Moving Out Of Apartment - How Should It Work / Is My Landlord Taking Advantage?

UCDVet

Moved into a 1 bed apartment in Dublin @ 900 per month with 1 year lease. Lease ended and I stayed another ~8 months. Greater than 1 year, less than 2, and I want to move.

I notified my landlord on Feb.7th that I would be moving out. Law says I need to provide 42 days of notice. My rent was due on the 6th, which I paid in full. IE - I've paid for the apartment until March 7th already, plus I should still have it for another 12 days after (but I need to pay him for it)....is my understanding.

Since I've already moved out, the landlord has asked that I return the keys now (nearly 3 weeks early). I asked him if he'd be refunding 3/4ths of the rent, and he said that it would not be standard practice to refund rent and that tenants should pick up the cost.

To his benefit he says that if I return the keys to him now, and pay rent in a place I no longer have access to, *if* he rents it out before March 7th he won't ask me to pay for the remaining 12 days.

I'm fairly inexperienced with renting in Ireland. Is this really 'standard practice' as it seems a bit off to me. It seems if I'm paying for the apartment, he shouldn't have my keys and if he has my keys, I shouldn't be paying for the apartment.

There is nothing in the lease about such things, or any requirement to show the apartment during the end of the renting period.

djimi

If he wants the keys back now then he must return the remainder of the money paid for this rental month. He is having an absolute laugh if he thinks otherwise. If he is not prepared to hand back the money then do not, under and circumstances, return the keys. The property is still yours until the tenancy ends; it makes no odds whether you are still living there or not.

jlm29

I know it's petty, but if he's refusing to refund your money, I'd move some of my belongings back in... Sounds like he's taking the p1ss

davo10

Could be he cannot locate his set of keys, this has happened to me. If you are required to give notice, you are responsible for payment during that time regardless if you are actually there or have moved out, he 'll just deduct from your deposit if you don't pay.

He may need the keys to show perspective new tenants. What's the issue?, he said if he can rent it he will refund you, that sounds like a good deal, otherwise you keep the keys and pay the full amount, great advice there lads.

astrofool

Well, he could pursue you for the other 12 days if he fails to rent it by March 6th, it'd probably be fair on him to return the difference if he rents it out quickly, but it would be a hard one to pursue. Ideally you should have given notice 42 days before you actually moved out and saved yourself the hassle. Did you get your full deposit back?

the_syco

Tell the landlord you'll give back the keys before the 42 days are up if he refunds deposit in full. Otherwise, you won't move out until the 41st day, and give him the keys then.

I wonder can the OP charge the landlord for illegal eviction if the landlord changes the locks before those 42 days are up?

Also, bring him to the PTRB if he doesn't give you back the full deposit. MAKE SURE you take dated photos, possibly with that days newspaper in them, of all the rooms so that you have proof that house is of good order, in case the landlord claims otherwise if you do need to bring him to the PTRB.

djimi

davo10 wrote: »

He may need the keys to show perspective new tenants. What's the issue?, he said if he can rent it he will refund you, that sounds like a good deal, otherwise you keep the keys and pay the full amount, great advice there lads.

The issue is that the OP has paid for a month that isnt going to be refunded, and they are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property for that month (even if they are not living there). The landlord has no right to enter the property for any reason during that month, and has no right to bring people over for viewings. Normal rules still apply, even if the OP has moved their stuff out.

The alternative is for the landlord to end the tenancy and return the remainder of the months rent, but they cannot have their cake and eat it. Either they refund the money and get access to the property, or they keep the money and respect the law until the tenancy ends.

davo10

the_syco wrote: »

Tell the landlord you'll give back the keys before the 42 days are up if he refunds deposit in full. Otherwise, you won't move out until the 41st day, and give him the keys then.

I wonder can the OP charge the landlord for illegal eviction if the landlord changes the locks before those 42 days are up?

Also, bring him to the PTRB if he doesn't give you back the full deposit. MAKE SURE you take dated photos, possibly with that days newspaper in them, of all the rooms so that you have proof that house is of good order, in case the landlord claims otherwise if you do need to bring him to the PTRB.

So on the one hand the OP is bound to pay for the 42 days or it will be deducted from his deposit OR on the other hand he might get back some of the rent he owes during that 42 days if the LL can rent the apartment sooner. Hmmm let me see, which to do prefer pay the lot or potentially get some back? I know, I'll pay the lot, damn you to hell evil landlords.

Or he could just use his brain.

Did the LL say anything about changing locks?, if he was going to do that, he wouldn't need the keys back, would he? And if OP was to say,"give me back my deposit or I'm not giving you the keys", would the landlord not just say "fine keep the keys, you're paying for it, just give them to me in 3 weeks"?. Think about it.

davo10

djimi wrote: »

The issue is that the OP has paid for a month that isnt going to be refunded, and they are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property for that month (even if they are not living there). The landlord has no right to enter the property for any reason during that month, and has no right to bring people over for viewings. Normal rules still apply, even if the OP has moved their stuff out.

The alternative is for the landlord to end the tenancy and return the remainder of the months rent, but they cannot have their cake and eat it. Either they refund the money and get access to the property, or they keep the money and respect the law until the tenancy ends.

Oh dear God, one way he pays a months rent (€900) plus an extra 12 days (€350), OR ( remembering he has moved out) he allows the landlord to try and rent the place sooner and gets some of his money back. Hmmm let me think about that one.

Peaceful existence? he is renting somewhere else now. I think I'd exist more peacefully if I got some of my €1250 back.

Other threads advise tenants who leave properties early in the lease to try and get someone to rent it so that they don't have to pay the remainder of the lease, in this case, the LL, that evil fiend, has offered to try and rent the place during the notice period and refund the OP on the money he is going to have to otherwise pay. Am I missing something here?

One way the OP pays all he owes, the other he has a chance of paying less, yip djimi he should defiantly pay it all.

djimi

So you're okay with the OP paying €900 for a property that they do not have use of, and for a landlord to not only pocket that €900, but to also have another tenant also paying €900 at the same time?

The way I see it, if I'm paying for something then I want to have full use of it. The landlord is having a laugh here. If they want the property back then they give the money back (as it's them asking to terminate the tenancy early, not the tenant). If they won't return the money then they don't get use of the property, it's as simple as that.

davo10

djimi wrote: »

So you're okay with the OP paying €900 for a property that they do not have use of, and for a landlord to not only pocket that €900, but to also have another tenant also paying €900 at the same time?

The way I see it, if I'm paying for something then I want to have full use of it. The landlord is having a laugh here. If they want the property back then they give the money back (as it's them asking to terminate the tenancy early, not the tenant). If they won't return the money then they don't get use of the property, it's as simple as that.

Didn't the OP post that the evil LL would return money if he rented early?

Djimi if this thread read "I've paid up notice period of 42 days, should I ask LL to try and rent it now and refund me my money?" Would you reply "No, LLs are evil, pay the money you are a student and have too much, keep the apartment, you never know when you might need a spare one of them"?

djimi

But the landlord isn't refunding the money, that's the point. Okay they have said they will forego the final few days rent, but they are still looking to keep most of a months rent that they are not entitled to keep if the keys are returned; this my point.

D3PO

the hysteria here god almighty. Yes a load of you are right the OP has no obligation to return the keys early but jesus lads theres such a thing as the letter of the law and theres such a thing as agreeing to a mutually beneficial situation.

the OP is making no use of the place has moved out and has the potential to come to an agreement to possibly get 350 quid back. If people stopped for one second and thought about it why would the LL agree to get the keys back and return the rent now ?

They get no benefit out of that at all, however as they agree if they can rent it out prior to the expiration date of the OP's notice they will return the rent that would still be owing they both benefit the LL by having no unoccupancy and the OP by getting their 350 back. MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.

Any other circumstance is only beneficial to the OP so why would the LL do it.

Before grabbing the pitchforks and rounding up a posse to condem the LL for not following the law to the T perhaps think about the situation logically.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

But the landlord isn't refunding the money, that's the point. Okay they have said they will forego the final few days rent, but they are still looking to keep most of a months rent that they are not entitled to keep if the keys are returned; this my point.

so youd rather suggest the OP cut off their nose to spite their face. Hold onto the keys and essentially waste 350 quid out of principle ....

The suggestion your trying to make that the OP should demand a return of all the outstanding rent is riducolous. Only the IP wins there and there is no benefit to the LL. Unless the solution benefits them both which the LL's suggestion does then why would the LL go for it legal or not. They will happily take the 42 days rent from the OP and the OP is the one that loses.

davo10

djimi wrote: »

But the landlord isn't refunding the money, that's the point. Okay they have said they will forego the final few days rent, but they are still looking to keep most of a months rent that they are not entitled to keep if the keys are returned; this my point.

12 days = €350 approx.

If OP doesn't pay, it'll be deducted from deposit.

If LL rents before 7th, no €350 to pay. Even if he handed keys today, it will take a week or two for LL to clean the apartment. ( no reflection on OP) advertise it, have viewings and get contract signed. OP wins if LL rents it and loses €350 if he doesn't, again am I missing something here?

D3PO

your not missing something some people are missing logic though too caught up on the legality of things and not applying common sense.

djimi

My position is that the OP should be fighting to get all of their money back. They are not at fault here, they were fully prepared to pay all of what they owe. If the landlord wants the property back early then they should be prepared to give back rent that has been paid for the remaining period. It is not money that the landlord has any right to expect to keep. They basically want double rent for the next month and a half (its not like they are going to leave the property empty until the middle of next month).

Im not getting caught up in the legalities of it; it would just rub me up massively that someone else is living in a property that I paid €900 for the use of.

astrofool

djimi wrote: »

My position is that the OP should be fighting to get all of their money back. They are not at fault here, they were fully prepared to pay all of what they owe. If the landlord wants the property back early then they should be prepared to give back rent that has been paid for the remaining period. It is not money that the landlord has any right to expect to keep. They basically want double rent for the next month and a half (its not like they are going to leave the property empty until the middle of next month).

Im not getting caught up in the legalities of it; it would just rub me up massively that someone else is living in a property that I paid €900 for the use of.

Or the LL just sits on his arse for the month, takes €350 out of the deposit, and starts the next tenancy after that.

If the OP was living in the place, the LL would still be entitled to arrange viewings for the next tenant.

davo10

djimi wrote: »

My position is that the OP should be fighting to get all of their money back. They are not at fault here, they were fully prepared to pay all of what they owe. If the landlord wants the property back early then they should be prepared to give back rent that has been paid for the remaining period. It is not money that the landlord has any right to expect to keep. They basically want double rent for the next month and a half (its not like they are going to leave the property empty until the middle of next month).

Im not getting caught up in the legalities of it; it would just rub me up massively that someone else is living in a property that I paid €900 for the use of.

Or the LL could be doing the OP a good turn, arranging a new tenant early and not charging for the 12 days, either way LL gets paid but one way OP doesn't have to pay for the 12 days. This is a no brainer for most people.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

My position is that the OP should be fighting to get all of their money back. .

think about what your suggesting. If the OP demanded all their money back a LL would tell them to go fu(k themselves and the OP would be on the hook for the 350 euro.

Going into this like a bull in a china shop and the OP loses out.

there is no benefit to the LL getting posession early if he cannot relet it and you need to have the forsight to look beyond the legal facts of the matter and actually think logically for a change.

Mrs OBumble

OP, think about what will happen if some kn**** breaks into the place and trashes it before March-whatever-ith: you won't be there, you won't know - until you turn up for your move-out inspection and discover it trashed!

What's more the landlord insurance most likely requires him/her to notify them if the property is to be empty for more than 30 days, so it may not be covered.

Worse case, you could end up owing a lot more than 12 days rent.

IMHO you should be having the inspection and handig back the keys no more than a day or two after you move out. That way the risk is transferred back to the landlord.

djimi

The OP is losing out either way. One way they pay €900 with nothing to show for it. At least if they pay €1200 they have the use of the apartment for the next 6 weeks.

Maybe its just a matter of principle, but it doesnt sit right with me to hand someone €900 for an apartment that you dont have access to, when the landlord will be getting another €900 from someone else also. I understand the point of saving the extra few days of rent, but to me the landlord is pulling a fast one when they really have no right to expect to keep the extra money.

D3PO

djimi wrote: »

The OP is losing out either way. One way they pay €900 with nothing to show for it. At least if they pay €1200 they have the use of the apartment for the next 6 weeks.
.

The point is they have NO USE for the apartment for the next 6 weeks. They are renting somewhere else, they have moved all there stuff out. Lets get with reality here and try and discuss this based on the realism of the situation.

djimi

Fair enough. Like I said, maybe its just down to principles. If Im going to pay for something then Id like to have use of it (even if it means its sitting empty most of the time). If Im not getting use of it then I want my money returned.

I was in a similar situation when I last moved. I found it very handy to have use of my old place for a few weeks while moving; it was great for storage etc while we sorted ourselves out. I also used it at lunchtime on occasion as it is closer to where I work than my current place is.

Ultimately its up to the OP what they want to do. They just need to be aware that legally they are not obliged to hand over the keys early and forfeit rent paid when they are not the ones who are looking to terminate the tenancy early. How they choose to play it is up to them.

D3PO

like i said if somebody wants to cut off their nose to spite there face thats there decision.

€350 versus the principle of the situation. In this situation €350 wins everytime for me but each to their own.

djimi

To be honest, I think its just the attitude of the landlord (or at least how it is written here) that has annoyed me a bit.

Since I've already moved out, the landlord has asked that I return the keys now (nearly 3 weeks early). I asked him if he'd be refunding 3/4ths of the rent, and he said that it would not be standard practice to refund rent and that tenants should pick up the cost.

To his benefit he says that if I return the keys to him now, and pay rent in a place I no longer have access to, *if* he rents it out before March 7th he won't ask me to pay for the remaining 12 days.

Its the sense of entitlement of "oh youre not using it so give me back the keys, but no I wont be returning the rent paid, and if I bother to relet then I wont ask you for more rent". Obviously it might not have gone down like that in reality, but its how it read when I saw it first last night that rubbed me up the wrong way and made me think "screw him, he is just being cheeky".

Lemming

djimi wrote: »

Its the sense of entitlement of "oh youre not using it so give me back the keys, but no I wont be returning the rent paid, and if I bother to relet then I wont ask you for more rent". Obviously it might not have gone down like that in reality, but its how it read when I saw it first last night that rubbed me up the wrong way and made me think "screw him, he is just being cheeky".

What the landlord is really saying is "I don't have your money to return".

godtabh

Insurance could be invalid if the apartment is empty for more than 30 days

djimi

godtabh wrote: »

Insurance could be invalid if the apartment is empty for more than 30 days

If thats the case then it should be a clause in the lease, and as such would be enforceable until the tenancy ends. If its not in the lease then its not the tenants business to know this.

godtabh

djimi wrote: »

If thats the case then it should be a clause in the lease, and as such would be enforceable until the tenancy ends. If its not in the lease then its not the tenants business to know this.

My lease states that the apartment can not be left vacate for more than 30 days.

davo10

djimi wrote: »

The OP is losing out either way. One way they pay €900 with nothing to show for it. At least if they pay €1200 they have the use of the apartment for the next 6 weeks.

Maybe its just a matter of principle, but it doesnt sit right with me to hand someone €900 for an apartment that you dont have access to, when the landlord will be getting another €900 from someone else also. I understand the point of saving the extra few days of rent, but to me the landlord is pulling a fast one when they really have no right to expect to keep the extra money.

Ah no, that's the point we are trying to get you and the OP to understand, he doesn't "lose either way", he has a chance of "winning" if he gets €350 off rent.

The apartment technically isn't empty, it's rented to the OP until his tenancy is up, whether he lives there are not is his business. As Mrs OB posted, he he responsible for its condition until that end date.