House share issue

MrBlack93

Hi there, I'm looking for some advice.
I moved into a house share there yesterday. Had viewed the house previously and thought all was well until I met the housemates.

During the viewing I was assured by the landlord that they were professionals and that it was a no smoking house and noise at a bare minimum. Perfect requirements for my needs as I'm a working professional myself.

Within minutes of meeting the housemates I knew something was wrong. Each of them was smoking within minutes of the landlady leaving and the noise level became extremely unacceptable. First questions I was asked by them revolved around do you mind being around ''weed smokers'' and how often would I be up for going out during the week. The hygiene/cleanliness of the house was also extremely poor in comparison to during my viewing.

An argument erupted between of the tenants and her boyfriend who appears to be more or less living there.
It also transpired that only one was a professional and the others were in receipt of social welfare.
Over the course of 2 hours I witnessed numerous examples of antisocial (scumbag) behavior, between bitching about the previous tenant and an attempt to steal food that I had just brought with me.

I packed my stuff and left the house within 2 hours of moving in. I've informed the landlord of my intent to move out as I had entered the house under false pretenses.
The Landlord said she'd return my payments tonight. Just curious do I have rights in this situation in case she tries to withhold any money or is it a case of buyer beware?
Thank you!

mel123

Landlord has agreed to return your deposit tonight, it doesnt sound like you will have an issue.

Maybe at the very worst they could charge you the cost of a new ad on daft but it sounds like they are willing to return the deposit no problem.

pilly

Did you sign a lease?

MrBlack93

pilly wrote: »

Did you sign a lease?

Yeah.

The lease specifically states that it's a non smoking house if that's any use?

pilly

MrBlack93 wrote: »

Yeah.

The lease specifically states that it's a non smoking house if that's any use?

Ah well then you're definitely going to get your deposit back. I wouldn't worry until you see what happens first. I'd say the landlord will just give you the money back.

MrBlack93

pilly wrote: »

Ah well then you're definitely going to get your deposit back. I wouldn't worry until you see what happens first. I'd say the landlord will just give you the money back.

Time will tell and I'll post an update this evening!

MrBlack93

UPDATE: I was in contact with the landlord and she said she intends to withold a week of rent. Meeting her at 6, any advice?

endacl

MrBlack93 wrote: »

UPDATE: I was in contact with the landlord and she said she intends to withold a week of rent. Meeting her at 6, any advice?

Realistically? I'd take it and run. PITA, but if it turns into a protracted argument you could be waiting a lot longer to get all your cash back.

Michael D Not Higgins

endacl wrote: »

Realistically? I'd take it and run. PITA, but if it turns into a protracted argument you could be waiting a lot longer to get all your cash back.

Indeed, technically OP you are liable for rent until the room is filled. The landlord has a duty to mitigate the loss however but it's likely to take a week to re-advertise, show the room and get someone to move in again.

pilly

MrBlack93 wrote: »

UPDATE: I was in contact with the landlord and she said she intends to withold a week of rent. Meeting her at 6, any advice?

I would take it for now and if you're still really annoyed report it to the PRTB. There has to be some action they can take if the lease specifically states non-smoking house and it wasn't. Not that there would be much hope of getting your money back but the landlord may get at least a phone call or letter from PRTB.

endacl

pilly wrote: »

I would take it for now and if you're still really annoyed report it to the PRTB. There has to be some action they can take if the lease specifically states non-smoking house and it wasn't. Not that there would be much hope of getting your money back but the landlord may get at least a phone call or letter from PRTB.

PRTB would consider the matter settled at that point and take no action.

rawn

Just curious OP, how did the LL react when you told them why you're leaving? She must realise now that she will have to do something about the remaining tenants

pilly

endacl wrote: »

PRTB would consider the matter settled at that point and take no action.

Oh right, maybe so. I suppose the OP will have to take a weeks loss then, seems very unfair though.

mel123

I have to side with the LL on this one why should they be out of pocket? I think its unfair on the LL. The house was meant to be non smoking, surely the LL cant know if current tenants are smoking, its hardly their fault? The noise level and people taking the OP's food is nothing to do with the LL, either is if they work or not. Perhaps the person on social welfare recently lost their job. Surely its up to the OP to go to the house first, meet the people themselves and then decide? None of the OP's story seems like the LL would have any control over any of the issues they have a problem with.

pilly

Tigger wrote: »

You were moved in with criminals who smoke illegal narcotics and the LL won't give you back your money ? (The rights and wrongs of weed smoking are irrelevant here it's illegal)
You'd be mad to let things go just tell them you will be bringing them to court and contacting the guards if you don't get your money back by the weekend .

I know where you're coming from Tigger but this could backfire on the OP and lead to it taking a long time to get the money back. If a deposit was paid as well I'd be more interested in just getting it back into my hand.

Graham

mel123 wrote: »

I have to side with the LL on this one why should they be out of pocket?

Because the landlord 'sold' a non-smoking house, something it turned out not to be.

pilly

mel123 wrote: »

I have to side with the LL on this one why should they be out of pocket? I think its unfair on the LL. The house was meant to be non smoking, surely the LL cant know if current tenants are smoking, its hardly their fault? The noise level and people taking the OP's food is nothing to do with the LL, either is if they work or not. Perhaps the person on social welfare recently lost their job. Surely its up to the OP to go to the house first, meet the people themselves and then decide? None of the OP's story seems like the LL would have any control over any of the issues they have a problem with.

Have to agree with this point. Maybe it's a lesson learned OP, meet the other tenants before you move in rather than just the landlord.

Michael D Not Higgins

Tigger wrote: »

Under what grounds are they liable ?
A non smoking environment is specified in the lease

So why didn't the OP try to enforce the rules of the lease through the landlord instead? The landlord is entitled to issue notice of termination for breaking terms of the lease. If the landlord couldn't or was unwilling, the OP could then move without penalty due to the landlord not fulfilling their obligations.

That's how the lease contract and law works in this instance. Since the OP has accelerated their leaving to not include any of the intermediate steps to remedy the situation, the landlord should not be out of pocket for rent.

MrBlack93

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

So why didn't the OP try to enforce the rules of the lease through the landlord instead? The landlord is entitled to issue notice of termination for breaking terms of the lease. If the landlord couldn't or was unwilling, the OP could then move without penalty due to the landlord not fulfilling their obligations.

That's how the lease contract and law works in this instance. Since the OP has accelerated their leaving to not include any of the intermediate steps to remedy the situation, the landlord should not be out of pocket for rent.

I will concede that I should have met the tenants prior to moving in and that is my fault, but they were not present during the viewing so I had to go with what I had in front of me on short notice. I was misled by the LL (whether she was aware or not) as to the employment status of the other tenants.

As for trying to ''enforce the rules of the lease'' let's think of the practical implications of this. The new person lands into a house as the new tenant trying to enforce the rules of the lease among 3-4 tenants who know already know each other and have been there for several months.They are clearly set in their ways of drinking and abusing illegal substances within the house during the week and appear content with this arrangement. All ''trying to enforce the rules of the lease'' would achieve in this instance would be to generate a hostile unlivable environment versus myself by less than savory characters.


Trust me if you had been in my situation last night you may have some sympathy.

MrBlack93

pilly wrote: »

Have to agree with this point. Maybe it's a lesson learned OP, meet the other tenants before you move in rather than just the landlord.

I don't disagree with that point at all and fully accept that was a shortcoming on my part. I have learned a valuable lesson

MrBlack93

rawn wrote: »

Just curious OP, how did the LL react when you told them why you're leaving? She must realise now that she will have to do something about the remaining tenants

She seemed genuinely shocked as to what was going on and stated that she intends to take action.

pilly

MrBlack93 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that point at all and fully accept that was a shortcoming on my part. I have learned a valuable lesson

Ah sure listen these things happen and every time they do it's a lesson learned. There may be more rooms for rent coming up since the limit is gone up to 14k per annum so hopefully you'll find something soon.

Would you be better off maybe going for somewhere that's landlord occupied?

MrBlack93

pilly wrote: »

Ah sure listen these things happen and every time they do it's a lesson learned. There may be more rooms for rent coming up since the limit is gone up to 14k per annum so hopefully you'll find something soon.

Would you be better off maybe going for somewhere that's landlord occupied?

I've never had an issue with anyone I've ever shared a house with previously, I don't have exceptionally high standards for housemates this was simply an extreme insstance.

I'm blessed that I have plenty of sofas to sleep on in the interim and will commence the house hunt after the weekend

pilly

I've often wondered though how a landlord could enforce a non-smoking house? They can't be there all the time so must be very hard.

MrBlack93

pilly wrote: »

I've often wondered though how a landlord could enforce a non-smoking house? They can't be there all the time so must be very hard.

Going through university the social norm was always to go outside, but in an instance where everyone in the house smokes the social norms appear to fly out the window.

Dial Hard

MrBlack93 wrote:

She seemed genuinely shocked as to what was going on and stated that she intends to take action.

I genuinely can't understand how neither of you smelled the smoke at the viewing, tbh. It completely penetrates every soft furnishing.

pilly

Dial Hard wrote: »

I genuinely can't understand how neither of you smelled the smoke at the viewing, tbh. It completely penetrates every soft furnishing.

Especially the wacky baccy!

Michael D Not Higgins

MrBlack93 wrote: »

I will concede that I should have met the tenants prior to moving in and that is my fault, but they were not present during the viewing so I had to go with what I had in front of me on short notice. I was misled by the LL (whether she was aware or not) as to the employment status of the other tenants.

As for trying to ''enforce the rules of the lease'' let's think of the practical implications of this. The new person lands into a house as the new tenant trying to enforce the rules of the lease among 3-4 tenants who know already know each other and have been there for several months.They are clearly set in their ways of drinking and abusing illegal substances within the house during the week and appear content with this arrangement. All ''trying to enforce the rules of the lease'' would achieve in this instance would be to generate a hostile unlivable environment versus myself by less than savory characters.


Trust me if you had been in my situation last night you may have some sympathy.

I'm not even saying you're in the wrong, you did what most people would do in that situation. It's just how the contract law works, the landlord is entitled to no loss in rent if the tenant breaks the contract.

Now the fact that there are failings on the obligations of the landlord is another issue which can either be closed by issuing notice of 28 days or taking the deal of a week's rent. Sorry it's an expensive lesson to learn.

Satriale

Everything the landlord "assured" you turned out not to be true. Why would you pay the weeks rent to cover her dishonesty?
I'd wonder if she is also taking the week rent from the person that vacated.

MrBlack93

Final Update: Landlord returned all of the money that I had provided her

Musketeer4

Fair play OP. The land lady was fair enough too.