House landlord is selling magically appears for rent at a higher price

KrakityJones

Ok so finally a proper update on all of this, sorry for the wait! This is gonna be a long one so I'll stick in an oul TLDR at the end.

It's now been 7 and a bit months and this still isn't fully sorted, however it's in the final stages now so I don't think there's any harm now in talking about it, a decision has been made by the PRTB (I think), just waiting on the result.

So.where to start. The two issues we had were 1) The house being rented again right after we moved out and 2) Not getting our deposit back.

After lodging the complaint with the prtb things went south pretty fast. Prior to all of this I got on quite well with the landlord, and thought he was a decent (if not slightly odd) kind of fellow. Boy did he show his true colours with a flourish. Things turned quite nasty with him making up completely daft accusations of what we had done to his property, with something new added each week. He spun a story to some neighbours that we moved out because we couldn't afford to live there anymore. Things took a more ominous turn when he sent a couple of emails being subtly threatening - nothing outright, but enough to say drop it or I'll try make life as difficult as possible for you.(one example is he knew I did some work outside of my main job and threatened to report me to revenue, not in so many words, but that's what he was saying. For those interested that was about as threatening as throwing a dry sponge at me as I am fully paid up and declared with revenue so happy to be "reported").

Needless to say I did not drop it.

We found out from neighbours that yes indeed the house was rented again about a month after we left, but only for a very short time. Ultimately the bank repossessed the house and he is no longer the owner.

This might be a dissapointing end to the saga but with finding out that he had the house repossessed, (and seeing proof of same) we decided not to pursue on the fact it was rented again so soon. Despite the landlord turning into that much of a dick about things I'm not going to turn the knife - he's obviously in financial trouble, that's fine - I never had a problem with us moving out on that basis. The fact he did re-rent it I'm not happy about but whatever. He's a chancer and thought he'd squeeze one more months rent out of someone in the hopes the bank problem went on longer, frankly I'm glad he did that to them and not us - had we been given a weeks notice that the sheriff was coming to change the locks and turf us out it would have been worse. He said we needed to leave because the banks were coming for the house, the bank ultimately came for the house - that's absoloutly fine. Problem resolved.

The deposit however is a different story - I will say hand on heart that we looked after that house while we were there. It was our home for years. I painted it, repaired bits and pieces ourselves, kept it clean never asked him for anything. So when he turned around and said that we left the house filthy, that we'd wrecked carpets etc I was not happy.

The prtb, I must say have been excellent...eventually. They frustrated the hell out of me at the beginning as they seem to take an age to anything and for a while there it looked like their whole function was to pass letters back and forth. Eventually however after much letter passing, they set up a meeting between the landlord, one of their guys, and us.

Their guy was very balanced and stated the issues - asking each side to explain themselves and to provide proof where it exisited. This is where the tide started to turn - because.. lo and behold a liar does not have any proof as lies are..well..lies.

I don't need to outline each and every thing but an example of some of the "issues" were :
1) We had never paid the bin charges, so landlord was out of pocked for thousands. It is correct that we never paid bin charges, because they were included.
This one was just plain nuts as we had a copy of the leases signed by him with it very clearly stating that he would pay the bins.
2) When we repainted the house we did it to a colour he didn't want so he had to repaint it back.
This was a bit trickier as the repainting permission was given verbally. However the walls were very clearly the same colour we left them in photos taken by the new owner (bank) - ie he had obviously not had to repaint.
3) We were always late paying the bills. Landlord obviously went a bit brain-numb on this one as all rent was paid by standing order so I have records of each and every payment.

There were lots and lots of other bits and pieces like the above - where he made some claim about damage or disagreement in a lease where we had photos or signed letters from him prooving the opposite. The biggest thing to go against him was that he had no receipts - not one to proove any of the "costs" he had incurred from us.

As I said at the start we still don't have the outcome of the meeting, but I'd be absoloutly baffled it it was found in his favour, but we shall see. One interesting thing the prtb fellow said to the landlord summed up a common attidtude problem here regarding deposits. He said "That deposit money is their money. It's not your money to spend and they are not asking for you to pay them 400 out of your pocket, they are asking for their money back. If you choose to withold that you have to prove how you are out of pocket".


TLDR :
Landlord asked us to move out - claimed the bank was taking the house. We agreed, found it back online 2 weeks later for rent. Turns out while he did rent it again it was for about 1/2 months max and house was indeed repossessed. Decided not to pursue.

Landlord withheld deposit - claimed we did all sorts of damage, didn't pay bills etc. Landlord is a nutcase as every claim was without proof on his side, and backed up by proof on ourside in the form of signed documents from him, photos taken in the house before/after we left etc. Awaiting verdict from prtb.

So that's it. I'm hopefull that the verdict from the prtb will be positive on the deposit. I suspect it will but I also suspect even with that we'll have a hell of a time actually getting the money from him. Should we have pursued the fact he rented it again? Maybe, but I'm not in this for compensation or any of that lark - we just wanted our money back and to stand up against an absoloute bully who thought they could do whatever they want.

Lesson learned is - don't give up and do go to the prtb. That goes for Landlords too - as I say the guy struck me very fair and unbalanced and I don't doubt for one second that if we were in the wrong we wouldn't be long being told.

And landlord - if you are reading this as I suspect, I wish you the best regardless - it didn't have to be this difficult.

C'est la.

godtabh

KrakityJones wrote: »

So that's it. I'm hopefull that the verdict from the prtb will be positive on the deposit.

.

Be careful in assuming this. I had a clear cut case with a tenant who caused thousands of euros of damage which was well in excess of the deposit. Same as you. I had the prove. Tenants didnt.

I got about 3/4 of the damages. The RTB reasoned that on balance the tenants were at fault but because I only inspected the apartment twice in 12 months I was partially to blame for not keeping an eye on them. I just wanted shot of them so left it.

They paid up on the last day before enforcement. Nightmare

my3cents

OP thanks for the update. I think I would have gone for the rerenting instead of selling as well as the deposit. It wasn't your fault the landlord had the house repossessed.

enda1

godtabh wrote: »

Be careful in assuming this. I had a clear cut case with a tenant who caused thousands of euros of damage which was well in excess of the deposit. Same as you. I had the prove. Tenants didnt.

I got about 3/4 of the damages. The RTB reasoned that on balance the tenants were at fault but because I only inspected the apartment twice in 12 months I was partially to blame for not keeping an eye on them. I just wanted shot of them so left it.

They paid up on the last day before enforcement. Nightmare

The expectation of the law that you treat tenants as children not fully responsible for their own behaviour is sad. The rental situation in this country needs to bring more personal responsibility into the equation coupled with boosted rights for both tenants and landlords.

The_Conductor

godtabh wrote: »

I got about 3/4 of the damages. The RTB reasoned that on balance the tenants were at fault but because I only inspected the apartment twice in 12 months I was partially to blame for not keeping an eye on them. I just wanted shot of them so left it.

Ditto. In my case I had only inspected it at 4 month intervals.
The reasoning for the reduction was that I had failed to sufficiently inspect the property- and it was obvious the damage had not all occurred immediately at the end of the tenancy. I do a photographic walk-through on inspections- and was able to show the damage (to internal walls) had occured since the last inspection (4 months previous)- to absolutely no avail..........

How frequently do the RTB want landlords to inspect properties?
6 monthly and 4 monthly intervals- are patently insufficient (according to them). Personally- it is my feeling that to inspect the property any more frequently would be an infringement of the tenants expectation of privacy- and unfair on the part of the landlord. However- obviously the RTB disagree with this?

godtabh

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ditto. In my case I had only inspected it at 4 month intervals.
The reasoning for the reduction was that I had failed to sufficiently inspect the property- and it was obvious the damage had not all occurred immediately at the end of the tenancy. I do a photographic walk-through on inspections- and was able to show the damage (to internal walls) had occured since the last inspection (4 months previous)- to absolutely no avail..........

How frequently do the RTB want landlords to inspect properties?
6 monthly and 4 monthly intervals- are patently insufficient (according to them). Personally- it is my feeling that to inspect the property any more frequently would be an infringement of the tenants expectation of privacy- and unfair on the part of the landlord. However- obviously the RTB disagree with this?

I thought it was a ridiculous reasoning given that if I was there every other month the tenants would be complaining about not having peaceful use of the apartment.

GLaDOS

9 months into my tenancy and I haven't had a a single inspection :pac:

Admittedly the landlords' daughter lives downstairs so they know we're not literally destroying the place, but its nice to be trusted.

maximoose

In 10 years living in dublin, 8 different properties- I've never had one inspection :pac:

Ashbx

The_Conductor wrote: »

Ditto. In my case I had only inspected it at 4 month intervals.
The reasoning for the reduction was that I had failed to sufficiently inspect the property- and it was obvious the damage had not all occurred immediately at the end of the tenancy. I do a photographic walk-through on inspections- and was able to show the damage (to internal walls) had occured since the last inspection (4 months previous)- to absolutely no avail..........

How frequently do the RTB want landlords to inspect properties?
6 monthly and 4 monthly intervals- are patently insufficient (according to them). Personally- it is my feeling that to inspect the property any more frequently would be an infringement of the tenants expectation of privacy- and unfair on the part of the landlord. However- obviously the RTB disagree with this?

I have been in my place 6 years and only got one inspection after the first year! My brother on the other hand gets one every 3 months! Every landlord is different I suppose!

Peist2007

When the Landlord wrote to you stating that he needed you out as he wanted to sell, did he also provide a Declaration confirming this is the case? Law changed a few months ago that notice from the Landlord in relation to Section 34 of the 2004 Act must be accompanied by a Statutory Declaration. If that is not there he served invalid notice on you also.

I think every 3 months would be the interval I'd be looking at if I had a place rented out.

I've never really had an inspection in the years I've been renting, including when moving out as I'd normally get my deposit back from the person moving in. Now one LL used to come to the house to collect rent in cash but he never came in, which is mad when you think about it he is there anyway he might as well have inspected it a few times.

I would never leave a place run like this though as I have seen how a place could easily be destroyed by leaks etc if a less observant person than I was there or how places are left in a mess with rubbish in the back garden or many other things I've see housemates do or ignore over the years. Also as a tenant it's much easier ask for a repair etc in person and be able to show the LL rather than ringing up and giving a list or explaining etc.

El_Duderino 09

Rocco Nutritious Schoolroom wrote:

I think every 3 months would be the interval I'd be looking at if I had a place rented out.

3 months is a good balance between the landlord keeping an eye on the place and allowing tenants to live peacefully.

Rocco Nutritious Schoolroom wrote:

I've never really had an inspection in the years I've been renting, including when moving out as I'd normally get my deposit back from the person moving in.

I don't get that system. Do you give them an itinerary of conditions when you moved in? What happens when the last person moves out and the landlord compares the condition on the last day to conditions on the day he let the place? Is the last person carrying the can for any damage or breakages since the first day of the tenancy?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't get that system. Do you give them an itinerary of conditions when you moved in? What happens when the last person moves out and the landlord compares the condition on the last day to conditions on the day he let the place? Is the last person carrying the can for any damage or breakages since the first day of the tenancy?

It was just rooms in houseshares I've been renting not full places so never had any terms and conditions. Normally dealt with the tenant who was moving out myself when moving in too. No never give any itinerary of conditions. Have a bedroom empty for the new person and then sort out the rest of the stuff like bills etc with the other housemates.

It basically means the place runs itself and doesn't need the LL to do anything. There has probably been abouta turnover of about 2 people per year in the places I've lived (usually 3/4 bedroom places). So passing on the deposit and letting the person moving out find their replacement means the LL doesn't have to do it. Thankfully the last place I lived the LL even had all the bills in his name so when people moved in and out there was no messing with changing bills to diffeeent names. The bills came to the house addresses to the LL and we just opened them and paid them in the post office or over the phone.

I wouldn't be a hands off LL like this myself but it obviously suits some people.

El_Duderino 09

Rocco Nutritious Schoolroom wrote:

It was just rooms in houseshares I've been renting not full places so never had any terms and conditions. Normally dealt with the tenant who was moving out myself when moving in too. No never give any itinerary of conditions. Have a bedroom empty for the new person and then sort out the rest of the stuff like bills etc with the other housemates.

Sounds mad. The new tenant has literally no idea what they're signing up to. Has it always worked out?

Do the landlords inthe places you rented just not really care about the place?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds mad. The new tenant has literally no idea what they're signing up to. Has it always worked out?

Do the landlords inthe places you rented just not really care about the place?

Well one thing is I've never signed anything either. Pretty much its one months notice to leave or less if you have someone lined up, pay your rent on time and that's it. In the previous place that I just moved out of recently the LL would sometimes take the deposit off the new person and sometimes it would be passed on depending on if the old person moved out before the new person was found etc. Either way when a person was moving out they would search for a new person (or the remaining housemates would if the other person moved out suddenly), when chosen they would be given the LLs number and they would contact the LL to sort out their rent payment and deposit (if it wasn't passed onto the person moving out) and that's it. I was two years in the house before meeting the LL face to face.

Only other contact with the LL is if something needed fixing, ring him up and he would have the tradesman contact someone in the house to arrange a key to be left out etc and they would sort the problem.

Has it always worked out, for me yes always very well. But as I said I would be a person who knows a bit about houses etc and I have spotted a few problems that would have gone unnoticed by a lot of people so if I hadn't contacted the LL they could have escalated. I wouldn't say they don't care, probably been lucky with a string of good tenants (or at least one of the tenants in the house has been consistently good) so the place has ran itself reasonably well.

Elliott S

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is the last person carrying the can for any damage or breakages since the first day of the tenancy?

In the last place I lived in with my OH, I had moved in and his friend (let's call him Mike) who he had lived with moved out. When me and my OH were moving out, I got a text from the landlord saying "I hope the apartment will be the same condition it was when OH and Mike moved in!" She had never done an inspection when Mike moved out and I thought it was quite unfair for lump me in with the period before I even lived there, as I signed a lease for the time I was there!

My OH and Mike wouldn't have been the best at housework so things had got quite grimy. I was able to remove some of the grime myself when I moved in but not all. When we were moving out, I put so much elbow grease into getting the place clean. We got all our deposit back in the end but I was quite resentful towards the landlord for trying to pass her own mistake at doing not doing an inspection when Mike moved out on to me, and a bit resentful towards Mike that I might have had to pay for his grime!

El_Duderino 09

Elliott S wrote:

I was quite resentful towards the landlord for trying to pass her own mistake at doing not doing an inspection when Mike moved out on to me, and a bit resentful towards Mike that I might have had to pay for his grime!

When you think k about it for a second it's a crazy setup. What happens when the LL calls around and says 'where's the lawnmower from the shed? For that matter, where's the shed?!'

You signed for it so presumably it was legally your responsibility to give the place back in the condition in which Mike renter it.

Elliott S

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You signed for it so presumably it was legally your responsibility to give the place back in the condition in which Mike renter it.

Well, it was my responsiblity indeed to keep the place to the condition it was in when the keys were handed to me and my lease was signed, but not for the way the condition of the place degenerated (and it definitely degenerated a bit) when just Mike and my OH lived there. My role was to keep in the condition it was in when I moved in. The condition it was in when they moved in is irrelevant. Nothing to with me at all. It was a separate new lease so I don't agree that that was my responsiblity at all. I had no hand in it and when a tenant moves out and their leases ends an inspection should be done to see how the property is has fared since being in their hands.

OH and Mike lived there for three years and the OH and I lived there for six months before she then decided to sell up. I should be responsible for three years worth of grime and wear and tear despite only be a leased tenant for six months? Me hoop! She messed up there and was trying to get me to take on some of the responsibility despite me actually going to great efforts to fix the place up again when I moved in. But if she wanted to, she could have got away with taking some of my deposit to deal with it. But that wouldn't make it right!

El_Duderino 09

I imagine it depends on whether you signed a whole new lease with the landlord or the lease was reassigned to you.

Elliott S

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I imagine it depends on whether you signed a whole new lease with the landlord or the lease was reassigned to you.

It was a whole new lease. She was a bit clueless, she thought I didn't pay a deposit despite me having written proof and a bank statement that showed I did. Even so, on a moral level, even if it was a reassigned lease, it's questionable for anyone to be OK with someone having to foot the bill for damage they didn't cause. An inspection can still be done when a person is moving out, a deduction made for their deposit if required and a note made of the state the property was in when one tenant left and another moved in. I don't see why the lease being reassigned should preclude this. Nobody should be on the hook for damage they had nothing to do with.

Ginger83

my3cents wrote: »

OP thanks for the update. I think I would have gone for the rerenting instead of selling as well as the deposit. It wasn't your fault the landlord had the house repossessed.

I agree, I would have done the same given how nasty the LL turned out to be telling lies about you. If you came across a nearby property a new LL could have been put off having heard you couldn't afford the rent.

If you were not interested in compensation I would have given it to charity. Your LL got off very lightly.

KrakityJones

This is long overdue an update!

For anyone still interested or following this the RTB's decision came back resoundingly in our favour - thankfully they saw through the landlord's false claims. So in addition to the deposit they also stated that he must pay back an additional €200 as compensation.

Wonderful.

Except that this was now..2 months ago nearly, can't recall exactly but well outside of the time he had to contest the result.

And still not a penny paid in. got back to RTB and they've pretty much said there is nothing they can do.

So sorry to report after all that, all the letters, phonecalls and meeting with the RTB, and despite that they found in our favour - it was all a waste of time.

So unscrupulous landlords : feel free to hold your tenant's deposit for whatever reason you like - maybe you just don't feel like paying it back. Go right ahead, there is 0 consequences for you so you may as well hang on to it.

Now I finally get why Ireland is so obsessed with property ownership. Who the hell would want to be a tenant.

Sorry for the tone of the post but I'm quite cranky about it all.

pilly

Can't believe you haven't even gotten your deposit back. That's pure and simple theft.

KrakityJones

What can you do - RTB said we could take him to high court...no worries I'll fork out a couple of thousand to recoup a fraction of that.

ah I'm just fed up with it now. I wasn't a life changing amount of money or anything but all the same.

pilly

KrakityJones wrote: »

What can you do - RTB said we could take him to high court...no worries I'll fork out a couple of thousand to recoup a fraction of that.

ah I'm just fed up with it now. I wasn't a life changing amount of money or anything but all the same.

Doesn't matter what the sum of money is, it's the principal of it. And I'm saying this from both sides of the fence. I'm a LL and a tenant so my take on it is karma will come back to bite those who sting others.

GGTrek

KrakityJones wrote: »

This is long overdue an update!

For anyone still interested or following this the RTB's decision came back resoundingly in our favour - thankfully they saw through the landlord's false claims. So in addition to the deposit they also stated that he must pay back an additional 200 as compensation.

Wonderful.

Except that this was now..2 months ago nearly, can't recall exactly but well outside of the time he had to contest the result.

And still not a penny paid in. got back to RTB and they've pretty much said there is nothing they can do.

So sorry to report after all that, all the letters, phonecalls and meeting with the RTB, and despite that they found in our favour - it was all a waste of time.

So unscrupulous landlords : feel free to hold your tenant's deposit for whatever reason you like - maybe you just don't feel like paying it back. Go right ahead, there is 0 consequences for you so you may as well hang on to it.

Now I finally get why Ireland is so obsessed with property ownership. Who the hell would want to be a tenant.

Sorry for the tone of the post but I'm quite cranky about it all.

Welcome to the broken Irish legal system. Why do you think many posters here say that the RTB is ineffective and should be abolished! Ok now you will fully feel what every landlord who wants to kick out a bad tenant feels. RTB cannot enforce anything! First question: have you got at least 2k euros spare? You will need it to hire solicitor and barrister to enforce the RTB determination order at the local circuit court in front of a real judge (not the bunch of socialist solicitors the RTB hires as adjudicators). But on your side you can consider yourself lucky, since the landlord has one big asset: the property you were staying at! So, if you have the money to pay upfront for solicitor and barrister, you are almost guaranteed that in a few months you will get your money back plus the legal costs. Imagine a landlord against a tenant with no real assets (worst case a social welfare one), he has to pay the 2k just to kick out the lowlife parasite that is overholding and he is not going to receive a cent back of what is due not even the 2k the system forced him to pay to get his rights! Again the system is heavily skewed to favour tenants. You could try legal aid to pursue the landlord at circuit court, but I very much doubt they will provide it for a tenant vs landlord dispute. The Irish govvie cut it to the bone! So now think who is the real baddie behind it all: the precious Irish politicians who mounted the system.

gordongekko

send in the sherriff

Lumen

KrakityJones wrote: »

What can you do - RTB said we could take him to high court...no worries I'll fork out a couple of thousand to recoup a fraction of that.

I'm surprised at that. The High Court for 2k? Hmmm.

I would guess (a) you don't need to go to the High Court (b) you could represent yourself without too much difficulty.

Also, have you read this?

http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/enforcement-of-orders/faqs

It says you can request that they initiate enforcement proceedings on your behalf.

learn_more

If I were you I would go to the new occupants of the house you used to rent and tell them what happened.

The_Conductor

learn_more wrote: »

If I were you I would go to the new occupants of the house you used to rent and tell them what happened.

Don't do this- tempting though it may sound.
Your beef is with the landlord. Blackening his/her name with third parties will neither solve your issue, it will simply embolden the the stupid eejit further- as he/she has nothing to further loose. You may even find yourself on the end of a defamation case- which you'd have to fight, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter.