Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leaving rental, Use last month as deposit?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,865 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The OP agreed to it already when they signed the lease originally. They can't change their mind now, they are obliged to facilitate the viewings once the landlord is reasonable in his requests.

    Not legally they aren't is the point I think regardless of what the lease says. You can put anything you want in a lease (or any agreement). Doesn't mean it's legally enforceable.


  • Options
    #63
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The OP agreed to it already when they signed the lease originally. They can't change their mind now, they are obliged to facilitate the viewings once the landlord is reasonable in his requests.

    Are they? I have never seen anything in the RTA that states this?

    Im also not convinced that such a clause in the lease is valid or legal, as it goes against the tenants right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.


  • Options
    #64
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The OP agreed to it already when they signed the lease originally. They can't change their mind now, they are obliged to facilitate the viewings once the landlord is reasonable in his requests.

    You are assuming that it is written into the lease though but even if it is the lease cannot remove statutory rights.

    You are entitled to quiet and exclusive enjoyment of your home
    Your landlord is only allowed to enter your home with your permission. If the landlord needs to carry out repairs or inspect the premises, it should be by prior arrangement, except in an emergency
    Give the landlord access (by appointment) for routine inspections

    They are under no legal obligation whatsoever to allow viewings.


  • Options
    #65
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    djimi wrote: »
    Im also not convinced that such a clause in the lease is valid or legal, as it goes against the tenants right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.
    I'd tend to agree. Nothing written in a lease can diminish rights granted to the tenant under the RTA 2004. This is explicitly spelled out in the act.


  • Options
    #66
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    You can still have peaceful enjoyment of your property once the landlord is reasonable in his/her dealings with you, ie mutual arrangements of a specific day/time or sufficient notice of a viewing. Which would be the case if the tenant needed the landlord to sort something out. It's give and take with a tenant/landlord relationship.
    If the tenant did not want to agree to such a term they should have negotiated it out of the contract before they signed it.


    What's the point of having a lease agreement that should still be governed by the basic principles of contract law, if the content is going to be ignored just because a tenant changes their mind and decides to be unreasonable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    You can still have peaceful enjoyment of your property once the landlord is reasonable in his/her dealings with you, ie mutual arrangements of a specific day/time or sufficient notice of a viewing. Which would be the case if the tenant needed the landlord to sort something out. It's give and take with a tenant/landlord relationship.
    If the tenant did not want to agree to such a term they should have negotiated it out of the contract before they signed it.


    What's the point of having a lease agreement that should still be governed by the basic principles of contract law, if the content is going to be ignored just because a tenant changes their mind and decides to be unreasonable?

    Irrelevant. You cannot supersede statutory rights with a clause in a lease about viewings.


  • Options
    #68
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Irrelevant. You cannot supersede statutory rights with a clause in a lease about viewings.

    I'm aware of that, but we don't know if the lease does that.
    As I already stated, the clause could be valid and the tenant capable of enjoying their home if the landlord is reasonable in their dealings.


  • Options
    #69
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The OP agreed to it already when they signed the lease originally. They can't change their mind now, they are obliged to facilitate the viewings once the landlord is reasonable in his requests.

    But the landlord also agreed to the rta 2004 and that takes precedence.

    I'd like to keep things above board but I think it is likely the landlord will refuse to return my deposit for me exercising my rights to peaceful enjoyment. As I won't be available to take legal action it will be a lot to lose. I think everyone can agree I'm acting reasonably. This could all be avoided with a deposit escrow service and more professional landlords not trying to let occupied properties.

    When I viewed my current place it was a joke. 20 of us poking around someone's home. Lots of furniture was theirs and we had no way of knowing this. Shame on the people that would have my recovering partner and one month of baby kicked out.


  • Options
    #70
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    I'm aware of that, but we don't know if the lease does that.
    As I already stated, the clause could be valid and the tenant capable of enjoying their home if the landlord is reasonable in their dealings.

    It cannot be valid. There are specific circumstances whereby a landlord has a right to enter a property. The act states explicitly that these rights cannot be removed.


  • Options
    #71
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    You can still have peaceful enjoyment of your property once the landlord is reasonable in his/her dealings with you, ie mutual arrangements of a specific day/time or sufficient notice of a viewing. Which would be the case if the tenant needed the landlord to sort something out. It's give and take with a tenant/landlord relationship.
    If the tenant did not want to agree to such a term they should have negotiated it out of the contract before they signed it.

    What's the point of having a lease agreement that should still be governed by the basic principles of contract law, if the content is going to be ignored just because a tenant changes their mind and decides to be unreasonable?

    As far as Im concerned, peaceful enjoyment means not seeing the landlord from one end of the tenancy to the other, unless something needs to be repaired/sorted with the tenancy. I pay my rent so that I can have a home and the privacy that comes with it, and no part of that involves stangers being brought into my home.

    With regards to the lease, according to the RTA the terms of the act form the minimum rights afforded to the tenant, and these rights cannot be reduced by clauses in the lease (even if both parties agree to them). You can mutually agree to certain things as and when the need arises (ie the tenant could agree to a shorter notice period), but it is not something that can be agreed upon at the commencement of the tenancy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    The clause does not allow for 'exclusive' occupation which is my right. The landlord is in the wrong for inserting such a clause.


  • Options
    #73
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    It cannot be valid. There are specific circumstances whereby a landlord has a right to enter a property. The act states explicitly that these rights cannot be removed.

    The RTA doesn't state that under no circumstances can the landlord ask to enter the property with agreement from the tenant.
    The problem with the law having specifics is that when it doesn't cover off every eventuality you have a problem.


  • Options
    #74
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    Sure, they can ask and I can agree. I can also change my mind at any time and demand uninterrupted exclusive use.


  • Options
    #75
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    It's give and take with a tenant/landlord relationship.
    Where does this nonsense come from? For example, I have a contract with UPC for my television and internet service - its a standard business contract, why is renting any different?


  • Options
    #76
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The RTA doesn't state that under no circumstances can the landlord ask to enter the property with agreement from the tenant.
    The problem with the law having specifics is that when it doesn't cover off every eventuality you have a problem.

    They can ask whatever they want. They cannot force the issue.


  • Options
    #77
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    OP, have you asked the landlord to come and have a pre-inspection of the property to assess any damage in excess of normal wear and tear, or anything that might affect the return of your deposit?
    So few tenants do this and the result is that they are hit for something that they could easily have remedied themselves, thus allowing the return of the deposit in full.


  • Options
    #78
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    drumswan wrote: »
    Where does this nonsense come from? For example, I have a contract with UPC for my television and internet service - its a standard business contract, why is renting any different?

    An infuriating attitude. The 'givev is the money they receive every month. When something needs to be fixed it is not a favour. It is their obligation.


  • Options
    #79
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    The_Morrigan wrote: »
    The RTA doesn't state that under no circumstances can the landlord ask to enter the property with agreement from the tenant.
    The problem with the law having specifics is that when it doesn't cover off every eventuality you have a problem.

    The landlord can ask all they want, but nowhere (that Im aware of anyway) doesnt it state that the tenant is obliged to agree.

    From the RTA; the section on tenants obligations: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0027/sec0016.html#sec16

    In terms of allowing access all it states is that access must be granted for inspections and to allow work to be carried out.
    (c) allow, at reasonable intervals, the landlord, or any person or persons acting on the landlord's behalf, access to the dwelling (on a date and time agreed in advance with the tenant) for the purposes of inspecting the dwelling
    (e) allow the landlord, or any person or persons acting on the landlord's behalf, reasonable access to the dwelling for the purposes of allowing any works (the responsibility for the carrying out of which is that of the landlord) to be carried out,


  • Options
    #80
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    drumswan wrote: »
    Where does this nonsense come from? For example, I have a contract with UPC for my television and internet service - its a standard business contract, why is renting any different?

    because humans are involved, not legal entities.


  • Options
    #81
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Thomas D wrote: »
    An infuriating attitude. The 'givev is the money they receive every month. When something needs to be fixed it is not a favour. It is their obligation.
    Likewise, it is the tenants obligation to pay the rent in full and on time - no using the deposit as the rent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    hdowney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    Thomas D wrote: »
    But the landlord also agreed to the rta 2004 and that takes precedence.

    I'd like to keep things above board but I think it is likely the landlord will refuse to return my deposit for me exercising my rights to peaceful enjoyment. As I won't be available to take legal action it will be a lot to lose. I think everyone can agree I'm acting reasonably. This could all be avoided with a deposit escrow service and more professional landlords not trying to let occupied properties.

    When I viewed my current place it was a joke. 20 of us poking around someone's home. Lots of furniture was theirs and we had no way of knowing this. Shame on the people that would have my recovering partner and one month of baby kicked out.

    Um no-one anywhere said about kicking your partner and baby out!!!! Where you get this stuff from I don't know


  • Options
    #83
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    odds_on wrote: »
    Likewise, it is the tenants obligation to pay the rent in full and on time - no using the deposit as the rent.

    What other choice do I have? I'm just being pragmatic.
    The landlord will suffer zero financial loss, guaranteed.


  • Options
    #84
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Thomas D wrote: »
    What other choice do I have? I'm just being pragmatic.
    The landlord will suffer zero financial loss, guaranteed.
    You signed a contract and have legal obligations as a tenant, pay your rent as you agreed.


  • Options
    #85
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Thomas D wrote: »
    What other choice do I have? I'm just being pragmatic.
    The landlord will suffer zero financial loss, guaranteed.

    There are no guarantees though; thats the point. Rent is paid in advance, so you would be using your deposit as your final months rent when you would still have a month remaining in the tenancy. The landlord has zero security. Its not like you pay you last months rent on the day that you move out and the landlord can hand it back to you if there are no issues.


  • Options
    #86
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    It is not the landlord's fault that you are emigrating immediately after vacating, in order to wait for the return of your deposit. Organise a pre-exit inspection with the landlord.


  • Options
    #87
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    I've never done viewings with a tenant still occupying.

    I advertise two weeks before they are due to go, and arrange the viewings for two days after they are gone... the first day being for the cleaners and any repairs.

    I wouldn't like strangers poking around in my stuff, so I wouldn't ask it of a tenant. Plus, the places always looks much better empty.

    I don't accept deposit for last months rent. They get the deposit back after I've checked the place over, a few days after they leave. If they don't pay the rent, I'm around there every day and night in person reminding them, plus sending letters, until they do....


  • Options
    #88
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,247 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    pwurple wrote: »
    r last months rent. They get the deposit back after I've checked the place over, a few days after they leave. If they don't pay the rent, I'm around there every day and night in person reminding them, plus sending letters, until they do....
    Does that not constitute harassment?

    (i.e. a criminal, rather than civil matter)


  • Options
    #89
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    pwurple wrote: »
    I've never done viewings with a tenant still occupying.

    I advertise two weeks before they are due to go, and arrange the viewings for two days after they are gone... the first day being for the cleaners and any repairs.

    I wouldn't like strangers poking around in my stuff, so I wouldn't ask it of a tenant. Plus, the places always looks much better empty.

    I don't accept deposit for last months rent. They get the deposit back after I've checked the place over, a few days after they leave. If they don't pay the rent, I'm around there every day and night in person reminding them, plus sending letters, until they do....

    Sensible on the first point but you can't call around demanding rent.


  • Options
    #90
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Does that not constitute harassment?

    (i.e. a criminal, rather than civil matter)

    That was my first reaction alright! The landlord cannot be calling around to a property on a daily basis, even if rent is overdue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Seems to sum up the OP from another thread he started
    http://www.boards.ie/ttfpost/87396641


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement