Landlord moved someone into our apartment!

UDP

This is clearly a breach of contract. The landlord is 100% wrong. Contact the landlord and demand the amount of rent remaining back. If he/she refuses then take a case you to the problem. Doesn't matter how long the case will take since you are not in any rush.

Sligo1

Frank Black wrote: »

But that's not what happened is it? That's just a load of whataboutery.

The OP had fully moved out and then for reasons unknown called back around to their old place and noticed someone else had started to move in.
Sure, the LL has been a bit cheeky, but the OP hasn't suffered any loss and shouldn't be getting into a dispute about an issue that has no direct bearing on him.
Just move on.

Christ. This is still the OPs tenancy at this current point in time. Yes he has moved his stuff. But NO he has not officially moved out. He has acknowledged this In that he has not yet handed the keys back to the landlord. Perhaps he was going back to do a final check on the house to make sure everything was clean and in place. Who knows, who cares... The fact of the matter is that he is completely entitled to do so until his tenancy ends on December 14th.

And also to note, we can talk crap about what ifs and whataboutaries (or whatever you want to call them)... But another fact is that as the tenant HAS NOT OFFICIALLY ended his tenancy and handed back his keys he can go back to this place tomorrow for whatever reasons he wants to... Perhaps his electricity could cut out tomorrow, perhaps the roof on this new place will collapse, perhaps he has a fight with his other half and needs to get away for a night.... Yes it's all hypothetocal... And what ifs... But the fact remains if that did happen he would be well within his rights to go back to this other property for the night or for every night until December 14.

How can you not see this?
This is what the tenant has been and is still paying for... Access to the property.

Wabbit Ears

Franks talking sense, Its much ado about nothing.

Yea the landlords being a bit cheeky, yea, but It only becomes a problem if deposits are withheld, but that hasnt happened and confronting the landlord about getting money back and the details of people moving stuff in etc will probably only serve hinder that return of money.

Daith

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Franks talking sense, Its much ado about nothing.

Yea the landlords being a bit cheeky, yea, but It only becomes a problem if deposits are withheld, but that hasnt happened and confronting the landlord about getting money back and the details of people moving stuff in etc will probably only serve hinder that return of money.

The OP has paid rent to the end of the lease! It's his apt! That's the issue. The landlord has broken the lease so the OP getting his deposit back won't be an issue.

Seriously "confronting the landlord" might cause an issue? Ridiculous.

djimi

Where are people getting this idea that the landlord is being a "bit cheeky"? The landlord is breaking the law, plain and simple. The tenant holds full and exclusive rights over the tenancy until the tenancy ends, which in this case it has not.

At best it is a misunderstanding. At worst the landlord is massively taking the piss and hoping to collect two lots of rent (how he thought he would get away with it is beyond me). Either way the landlord is in the wrong.

Lemming

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Franks talking sense, Its much ado about nothing.

Yea the landlords being a bit cheeky, yea, but It only becomes a problem if deposits are withheld, but that hasnt happened and confronting the landlord about getting money back and the details of people moving stuff in etc will probably only serve hinder that return of money.

As has already been said; the landlord isn't being cheeky - the landlord has broken tenancy law. It's that simple an issue. They would appear to have broken tenancy law all for the sake of trying to grab two weeks worth of double-rent.

Edit: djimi beat me to it.

Wabbit Ears

Technically all that is true, its his apartment, he's the leaseholder, its his blah blah blah blah pedantic BS.

Hes moved out, he has a new gaff, the landlord will never see him again after this is all said and done. Better to just get the deposit, get a good reference for being sound as well as a good tenent and move on.

Sligo1

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Franks talking sense, Its much ado about nothing.

Yea the landlords being a bit cheeky, yea, but It only becomes a problem if deposits are withheld, but that hasnt happened and confronting the landlord about getting money back and the details of people moving stuff in etc will probably only serve hinder that return of money.

Put it this way. If the OP moved out a month early OP would be expected to pay that month to the LL unless OP or LL found another suitable tenant to take over the lease.

Since the LL has found another suitable tenant to take over the lease... Than why on earth should OP not get his money money back???

I mean 2 weeks rent could range from anything from €200 to €1000 + depending on the house! I know I'd be pissed off if I thought my LL was doing me out of a thousand quid!

techdiver

I sincerely hope the people defending the Landlord here are not Landlords themselves! Although in Ireland that wouldn't surprise me, given the fact we have so many cowboy, stroke pulling Landlords in this country.

Anyone who cannot see that the Landlord here is in breach of the lease, is fooling themselves and the "ah shur it grand" attitude is why we have such disdain for Landlords in this country!

NOTE: I am not intending to tar all Landlords with the same brush. I'm sure the good Landlords here will agree with me that the cowboy class gives them all a bad name.

pwurple

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Technically all that is true, its his apartment, he's the leaseholder, its his blah blah blah blah pedantic BS.

Hes moved out, he has a new gaff, the landlord will never see him again after this is all said and done. Better to just get the deposit, get a good reference for being sound as well as a good tenent and move on.

And if new tenant claims something has been broken by previous tenant? Previous tenant claims new tenant did it? Who pays then?

It's a completely stupid situation for a landlord to have put themselves in.

Landlord is in the wrong, completely. I'd never let myself into a tenants property.

wmpdd3

My main worry would be the utilities, I presume the op submitted readings to the companies already and transferred the accounts into the landlord s name?

djimi

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Technically all that is true, its his apartment, he's the leaseholder, its his blah blah blah blah pedantic BS.

Hes moved out, he has a new gaff, the landlord will never see him again after this is all said and done. Better to just get the deposit, get a good reference for being sound as well as a good tenent and move on.

In what way is it pedantic for someone who has paid rent on a property to expect that they get exclusive use of said property until the tenancy ends?

seagull

djimi wrote: »

The problem is that the tenancy has not formally ended, and while the tenancy is still in effect the OP is entitled to privacy and exclusive use of the property. I still used my previous apartment for about a fortnight after I had moved my stuff out while I waited for the notice period to wind down; had the OP being doing the same and had they been coming out of the shower or whatever when the new tenants let themselves in then would you still think that its a nothing issue?

It could equally well happen the other way round. The OP goes round to check for post and walks in on the new tenant. Best result - polite chat and explanation of the situation. Worst case - new tenant assumes intruder and takes out the baseball bat.

Baron Kurtz

Frank Black wrote: »

He doesn't though does he?
More whataboutery




The OP wasn't living there - they were living in their new apartment,
They called back around to the old place for no reason whatsoever from what I can make out.

So what if they were still 'entitled' to do something - they had no wish to do any of the things you've gone off on a tangent about.

This is an issue which has basically zero effect on the OP and some people here are advising him to start looking at his legal options - what a load of ****e,

I somewhat agree with what you're arguing in terms of it not really having a huge impact in relation to his living arrangement (as he had moved on early), but as per the bold bit - taken under the whole context of what the OP said the effect is a financial one ultimately - as he did stress/make it a condition that he receive a portion of the rent between the 28th and 14th.

Technically I see his side of it to be correct and just had the landlord not been so deceptive (as it might/does look to people here).

Notwithstanding the financial issue, I see your point and feel that the OP's stipulation from the off (that he gets a portion returned) to be pre-emptive to a possibility of garnering another 2 weeks plus a deposit, despite the fact that he has moved on and one wouldn't have expected him to pop back to the house to discover what he discovered.

Bey0nd

Just wanted to update people on the latest as this seems to have generated a bit of discussion. I also wanted to address a few questions aimed in my direction!

Frank Black wrote: »

What's the issue OP. You've moved before your original lease is up, it seems like your just being a dog in the manger about your previous apartment. Why would you even care if some one else moves into it

Because me and my partner's names are on the lease up until the 14th December. Therefor we are still under the terms of the lease that we both signed, and still have to abide by all the responsibilities and obligations of that lease. Any gas/heating/electricity used up until the 14th will be taken by direct deposit out of my bank account. We left the apartment with all electronics plugged out and all lights off. When I returned, lights were turned on and electronics plugged in and the gas timer had been adjusted to come on at regular intervals. Out of my pocket.

Frank Black wrote: »

You said yourself you were happy to forgoe the extra rent you had paid, but now suddenly this extra rent is a huge issue for you. You've moved out, so move on - I can't image a couple of weeks rent is worth getting yourself stressed and angry.

We were happy to give up 2 weeks rent while we were still liable for it - up until the 14th December, while our name was still on the lease. If the landlord wanted to move someone else in before that date, then our lease would have to be terminated early so a new lease could be made for the new tenant and the portion of rent we had paid that would no longer be part of our lease returned (this was made quite clear in our offer to the landlord) It was an agreement we made with the landlord. We do not want anyone else piggybacking off rent we have paid. Either somebody is getting 2 weeks rent free (€700) or the landlord is double charging rent for 2 weeks to 2 different lease holders.

Frank Black wrote: »

The OP had fully moved out and then for reasons unknown called back around to their old place and noticed someone else had started to move in.

Frank Black wrote: »

The OP wasn't living there - they were living in their new apartment,
They called back around to the old place for no reason whatsoever from what I can make out.

"Reasons Unknown" are reasons why this is an issue - like I said above, our names were still on the lease so we were still responsible for the apartment. I was checking to make sure it was okay, lights were off, windows closed etc. Like any responsible tenant would.

Anyway, as an update, I called the landlord who claimed they "misinterpreted" my email. I accused them of selectively misinterpreting it, namedropped Threshold and the PRTB, and they apologised and offered to inform the new tenant that they could not move in until the 14th (this person was in the process of moving in and living there). I didn't want to put out the new tenant, I figured they knew nothing of it, but I also had a feeling the landlord was bluffing so I called their bluff and said "Thanks, please do that" and ended the call. Got a call back in less than hour asking for confirmation of my bank details to transfer 2 weeks worth of rent

Sligo1

Absolutely delighted you got this sorted OP. Well done!

djimi

Bey0nd wrote: »

We left the apartment with all electronics plugged out and all lights off. When I returned, lights were turned on and electronics plugged in and the gas timer had been adjusted to come on at regular intervals. Out of my pocket.

Id be looking for more than 2 weeks rent returned if this is the case. Gas and electricity isnt free, and you didnt get a chance to take meter readings at the end of the two weeks before the new tenants moved in (I presume?).

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Result, fair play OP.

Sligo1

O also... I hope he's transferring your deposit aswell as the 2 weeks rent!

Bacchus

djimi wrote: »

Id be looking for more than 2 weeks rent returned if this is the case. Gas and electricity isnt free, and you didnt get a chance to take meter readings at the end of the two weeks before the new tenants moved in (I presume?).

As long as the OP has the meter readings from when they moved out they should be grand. The OP sounds like the kind of sensible person to do such a thing I would assume also that the tenancy has been officially switched over at this point and the new tenants are liable for the gas/elec bills. Worth staying on top of though all the same.

Frank Black

djimi wrote: »

You can blow it off as a nothing issue all you want; it might be a minor issue to you, but most people would feel that while they are paying rent for a property they have a right to expect exclusive use of said property, and the OP is quite right to feel aggrieved abuot this.

The relevant point in all of this is that the OP doesn't want or need exclusive use of the property at all - so waht has he to feel agreeved about?

If he hadn't called around there he wouldn't even know there was someone else moving in and he wouldn't be on here complaining.
He doesn't want to use the property, he's living somewhere else so what does it matter to him what's happening with the property now.

All you can offer as to reasons why the OP should be upset is a load of hypothetical scenarios which don't actually apply in this situation at all.

Daith

Frank Black wrote: »

All you can offer as to reasons why the OP should be upset is a load of hypothetical scenarios which don't actually apply in this situation at all.

Cos he's paying rent on the property. Which has been said multiple times. Why are you ignoring that point?

Anyway it's been sorted. Well done to the OP.

Bey0nd

Frank Black wrote: »

The relevant point in all of this is that the OP doesn't want or need exclusive use of the property at all - so waht has he to feel agreeved about?

Sure do you mind if I drive your car around while you're not using it? And is it okay if I live/sleep in your house while you're at work? Sure you're not using them so why would you mind?

Frank Black wrote: »

If he hadn't called around there he wouldn't even know there was someone else moving in and he wouldn't be on here complaining.

Sure that way, if your wife/girlfriend cheats on you and you never find out, then they're not doing anything wrong!

Frank Black wrote: »

He doesn't want to use the property, he's living somewhere else so what does it matter to him what's happening with the property now.

Irrelevant. You're drowning in irrelevant points, Frank.

Sligo1

Frank Black wrote: »

All you can offer as to reasons why the OP should be upset is a load of hypothetical scenarios which don't actually apply in this situation at all.

But these hypothetical scenarios could have possibly applied between now and dec 14th.... I mean, I don't for one minute believe you can read the future.... If you can, I want to make a booking please....

runawaybishop

Frank Black wrote: »

The relevant point in all of this is that the OP doesn't want or need exclusive use of the property at all - so waht has he to feel agreeved about?

If he hadn't called around there he wouldn't even know there was someone else moving in and he wouldn't be on here complaining.
He doesn't want to use the property, he's living somewhere else so what does it matter to him what's happening with the property now.

All you can offer as to reasons why the OP should be upset is a load of hypothetical scenarios which don't actually apply in this situation at all.

What's hypothetical about being 700 euro out of pocket and paying for someone else's' esb and gas?

Julez

@Frank Black


The mind really boggles, how you think this is OK is crazy, I can't tell if you're taking the piss to wind people up or not. Nothing about this situation is OK. I can't imagine the new tennant would be happy to know that someone still has keys and is still in a lease on that same property either. There is no excuse on the LL part.

petes

Sligo1 wrote: »

I mean, I don't for one minute believe you can read the future.......

I don't think they can read the thread let alone the future!