Deposit Question

Cato2605

Hi Guys,

I had to cancell my lease four months into a fixed term lease. I was fully expecting the landlord to keep the deposit. But LL was very fair and said if she got a tenant in on time she would refund the deposit. I moved out on the 26/01/2014 and paid rent till the 13/02/14. So i was really appreciative and thought very fair of them. They managed to rent the place easy enough, however advised me that the Estate Agent has charged them a fee of which will be deducted from my deposit. The Estate Agent only finds the tenant and going forward they would deal with the landlord for the remainder of the lease. My question is would anyone have an idea how much the Estate Agent fee is approx. The rent is € 750 per month. I am just wondering how much to expect back. Again the fact i am getting anything back is really positive.

Thanks

djimi

I'm not sure how much the fee would be, but either way get a receipt for the deduction.

It's the law btw that the landlord relet the property in a timely fashion and return the remainder of the deposit. Fair play to her for not making it awkward though.

The_Morrigan

Is that a valid deduction from the tenants deposit though? The landlord would have had to pay that if the tenant served the full lease and gave notice to quit at the end of the existing lease, it seems to be an unfair deduction.

Shedite27

Cato2605 wrote: »

My question is would anyone have an idea how much the Estate Agent fee is approx.

Going rate in Dublin seems to be about 4% of the annual rent.

Cato2605

hi OP here, I have spoken to Thresehold and they have advised I am entitled to a full refund of the deposit and rent paid if the LL managed to rent the apt. The only deductions that can be made from a deposit is rent arrears, damage to the property and unpaid bills which there are none. My lease has no break clause so i am not sure what will happen. I don't want to cause waves but also don't want to appear a mug. I might suggest they keep the rent already paid to cover the estate agent fees as a gesture of good faith if they fully return the deposit. thanks for the replies

Eldarion

Could argue that the LL was expecting to pay the EA fee at max once every 12 month period. OP breaking his lease early incurred this fee to occur twice in this 12 month period.

The_Morrigan

Eldarion wrote: »

Could argue that the LL was expecting to pay the EA fee at max once every 12 month period. OP breaking his lease early incurred this fee to occur twice in this 12 month period.

....but extending it into another 12 month period, so that the next payout is further into the future - it works out the same for the landlord overall.
Also, if going by the suggestion of 4% being the typical fee and assuming that the rent hasn't been increased (which could be likely in this climate) the OP is losing half of their deposit, while also having paid rent for a place which has now been rented out. That's just really unfair.

D3PO

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Is that a valid deduction from the tenants deposit though? The landlord would have had to pay that if the tenant served the full lease and gave notice to quit at the end of the existing lease, it seems to be an unfair deduction.

yes of course its a fair deduction. The expense is caused by the tenant moving out early your logic that the deduction is unfair has no merit.

if a LL had somebody break a lease every month they'd be stuck with 12 reletting charges in a year as opposed to 1 if the tenants stuck to their lease.

As tenants are libel for expenses caused when they dont invoke part 4 rights in writing which result in the LL having expenses they otherwise wouldnt have had so why do you believe this would be any different.

D3PO

Cato2605 wrote: »

hi OP here, I have spoken to Thresehold and they have advised I am entitled to a full refund of the deposit and rent paid if the LL managed to rent the apt. The only deductions that can be made from a deposit is rent arrears, damage to the property and unpaid bills which there are none. My lease has no break clause so i am not sure what will happen. I don't want to cause waves but also don't want to appear a mug. I might suggest they keep the rent already paid to cover the estate agent fees as a gesture of good faith if they fully return the deposit. thanks for the replies

Threshold as they regularly are are wrong. The LL is 100% entitled to deduct reletting expenses.

The_Morrigan

D3PO wrote: »

yes of course its a fair deduction. The expense is caused by the tenant moving out early your logic that the deduction is unfair has no merit.

if a LL had somebody break a lease every month they'd be stuck with 12 reletting charges in a year as opposed to 1 if the tenants stuck to their lease.

As tenants are libel for expenses caused when they dont invoke part 4 rights in writing why do you believe this would be any different.

Because the tenant has been replaced, the property is not sitting idle

D3PO

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Because the tenant has been replaced, the property is not sitting idle

That doesnt absolve the OP from the expenses of reletting.

The_Morrigan

D3PO wrote: »

That doesnt absolve the OP from the expenses of reletting.

The OP is offering the overpayment of rent as a compromise, which is two weeks . Why should the landlord also get half of the deposit?

djimi

If a tenants looks to reassign a lease then they are responsible for all associated costs. I dont see why this would be any different to be honest (and its what Im basing my thinking on).

D3PO

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The OP is offering the overpayment of rent as a compromise, which is two weeks . Why should the landlord also get half of the deposit?

i didnt say they were entitled to half the deposit I said they were entitled to the reletting expenses.

If that happens to be the 2 weeks rent and half the deposit then thats what it is.

The LL shouldnt be 1 cent out of pocket.

Cato2605

guys, just FYI i did offer the landlord the option that i would look for the new tenant subject to their approval etc. She said she would prefare to use the estate agent. I offered to put on daft do all the work the estate agent would usually do. So i did offer to get someone in to cover the lease

D3PO

offering to get someone in and getting someone in are two different things. You didnt do the latter so the charges are still reasonable.

odds_on

D3PO wrote: »

offering to get someone in and getting someone in are two different things. You didnt do the latter so the charges are still reasonable.

Not sure if the PRTB would agree with you. IMHO, the PRTB would consider like this:

The law requires the tenant to find the replacement tenant, as a first and primary option.

Only if the tenant fails to find a replacement tenant can a landlord then go ahead and use the second option, and find a replacement himself.

In this instance, the OP was going to find the replacement.
Landlord refuses to follow the first requirement of the law and wants to use the second option first - she wants to find new tenant.

As the landlord refused option 1 and used an estate agent the tenant is not liable for the landlord's expenses.

D3PO

I guess it comes down to interpretation.

My take is that the tenant advised they were moving out and did not have a tenant to move in as being failure of the the tenant to find a replacement and therefore makes the LL's finding of a new tenant legitimate.

For the primary option to be relevent in my interpretation the tenant would need to find the replacement and go to the LL requesting reassignement of the lease to that tenant.

Like I said though that would be down to interpretation. Personally speaking if I was the LL I would be making the deduction. Of course the OP is more than entitled to test the PRTB interpretation by raising a dispute.

The_Conductor

I'm with D3PO on this.
Reletting expenses, when a fixed term lease is broken early, are normally a deductible cost from a tenant's deposit. If the tenancy had run its course and reached either a break point, or completion- then its different, and it would be up to the landlord to cover any reletting expenses.

The tenant could have reassigned the lease- however only with the agreement of the landlord.

You can debate it until the cows come home- I genuinely think Threshold have offered seriously dubious advice in this instance.

D3PO

The_Conductor wrote: »

You can debate it until the cows come home- I genuinely think Threshold have offered seriously dubious advice in this instance.

I often believe part of the issue is that Threshold dont actually drill down into the actual query.

very easy to say your entitled to everything back if somebody calls you and says ive moved out of my fixed lease early and LL got somebody in the next day and didnt lose any rent am i entitled to all my deposit back ?

odds_on

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm with D3PO on this.
Reletting expenses, when a fixed term lease is broken early, are normally a deductible cost from a tenant's deposit. If the tenancy had run its course and reached either a break point, or completion- then its different, and it would be up to the landlord to cover any reletting expenses.

The tenant could have reassigned the lease- however only with the agreement of the landlord.

You can debate it until the cows come home- I genuinely think Threshold have offered seriously dubious advice in this instance.

I take my leas from a Tribunal decision, although a different scenario, the principle is the same:

In relation to the paintwork and the carpets the Appellant Landlord acted in a manner that was unreasonable, in that he refused their offer to have the carpets professionally steam cleaned and also their offer to touch up the paint work as required.
TR186 /2011/DR2108/2010

Having studied some 1500 adjudicator's decisions and tribunal decisions I am getting to know their thoughts. Plus, the PRTB seem to give the tenant the "benefit of the doubt" - the tenants always win or the PRTB are on the tenants' side.

D3PO

odds_on wrote: »

I take my leas from a Tribunal decision, although a different scenario, the principle is the same:


Having studied some 1500 adjudicator's decisions and tribunal decisions I am getting to know their thoughts. Plus, the PRTB seem to give the tenant the "benefit of the doubt" - the tenants always win or the PRTB are on the tenants' side.

im not sure why you have even quoted this as its not even removely relevent nor does it have a similar principle at all.

dissed doc

odds_on wrote: »

Not sure if the PRTB would agree with you. IMHO, the PRTB would consider like this:

The law requires the tenant to find the replacement tenant, as a first and primary option.

Only if the tenant fails to find a replacement tenant can a landlord then go ahead and use the second option, and find a replacement himself.

In this instance, the OP was going to find the replacement.
Landlord refuses to follow the first requirement of the law and wants to use the second option first - she wants to find new tenant.

As the landlord refused option 1 and used an estate agent the tenant is not liable for the landlord's expenses.

In essence the landlord should simply not be flexible with tenants; should have let them continue to pay rent and stay in the place until they got a replacement themselves. Moral of the story for landlords: don't be nice and don't work with tenants. They have to keep paying, and do the work, or it will come back to bite you later.

Lol at the PTRB.

homerno

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Is that a valid deduction from the tenants deposit though? The landlord would have had to pay that if the tenant served the full lease and gave notice to quit at the end of the existing lease, it seems to be an unfair deduction.

you have a good point but,,, we do not know how long the lease was for , with a guess im gonna say 1 year, so yes the landlord benefits from starting a new one year lease, however has lost 8 months from the first one, so the gain is 4 months, then its going to cost him 90 euro to reregister, 30 euro for and add on daft, time and trouble, most likely a light cleaning, etc. what you are saying would be true if he was 11 months into a one year lease, not having a go at you by the way. just a thought.

odds_on

homerno wrote: »

you have a good point but,,, we do not know how long the lease was for , with a guess im gonna say 1 year, so yes the landlord benefits from starting a new one year lease, however has lost 8 months from the first one, so the gain is 4 months, then its going to cost him 90 euro to reregister, 30 euro for and add on daft, time and trouble, most likely a light cleaning, etc. what you are saying would be true if he was 11 months into a one year lease, not having a go at you by the way. just a thought.

If he starts a new lease - tenancy - then he has a new PRTB fee to pay. If there is an assignment then it is still the same tenancy and no new PRTB fee.

homerno

homerno wrote: »

you have a good point but,,, we do not know how long the lease was for , with a guess im gonna say 1 year, so yes the landlord benefits from starting a new one year lease, however has lost 8 months from the first one, so the gain is 4 months, then its going to cost him 90 euro to reregister, 30 euro for and add on daft, time and trouble, most likely a light cleaning, etc. what you are saying would be true if he was 11 months into a one year lease, not having a go at you by the way. just a thought.

sorry i had intended to reply to morrigans reply to eldarion, it went a bit wrong sorry for the mix up guys,;)