be replaced I'll admit that it's just the price seems ridiculously high. He also didn't replace them with carpets, He replaced them with wooden floors.

His cleaning bill is ridiculous as well, €200? We had that house spotless leaving, From the oven right down to the floors.

Yes he would need to prove the irons, mattress protectors etc were in the property so you would be right to dispute that.

If the burns were from shoveling out hot coals that's defo neglect, you should never be cleaning the hearth until the ash is complete cooled down the following day.

Pawwed Rig

Based on that I would say you have a fairly good case. I would suggest opting for mediation when submitting your dispute as you realise yourself that there are a couple of issues that the landlord is entitled to withhold. There you will negotiate a settlement mediated by a PRTB rep.
It would be unusual to withdraw a full deposit unless the place was trashed.
Have a read of the tenant obligations in your lease and the PRT Act 2004 and make sure all of your ducks are in a row.

Unfortunately it will be a slow process. It will be more than a year before the case is dealt with (generally speaking) but it is worthwhile sticking with it if you feel aggrieved.
I would agree with you based on what you said that repainting the whole interior is too much, as is the cleaning. The carpets might be a harder sell. Have you any photos taken in the house (of your son or whoever) that you can see the carpet? Not necessarily the burns, but the general condition/quality should be visible in any photo. It will be useful if the LL tries to claim it was new.
I would probably dispute the full amount but be prepared to negotiate on the carpet issue.

Muilleann

Sounds like a PRTB case alright.

All the hallmarks of a French Car Hire company's tactics!