Moving out, landlord wants to deduct cleaning and lightbulbs

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

brownej

damienirel wrote: »

Rubbish. Fraud to demand you replace a light bulb? get real! You've got one hell of an imagination I'll give you that.
Also they would have to show receipts for any work done or items purchased. If the bulbs were replaced by the tenant they wouldn't have to go out and buy new ones. Looking for a tax angle on 100 quid - you must think revenue have nothing to be doing?

Read what I replied to please before jumping to conclusions.

I am not commenting on the OPs initial question about lightbulbs, I am replying to a genreal assertion about wear and tear that sarkozy made.

Your perception of my imagination is irrelevant to the discussion on the thread and I have no opinion at this time as to what revenue should be doing.

damienirel

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair dos sherlock!!!

damienirel

brownej wrote: »

Read what I replied to please before jumping to conclusions.

I am not commenting on the OPs initial question about lightbulbs, I am replying to a genreal assertion about wear and tear that sarkozy made.

Your perception of my imagination is irrelevant to the discussion on the thread and I have no opinion at this time as to what revenue should be doing.

But isn't that the crux of the matter - the landlord isn't deeming the cleaning or light bulbs as wear and tear he's considering them costs outside of normal wear & tear.

Tarzana

damienirel wrote: »

Yeah agree. Simple rule of thumb(and be honest with yourself first) are you leaving the place the way you got it? Maybe you're not and you'll have to suck it up.

beauf wrote: »

You'd have to leave it as you got it.

A property will not be, and should not be expected to be, in the same condition as it was let after five years. That's a lot of wear and tear. Obviously some things don't fall under wear and tear and need to be looked after by the tenant but it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the place to be exactly the same condition after five years.

Tarzana

brownej wrote: »

Landlords don't just factor this into the cost of doing business they offset it as a capital expense against the tax liable on the rent of the property. This is done over 8 years at 12.5%.

No, you're a bit confused. You can't claim capital expenses against repairs and incidental costs of renting, which painting and the like would fall under. They are just bringing the property back to its former state, not improving it. You can against improvements to the property but this would be things like putting on an extension. But you can deduct these incidental and repair costs against the rental income so yes there are some deductions for repairs. They are just not capital expenses.

EDIT: Sorry didn't mean to put that thumbs down in there.

L0ui5e

Make sure he furnishes you with receipts for the cleaning and the bulbs.
You may need him as a referee for future lettings so maybe you need to keep things amicable. Obviously not let him walk over you but weigh up your pros and cons OP.
I remember once being in a house share with a girl and when light blew in her bedroom she wanted to contact the landlord to get him to pay for replacing. We managed to dissuade her.
My take on your situation: light bulbs were working when you went into house and if they are blown now then the landlord will be out of pocket to replace for next tenant but after five years of you being as you describe a good tenant it all seems a bit petty on his part.
The place can't be too manky because like someone else has said here he won't get much cleaning for €100 (less light bulb costs).
My tuppence worth- chalk it down!

Sun in Capri

Re the light bulbs - I would say of course I will pay for any missing light bulbs or light bulbs not working and by the way here are the receipts for the light bulbs I replaced over the past 5 years.

I am both an tenant and and landlord, you really would have to wonder about some people. Presumably you were a very suitable tenant if you were allowed stay there 5 years. Wouldn't you think for the sake of 100 euro that there would be no issue!!

Miaireland

The last place that I rented the landlord took money from the deposit to clean the place. To be fair we were informed of this when we signed the lease, it was a fixed amount. At the end of the lease we were given a breakdown of what was cleaned by the cleaning company and money was refunded to us. To be fair they also showed us receipts proving that the place had been professionally cleaned when we moved in.

To be honest if I was moving out I would have replaced any blown bulbs if they were working ones there when I moved in. I wouldn't really consider it wear or tear, rather the item was used up. If I was the landlord I would be very annoyed about it. If you don't want the money for the bulbs taken out of your deposit drop over some bulbs to landlord to replace the blown ones.

cerastes

light bulbs are standard items, from what I can see the OP has said they were there when they arrived and seems to dispute that the same should be there when they leave. (if a suite of furniture was provided or a bed or cutlery at the start and it was no longer present at the end of the tenancy, should the tenant not pay for it to be replaced?)
I saw light bulbs recently (cfc's) from 2.19-6.95 for bayonet connection. How many were missing? were they cfcs? if not cant see why the OP wouldnt just replace them without a fuss, if so, then they certainly need to be deducted for if not replaced.

As for the cleaning, only the people present can know for certain what its like. Ive seen tenants wreck blinds after a year, damage appliances and wonder what went wrong and try tell me they scrubbed the place when I can see it has a veneer of grease in the kitchen from never being cleaned, despite informing them it needed to be done, or them tell me they vacuumed the place top to bottom and wonder why it was undone, either because they hadn't done it or they never noticed the bag in the hoover had burst and was spewing dust everywhere, or after that packed in, the bagless hoover was so full and they never thought of emptying it so it wouldnt vacuum anything.

I'm sure this isn't the case with the OP, but when someone wont even replace a few light bulbs, it casts some suspicion in my mind what kind of cleaning job they'd do, that's just based on my experience though.

I dont make a big deal of cleaning and account for wear and tear, but when someone has left that all to me and has clearly made no effort then I apply the letter of the law.

brownej

Tarzana wrote: »

No, you're a bit confused. You can't claim capital expenses against repairs and incidental costs of renting, which painting and the like would fall under. They are just bringing the property back to its former state, not improving it. You can against improvements to the property but this would be things like putting on an extension. But you can deduct these incidental and repair costs against the rental income so yes there are some deductions for repairs. They are just not capital expenses.

EDIT: Sorry didn't mean to put that thumbs down in there.

Apologies I conflated everything under Capital. To be more exact General maintenance and wear and tear are allowable expenses that can be offset against tax liability. Fixtures and furniture are allowable under a capital offset of 12.5% over 8 years.
There is a handy list under tax in the tips and advice section of Irishlandlord.com*

* I have no relationsip with this site

Tarzana

cerastes wrote: »

I'm sure this isn't the case with the OP, but when someone wont even replace a few light bulbs, it casts some suspicion in my mind what kind of cleaning job they'd do,

In the case of recessed lighting, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Those things are bright, and if 5 out of the 8 were working, that might have been more than enough light for the OP, especially if the working ones were evenly spread throughout the room. People wouldn't tend to change bulbs if the lighting the room is sufficient or more than sufficient.

cerastes

Tarzana wrote: »

In the case of recessed lighting, I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Those things are bright, and if 5 out of the 8 were working, that might have been more than enough light for the OP, especially if the working ones were evenly spread throughout the room. People wouldn't tend to change bulbs if the lighting the room is sufficient or more than sufficient.

This isnt about what one person or another thinks is adequete illumination,
of 8/8 were working when they arrived then so 8/8 should be when they leave.
Some things are consumable through use, bulbs can wear out with use or switching.
Whats reasonable wear and tear? well if its moderate wear, such that its normally aged but can be still used by someone else then its normal.
If someone wrecks a couch or rips up the carpet it cant serve the function its meant to, similarily if its missing it cant serve that purpose, ie missing items add up, delf, cutlery, pots, pans, all adds up.
Non functional or present bulbs cannot be used, its so trivial, but that doesnt surprise me someone would contest replacing them, Ive had people try hide or deny much more expensive damage

Tarzana

cerastes wrote: »

This isnt about what one person or another thinks is adequete illumination,
of 8/8 were working when they arrived then so 8/8 should be when they leave.

You missed my point. Adequate lighting is very much relevant to how much though someone will give to replacing the bulbs. 5 out of 8 should be loads going by any recessed lighting I've ever experienced. I'm sorry but this isn't something that someone is going to give much thought to if it's not causing damage or affecting their day to day life.

OP, accept the cost of lightbulbs. But it IS ridiculously petty of the landlord to charge it after five years of good tenancy. In the same way, some things a tenant asks for fall under the "Ah for fook's sake" category, even if it is something you could probably ask the landlord to sort. A bit of common sense either way wouldn't go amiss.

As for the cleaning, explore further. Ask the LL what they think needs cleaning and why it is dirty above normal wear and tear. (ie carpets aren't going to look as good after five years, neither is paintwork)

Diarmuid

OP I can understand your frustration at the unreasonable and penny pinching attitude of your landlord. I think it's ridiculous that the landlord would be so petty to charge you €100 after your being a model tenant. I would see it analogous to having paid €500 for 3 nights in a hotel and being charged 50cents for the shampoo used on the way out.

However, I'd advise you to take the pragmatic approach and just pay up the €100. You may need a reference from the landlord if you are moving on to another tenancy and even if you didn't, life is too short to waste it on your landlord. Leave him with his €100, smile, take the good reference and never think about him again.

cerastes

Diarmuid wrote: »

OP I can understand your frustration at the unreasonable and penny pinching attitude of your landlord. I think it's ridiculous that the landlord would be so petty to charge you €100 after your being a model tenant. I would see it analogous to having paid €500 for 3 nights in a hotel and being charged 50cents for the shampoo used on the way out.

However, I'd advise you to take the pragmatic approach and just pay up the €100. You may need a reference from the landlord if you are moving on to another tenancy and even if you didn't, life is too short to waste it on your landlord. Leave him with his €100, smile, take the good reference and never think about him again.

If you empty the minibar you'll be charged, hell if you put your own items in the fridge you can be charged, take the towels and dressing gown, I dont think they consider them free gifts, and if you leave with all the light bulbs, Im guessing you'll be charged, but you'll also look very very cheap and mean, its ok to use the shampoo though.

the world wonders

Diarmuid wrote: »

Leave him with his €100, smile, take the good reference and never think about him again after you have your reference and have moved into the new place, take him to the PRTB to get your €100 back

fixed

Kournikova

I have a similar problem regarding the cleaning. First the estate agent said the cupboards in the kitchen weren't clean enough but when asked what cupboards in question they sent photos of the entire apartment regarding how much cleaning would be required. Some are random photos of light switches and the buzzer to let people in the front door, I assume they mean there must be finger marks. Lived there 2 years.

If it was a reasonable amount I wouldn't mind but they've suggested they'll get two quotes and go with the cheapest and deduct from the deposit, so I've no idea what they'll come up with. From the minor pics I've seen I'm not even sure it would take an hour to clean what they're suggesting is dirty.

Legally I checked it says damage, I know damage is arbitrary but I don't see what I'd call damage in any of the pictures.

So should I bother fighting it out or just agree and move on?

Eldarion

Kournikova wrote: »

From the minor pics I've seen I'm not even sure it would take an hour to clean what they're suggesting is dirty.

Wonder how long you'll spend fighting this when it would have taken you an hour to do it yourself prior to vacating. And yes it was your responsibility.

Tiddlypeeps

Kournikova wrote: »

I have a similar problem regarding the cleaning. First the estate agent said the cupboards in the kitchen weren't clean enough but when asked what cupboards in question they sent photos of the entire apartment regarding how much cleaning would be required. Some are random photos of light switches and the buzzer to let people in the front door, I assume they mean there must be finger marks. Lived there 2 years.

If it was a reasonable amount I wouldn't mind but they've suggested they'll get two quotes and go with the cheapest and deduct from the deposit, so I've no idea what they'll come up with. From the minor pics I've seen I'm not even sure it would take an hour to clean what they're suggesting is dirty.

Legally I checked it says damage, I know damage is arbitrary but I don't see what I'd call damage in any of the pictures.

So should I bother fighting it out or just agree and move on?

If you read most of the thread you'll see the only thing people are contesting is weather the OP should pay for lightbulbs or not, this is because the LL shouldn't charge for cleaning unless it's excessive. If the place really was reasonably clean when you left then he has no right to charge you for any extra cleaning.

The question is how much is it worth to you. If you need a reference and it's a small amount of money it may not be worth getting on the LL's bad side. Otherwise I'd be letting the landlord know that you think the charge is unreasonable and if he charges it then you will be opening a claim with the PRTB.

miezekatze

When we moved out of our rented apartment last year, we got an email from the letting agent shortly before the move out date with some kind of a checklist. One of the items on the list was to make sure all missing lightbulbs or lightbulbs that weren't working would be replaced before moving out. They gave a standard price per lightbulb if this wasn't done (can't remember how much, but it was a crazy price) which would be taken out of the deposit, and a note that the price was so high because they had to get an electrician to replace them if it's not done by the tenant. I'd never heard of people being charged for lightbulbs before, but I actually think that's perfectly OK. Almost every place I've ever moved into had most lightbulbs missing when I moved in because the previous tenants had taken them and the landlord didn't want to replace them themselves - very irritating if you don't notice right away and were planning on cleaning the apartment in the evening!

Kournikova

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

The question is how much is it worth to you. If you need a reference and it's a small amount of money it may not be worth getting on the LL's bad side. Otherwise I'd be letting the landlord know that you think the charge is unreasonable and if he charges it then you will be opening a claim with the PRTB.

Yeah I know what you mean, the thing is I doubt it'd be a small amount, they have said they'll get two quotes and go with the cheapest but haven't given me any indication of cost. Its an estate agent if that is relevant.

For example when I moved in they said they had to repaint the place from the previous tenant, that I get because it was actual damage, a scuff on light switches or the door buzzer doesn't in my view amount to damage.

One of my flatmates is more for fighting this than me I think. Its just my general distrust of estate agents that makes me feel the need to go with it

foggy_lad

anncoates wrote: »

Landlord is being a twat but I'd probably just replace the bulbs to avoid a possibly drawn out fight about it.

Unless you've actually left some kind of stains or mess asking for cleaning money is taking the piss too.

Stains are reasonable wear and tear as long as reasonable attempts have been made to clean them

Tarzana

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If you need a reference and it's a small amount of money it may not be worth getting on the LL's bad side.

And this right here is what is wrong with the current reference system. If the LL is in the wrong, the threat of a bad reference should not be held over you. In cases like that, I'd be fabricating a reference for the next place. Not right, no, but neither is the alternative.

Grandpa Hassan

Life would be made so much easier if it were just made standard that the vacating tenant pays for a deep clean. That is the standard in the UK, and I have incorporated the obligation into the lease on my Dublin flat.

cerastes

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Life would be made so much easier if it were just made standard that the vacating tenant pays for a deep clean. That is the standard in the UK, and I have incorporated the obligation into the lease on my Dublin flat.

What's involved in a deep clean? while all for the idea, I still think some people could do as good a job as a cleaner paid for, if the shoe was on the other foot, Id rather have the opportunity myself.
If a place is kept clean regularily as it should be, a deep clean shouldnt really be any different than a regular intensive clean, except its everywhere in one go.

Tarzana

Tenants can do a deep clean themselves just as well in many cases. THAT should be the obligation, not paying to get it done. Honestly, sometimes what you pay for isn't that great.

Grandpa Hassan

We are talking different things here. A deep clean is a professional clean. The cleaners I use have industrial carpet cleaners, for example, and the place afterwards looks like a new show-home. I can't trust a tenant to do that kind of work

Like I said, it's the uk way of doing things. It's what I have become used to. Remember that outgoing tenants are incoming tenants somewhere else as well, and they get to move in to a spectacularly clean home