Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

tenant leaves - keep deposit

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    siobhan08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭siobhan08


    James 007 wrote: »
    Well if they all moved in as a group, then they know each other, then its in the best interest to the tenant moving out that they all get their asses up to dublin on a date when the new tenant can attend an interview and sign off the revised lease.

    Has the moving out tenant indicated when the new tenant will want the room from. Are they willing to let from 1st of Jan even though they may not want it until they return to college mid to late Jan. These are all Q's that need to be answered before a return of the deposit.

    yeah all the tenant told the LL this evening was that they are moving out but have found someone to take the room. No further details were given


  • Options
    #63
    James 007
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭James 007


    siobhan08 wrote: »
    Why would that be went they all agreed to the monthly rent before renting? The LL never mentioned anything and seperate prices for each room. The tenants decided how to split the rent between so that the full rent would be covered.

    Your right on this, the tenants are responsible for the full rent.


  • Options
    #64
    James 007
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭James 007


    siobhan08 wrote: »
    yeah all the tenant told the LL this evening was that they are moving out but have found someone to take the room. No further details were given

    The correct thing to do for now is withhold deposit and deduct any rental loss for Jan until all sorted out with new tenant, and inform all other tenants that any further losses from Feb onwards would have to be covered by remaining tenants.


  • Options
    #65
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    James 007 wrote: »
    The correct thing to do for now is withhold deposit and deduct any rental loss for Jan until all sorted out with new tenant, and inform all other tenants that any further losses from Feb onwards would have to be covered by remaining tenants.

    If you return the deposit to one party you are treating this as multiple tenancy agreements. Therefore the LL assumes responsibility for lost rent rather than the other tenants.


  • Options
    #66
    Bob Z
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Bob Z


    I don't know these things work but If you treat them like a unit it's up to them who they move and the tenant(s) are responsible for lost rent however you can't really have a say in who they move in

    If they are individuals then you should check out the place and make sure their is no damege and vet the tenant


    But you can't have it both ways
    Maybe you should contact threshold or the citizens advice bureau?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    A complete mess has been made of this whole thing and the LL needs to backtrack and amend it. If I were the LL and had made this mess, my following action (assuming I was to keep the tenancy under a single agreement for the whole unit) would be:

    * Contact the outgoing tenant and explain that such short notice at this time of year has caused an issue, even if someone has been found to take replace him/her.

    * Explain that the agreement is on the whole unit and not room by room, which ties all deposits together until the end of the tenancy agreement.

    * Explain that any gap in rent is to be covered by the outgoing tenant, without mentioning the deposit.

    * Arrange a meeting with the tenants (including the potential replacement) and make clear that I would be vetting the replacement...after all, the replacement could be an addict, or worse!

    * Make it clear to all tenants that the rent is due in ONE payment per month. The split payments between them is only an accommodation I am making informally, but the rent and deposit are not split into three payments per item.

    * If the new tenant is acceptable, I would say that the new tenant can reimburse the outgoing tenant and the new tenant would then own the original deposit paid.

    * Due to the change, I would use that opportunity to update the rental agreement.

    * Of course, I would have inspected the property in the mean time.


  • Options
    #68
    Turtle_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 640 ✭✭✭Turtle_


    This is actually such a straightforward thing... The landlord just needs to tell them the following :

    1. On move out day, you will meet the new tenant and inspect the place. This is really as protection for the new tenant because:
    2. As the house was rented as a unit, the deposit will be returned as a whole at the end of the tenancy (providing no damage has been done, hence inspection now so new tenant not unfairly on the hook for someone else's damage). The new tenant should pay their deposit to the exiting tenant.
    3. Because the house was rented as a unit as one tenancy, the full rent is due every month.

    There's really nothing complicated about this. It's very, very common in student houses. Split of bills etc is between the tenants.


  • Options
    #69
    siobhan08
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭siobhan08


    goz83 wrote: »
    A complete mess has been made of this whole thing and the LL needs to backtrack and amend it. If I were the LL and had made this mess, my following action (assuming I was to keep the tenancy under a single agreement for the whole unit) would be:

    And how exactly has the LL made a complete mess of things.

    * The LL gave the tenants the price per calender month
    * Tenants agreed, split the rent between and each month the rent was lodged into the LL's account
    * There were absolutely no issues until the tenant rang yesterday to spring it on the LL that they were leaving and then followed up with oh but we have a replacement.


  • Options
    #70
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Graham wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What do you mean by this? Was this 'joint and several liability' clear in the agreement?

    Rent is for the entire house so it would be hard to interpret otherwise.

    The question does highlight the necessity for a proper legal agreement.
    Sure, rent is for the entire house - but that's very different to putting the liability on any one individual for more than their own rent. If the landlord's expectation is that the remaining tenants are on the hook for any shortfall in rent or deposit, this would need to be explicitly spelled out. It doesn't sound like this was spelled out, so I don't the LL can assume they are on firm ground here.
    Graham wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Did this lease document that they signed say anything about early termination? Or about duration of the agreement?

    How is it being terminated if the other tenants are staying?
    It is being terminated because one person is moving out. It is a very foreseeable situation given college drop-out rates etc, and the LL should have ensured that the agreement made it clear what happens when one person moves on.

    siobhan08;102036632
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What do you mean by this? Was this 'joint and several liability' clear in the agreement?
    the agreement stated the monthly for the entire house and the tenants agreed to that
    As stated above, stating that the rent is monthly is very different to stating joint and several liability for all of the rent/deposits on each individual.tenant when others leave. It is not explicitly stated in the agreement, I don't believe the LL can rely on this.
    siobhan08;102036632
    AndrewJRenko;102036596Did this lease document that they signed say anything about early termination? Or about duration of the agreement?
    yes it stated the dates of the agreement
    But nothing about early termination, a very foreseeable situation?


  • Options
    #71
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    As stated above, stating that the rent is monthly is very different to stating joint and several liability for all of the rent/deposits on each individual.tenant when others leave. It is not explicitly stated in the agreement, I don't believe the LL can rely on this.

    How is a landlord who had no involvement in apportioning the rent/deposit between the joint tenants any idea who has paid what? Why should he, the house was rented to a group.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Graham;102036615
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What do you mean by this? Was this 'joint and several liability' clear in the agreement?

    Rent is for the entire house so it would be hard to interpret otherwise.

    The question does highlight the necessity for a proper legal agreement.
    Sure, rent is for the entire house - but that's very different to putting the liability on any one individual for more than their own rent. If the landlord's expectation is that the remaining tenants are on the hook for any shortfall in rent or deposit, this would need to be explicitly spelled out. It doesn't sound like this was spelled out, so I don't the LL can assume they are on firm ground here.
    Graham wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Did this lease document that they signed say anything about early termination? Or about duration of the agreement?

    How is it being terminated if the other tenants are staying?
    It is being terminated because one person is moving out. It is a very foreseeable situation given college drop-out rates etc, and the LL should have ensured that the agreement made it clear what happens when one person moves on.


  • Options
    #73
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Graham wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    As stated above, stating that the rent is monthly is very different to stating joint and several liability for all of the rent/deposits on each individual.tenant when others leave. It is not explicitly stated in the agreement, I don't believe the LL can rely on this.

    How is a landlord who had no involvement in apportioning the rent/deposit between the joint tenants any idea who has paid what? Why should he, the house was rented to a group.
    Legally, what is 'a group'? There is no such legal structure - we have people, we have companies, we have organisations. There is no legal structure of 'a group'.

    If the landlord, who knows that he is doing business with young people, who are not particularly experienced in these matters, and are also probably fairly desperate to secure accommodation, has particular expectations about shared responsibilities for early departures, the least he could do is to spell these out explicitly up front.


  • Options
    #74
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,793 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Legally, what is 'a group'? There is no such legal structure - we have people, we have companies, we have organisations. There is no legal structure of 'a group'.

    If the landlord, who knows that he is doing business with young people, who are not particularly experienced in these matters, and are also probably fairly desperate to secure accommodation, has particular expectations about shared responsibilities for early departures, the least he could do is to spell these out explicitly up front.

    They signed the lease document together. They are, as the lawyers say, jointly and severally liable. Each of them is liable for all the rent and any damages. This is not a matter of the landlord's 'expectations'. This is the law in our fair land, has been for hundreds of years.

    It is not really the job of the landlord to point this out to adults. He is not their solicitor.


  • Options
    #75
    Turtle_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 640 ✭✭✭Turtle_


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    They signed the lease document together. They are, as the lawyers say, jointly and severally liable. Each of them is liable for all the rent and any damages. This is not a matter of the landlord's 'expectations'. This is the law in our fair land, has been for hundreds of years.

    It is not really the job of the landlord to point this out to adults. He is not their solicitor.

    They're likely to actually know this! Hence being so quick to say they have a replacement. Lol, they're well aware that the whole amount is due.


  • Options
    #76
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Legally, what is 'a group'? There is no such legal structure - we have people, we have companies, we have organisations. There is no legal structure of 'a group'.

    If the landlord, who knows that he is doing business with young people, who are not particularly experienced in these matters, and are also probably fairly desperate to secure accommodation, has particular expectations about shared responsibilities for early departures, the least he could do is to spell these out explicitly up front.

    They signed the lease document together. They are, as the lawyers say, jointly and severally liable. Each of them is liable for all the rent and any damages. This is not a matter of the landlord's 'expectations'. This is the law in our fair land, has been for hundreds of years.

    It is not really the job of the landlord to point this out to adults. He is not their solicitor.
    'As the lawyers say'? Have the lawyers really said that about this scenario? I'd suggest the LL finds out exactly what the lawyers say about this particular scenario before he relies on it here. To me, there is a big leap between the individuals signing up for shared rent to holding each individual in the group responsible for any shortfall.
    As for the 'not his job to point it out' - you could say the same about any contract term, but legal advice generally suggests that you should spell out such contract terms to be sure that they actually apply. If you don't spell it out, you're on dodgy ground.


  • Options
    #77
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,793 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    'As the lawyers say'? Have the lawyers really said that about this scenario?

    Yes, in general terms I think the law is clear enough.
    I'd suggest the LL finds out exactly what the lawyers say about this particular scenario before he relies on it here. To me, there is a big leap between the individuals signing up for shared rent to holding each individual in the group responsible for any shortfall.

    The OP's relative should certainly consider getting his own detailed and specific legal advice.

    As for the 'not his job to point it out' - you could say the same about any contract term, but legal advice generally suggests that you should spell out such contract terms to be sure that they actually apply. If you don't spell it out, you're on dodgy ground.

    It would be better to have spelled it out, but at the same time, the meaning of what was signed sounds like it was pretty clear.

    The alternative interpretation would also seem to mean that the departing tenant has forfeited his deposit, which is also favourable enough to the landlord.


  • Options
    #78
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,080 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I would imagine that unless joint and several liability is explicitly stated in the lease, it could be argued that the tenants did not understand the implications of what they were signing.


  • Options
    #79
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Lumen wrote: »
    I would imagine that unless joint and several liability is explicitly stated in the lease, it could be argued that the tenants did not understand the implications of what they were signing.

    Argued to who?


  • Options
    #80
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,080 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Graham wrote: »
    Argued to who?
    Whoever is waving around terms like "joint and severally liable".


  • Options
    #81
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    Lumen wrote: »
    Whoever is waving around terms like "joint and severally liable".

    It is a common law principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,080 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    davindub wrote: »
    It is a common law principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense.
    Contract law has a concept of "meeting of minds". Ignorance is relevant.


  • Options
    #83
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,793 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Lumen wrote: »
    Contract law has a concept of "meeting of minds". Ignorance is relevant.

    What else could the paper that was signed possibly have meant?


  • Options
    #84
    Turtle_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 640 ✭✭✭Turtle_


    Meeting of minds: LL puts HOUSE up for rent. Students get together and agree to rent HOUSE. Contract drawn up stating the monthly rent for the HOUSE.

    There's already been a meeting of minds.


  • Options
    #85
    scamalert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    Turtle_ wrote: »
    Meeting of minds: LL puts HOUSE up for rent. Students get together and agree to rent HOUSE. Contract drawn up stating the monthly rent for the HOUSE.

    There's already been a meeting of minds.
    Now Op says basic contract was put in place,now unless it specifies that each tenant has to give x amount of time if leaving,theres no chance and plainly wrong to look for ways to withhold deposit,on person or group,thus from legal perspective of contract unless there's signature under damages etc,giving prior notice to leaving and amount of time,then theres no legal right in that LL could keep deposit,since its not in contract.And since person made leaving made effort to find someone to move in,that should be solved by spoken in person as person might just be waiting for green light,while LL is looking to cash in on this.


  • Options
    #86
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    scamalert wrote: »
    while LL is looking to cash in on this.

    there was no suggestion the landlord was trying to do anything other than potentially mitigate lost rent.


  • Options
    #87
    Turtle_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 640 ✭✭✭Turtle_


    scamalert wrote: »
    Now Op says basic contract was put in place,now unless it specifies that each tenant has to give x amount of time if leaving,theres no chance and plainly wrong to look for ways to withhold deposit,on person or group,thus from legal perspective of contract unless there's signature under damages etc,giving prior notice to leaving and amount of time,then theres no legal right in that LL could keep deposit,since its not in contract.And since person made leaving made effort to find someone to move in,that should be solved by spoken in person as person might just be waiting for green light,while LL is looking to cash in on this.

    You're missing the point

    The tenancy is not ending. The deposit is not due back until the tenancy ends. If the tenant moving out wants their share of the deposit back, they get it from their replacement. The rent is still due in full. It's actually that simple.


  • Options
    #88
    scamalert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    well good point new tenant moves in and yes pays the deposit back to person moving out.

    But all the 3 points OP mentioned should be addressed with tenants in person,thus not to cause turmoil when contract ends and LL decides to keep deposits,if it goes that way.

    So simple call to say that even thou one person is leaving,and they are renting in group which they signed agreed amount should be honored - thus leaving group to work out what way they will cover the rent - Now thats the point where LL would be neutral as in if they dont honor to cover exact amount for each month then deposit could be used,but if group agrees to cover shortage,it should end there.


  • Options
    #89
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    scamalert wrote: »
    So simple call to say that even thou one person is leaving,and they are renting in group which they signed agreed amount should be honored - thus leaving group to work out what way they will cover the rent - Now thats the point where LL would be neutral as in if they dont honor to cover exact amount for each month then deposit could be used,but if group agrees to cover shortage,it should end there.

    I think that's exactly what's been suggested several times over the last few pages and appears to be the approach the OP is going to go back with.


  • Options
    #90
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Lumen wrote: »
    Contract law has a concept of "meeting of minds". Ignorance is relevant.

    What else could the paper that was signed possibly have meant?
    Well, it could possibly mean that if one person leaves, it is the landlord's problem to solve, not the tenants - given that 'the tenants' have no legal entity and no status.

    Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, four out of five tenants were to leave, it is suddenly the legal liability of one tenant to come up with a grand or two in rent each month? I really, really can't see PRTB or any Court enforcing this, unless it was very, very  clearly spelled out beforehand.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that if, for example, four out of five tenants were to leave, it is suddenly the legal liability of one tenant to come up with a grand or two in rent each month?

    That's exactly how most leases/tenancies work.

    You'll find the same often applies to joint loans, credit cards, bills etc etc etc.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement