tenant leaves - keep deposit

goz83

siobhan08 wrote: »

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.

The fact that you are posting on boards about it should be proof enough, but i'll clarify a little, using your highlighted points as a guide.

The LL may have given a price per calendar month, but has not used a standard lease agreement, or indeed, mad provisions for one, or more tenants exiting the agreement early. This is abundantly clear from the way the deposit was collected (or should I say "deposits"?). As the property was leased as a single unit, the deposit should have been taken as one lump, with the LL having no knowledge of who paid what percentage. That part is up to the tenants.

The deposit is only due for return (subject to damage/loss) at the end of the agreement. The LL seems to think it is due back when the tenant leaves, but wants to keep it for early termination.

Finally, there was a problem before the tenant rang. The agreement was not done properly. This has left the LL asking questions about deposits.

I would be inclined to make some deduction from the deposit for having to make an unscheduled visit to the property, caused by the outgoing tenant tbh. Travel expenses could be viewed as reasonable.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

That's exactly how most leases/tenancies work.

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

Unless it's specified, I imagine that it is joint liability rather than joint and several liability meaning that the landlord has to chase them all rather than trying to force the liability on an individual. If the other tenants prove incapacity to pay then it may all fall on the remaining tenant but that is the distinction between joint liability and joint and several lability.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

Unless it's specified, I imagine that it is joint liability rather than joint and several liability meaning that the landlord has to chase them all rather than trying to force the liability on an individual. If the other tenants prove incapacity to pay then it may all fall on the remaining tenant but that is the distinction between joint liability and joint and several lability.

Another good reason to have a formal (and properly formed) agreement. In this case I suspect it's an academic point as the other tenants wish to remain and a new tenant would like to join.

antoinolachtnai

goz83 wrote: »

I would be inclined to make some deduction from the deposit for having to make an unscheduled visit to the property, caused by the outgoing tenant tbh. Travel expenses could be viewed as reasonable.

The travel expenses might well be reasonable.

Nonetheless, and no matter how reasonable they may be, they may not be deducted from the deposit. It does not matter what it says in the lease. The RTB adjudicator or tribunal will not allow a claim against the deposit for anything other than what is specified in the RTA.

syndrome777

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The travel expenses might well be reasonable.

Nonetheless, and no matter how reasonable they may be, they may not be deducted from the deposit. It does not matter what it says in the lease. The RTB adjudicator or tribunal will not allow a claim against the deposit for anything other than what is specified in the RTA.

and it is not tenants fault that LL lives across the county

AndrewJRenko

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? I really, really can't see PRTB or any Court enforcing this, unless it was very, very  clearly spelled out beforehand.

Of course they can be held liable. If he rents the full house for X amount it's up to the people in the house to pay him the rent in full every month regardless of how it's split amoung them. There is no need for anything in writing a word of mouth lease is valid.

It's different if room are rented out seperately in this instance it's clearly stated that each person is liable for their own rent only as even without any lease they are paying the LL seperately so it's very obvious they aren't liable for others rent.

antoinolachtnai

The RTB don't enforce anything. They will just make an order against all the tenants and in favour of the landlord. The tenants have the option of appealing to Court. If they don't or if they lose, the landlord will go to Court to collect if necessary. He can pursue some of them or all of them.

In the situation describe all the tenants including the ones who left would be liable.

68 lost souls

This sounds like one of those awful landlords that we all hear about "how can I keep all deposits"

The tenant is liable for any loss of rent so you cannot keep the whole deposit but you can take from it any loss of rent to cover the gap between tenants and if there is an advertising fee or similar but as there is already a replacement there it is just a case of taking out the days where no rent was paid

AndrewJRenko

Rayne Early Revolver wrote: »

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? I really, really can't see PRTB or any Court enforcing this, unless it was very, very  clearly spelled out beforehand.

Of course they can be held liable. If he rents the full house for X amount it's up to the people in the house to pay him the rent in full every month regardless of how it's split amoung them. There is no need for anything in writing a word of mouth lease is valid.

It's different if room are rented out seperately in this instance it's clearly stated that each person is liable for their own rent only as even without any lease they are paying the LL seperately so it's very obvious they aren't liable for others rent.

Is this a tenant or an agent? If the LL wants someone to collect the rent for them, they need to pay an agent to do this. And who is the 'he/him' in your post - which one of the individual tenants is the 'he' that you're referring to?

AndrewJRenko

Graham wrote: »

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.

And with any joint loan, credit card or joint utility, there will be a nicely detailed 'terms and conditions' document outlining exactly the liability on the folks involved. There was no such detail here.

davindub

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And with any joint loan, credit card or joint utility, there will be a nicely detailed 'terms and conditions' document outlining exactly the liability on the folks involved. There was no such detail here.

All contracts will have implied terms and conditions, sometimes a detailed contract will be used, sometimes not. There is a massive body of common law relating to contracts, there is no need to spell out in a contract what already exists, unless the parties are agreeing to terms that should act differently from assumed terms (you can not uphold terms that contradict legislation).

This benefits everyone, for example if I sold you a car with no engine, would you expect to be out of pocket if the contract of sale never mentioned the car should have a engine?

Zirconia

siobhan08 wrote: »

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.

Did the landlord accept separate deposits from each of the tenants? If so, then the landlord did make a complete mess of the agreement alright.

I assume the deposit was one month's rent? If the deposits were taken separately then the landlord has effectively created separate tenant agreements withe each of the tenants despite it all being paid into the landlords account as a unit.

In that case the other tenants remaining would not be liable for making up the shortfall if the subject tenant leaves and a replacement tenant does not materialize.

antoinolachtnai

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And with any joint loan, credit card or joint utility, there will be a nicely detailed 'terms and conditions' document outlining exactly the liability on the folks involved. There was no such detail here.

The RTA obliges tenants to pay the rent. The absence or presence of verbiage terms make no difference to the tenants' obligation.

siobhan08

Right I will clarify some things.

* One person in regard to the house contacted the LL. The LL informed this person that the rent was X amount per month regardless of the number of tenants who would occupy the house and the deposit was X amount. The deposit was slightly more that monthly rent. This person is the main point of communication for the LL. The rest of them do not reply to calls or texts.

* When the LL met the other tenants, they told them the rent was X amount regardless of how many were living there.

* The deposit was sorted out during the summer. As stated before the tenants students, and they were either abroad or working for the summer so when the LL requested to meet all the tenants to collect the deposit it couldn't happen because they were not in the country at the same time. So the LL had no choice but to settle for the tenants splitting the deposit between them and transferring their share of the deposit from wherever they were at the time. LL was aware that this was not ideal.

* All throughout the arrangements of the tenancy, the LL explicitly said the house was a being rented as a unit. Therefore, the tenants were agreeing to a joint tenancy. Each person did not agree and sign a single agreement. They all signed and agreed to the joint agreement.

* The tenants are clearly aware they could be on the hook for the remaining rent, they would not have been so quick to find a replacement otherwise.

To the people making comments about the landlord trying to cash in. Read the rest of the tread before making such comments. You will then see that I have said more that once that the LL was looking for some information. Which has been received from this thread and they will use the information.

The LL will inspect the house and the outgoing tenants room. If all is agreeable the in coming tenant will give his deposit to the outgoing tenant. The desposit the LL has will then become the new tenants desposit.

If all is not agreeable the outgoing will receive their deposit back less any deductions and the incoming tenant will then pay their deposit.

If there is a gap in the old tenant moving out and the new moving in. This gap will be deducted from the outgoing tenants deposit.

If the old tenant moves out and no new tenants moves in. The monthly rent will be multiplied by the remaining rent to find out the total rent that would be earned from the house when rented as a unit. The deposit taken from the outgoing tenant will then be deducted from this number. The number that is remaining will then divided to find the remaining month the remaining tenants will be paying monthly. Here are some figures to show what I’m talking about.

Rent

---

€ 1,800
Rent Per Person

---

(4 Tenants)

---

€ 450
Remaining months

---

7
Total remaining rent

---

€ 12,600
Outgoing Tenant Desposit

---

€ 500
Remaining Rent - Desposit

---

€ 12,100
Remaing Total Rent Per Month

---

€ 1,729
Rent Per Person Per Month

---

€ 576
These figures do not relate to the property in question.


The LL does not gain anything from this, they just mitigate their loses due to one tenant moving out before the agreed date

Turtle_

<quote snipped>

Just on the last bit, you're way overcomplicated.

Let's say there's a shortfall of €500 in months 1 and 2, and the full rent is received every month thereafter:

Begin eviction proceedings (including notice of arrears etc) as soon as the initial shortfall occurs - will focus their minds on filling the room and paying the full rent
If they make it to term, or upon eviction, deduct any remaining arrears and any amounts for damage done from the deposit and pursue through RTB for any not covered by the deposit.

No need to proportion anything, it's the ACTUAL shortfall in rent that's deducted from the deposit.

siobhan08

Turtle_ wrote: »

Just on the last bit, you're way overcomplicated.

No need to proportion anything, it's the ACTUAL shortfall in rent that's deducted from the deposit.

If the tenant leaves and no replacement comes in. The deposit doesn't adequately cover the shortfall for the remaining months

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this a tenant or an agent? If the LL wants someone to collect the rent for them, they need to pay an agent to do this. And who is the 'he/him' in your post - which one of the individual tenants is the 'he' that you're referring to?

"he" is the LL.

If the LL rents the full house out for X amount it's up to the people in the house to pay him the rent in full every month regardless of how it's split among them. There is no need for anything in writing a word of mouth lease is valid.

Turtle_

siobhan08 wrote: »

If the tenant leaves and no replacement comes in. The deposit doesn't adequately cover the shortfall for the remaining months

Still no need to apportion anything. Keep deposit to the extent that it covers the shortfall and pursue through RTB for the rest. It's very, very simple.


Besides, if they don't pay the rent in full, the LL should initiate eviction proceedings as soon as there's a shortfall, so that hopefully they're out before the deposit no longer covers the loss.

athtrasna

Mod note

If you have an issue with a post please use the report post function rather than retorting on thread. Thanks

siobhan08 wrote: »

To the people making comments about the landlord trying to cash in. Read the rest of the tread before making such comments. You will then see that I have said more that once that the LL was looking for some information. Which has been received from this thread and they will use the information.

AndrewJRenko

Rayne Early Revolver wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this a tenant or an agent? If the LL wants someone to collect the rent for them, they need to pay an agent to do this. And who is the 'he/him' in your post - which one of the individual tenants is the 'he' that you're referring to?

"he" is the LL.

If the LL rents the full house out for X amount it's up to the people in the house to pay him the rent in full every month regardless of how it's split among them. There is no need for anything in writing a word of mouth lease is valid.

Indeed, a verbal contract is valid, but is also a lot more difficult to enforce. Especially if the LL is trying to make students pay the rent for an empty room.

siobhan08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, a verbal contract is valid, but is also a lot more difficult to enforce. Especially if the LL is trying to make students pay the rent for an empty room.

If they don't pay the full agreed amount each month. They will lose their deposit when they move out. The LL shouldn't be out of pocket because one of the tenants decides to leave before the agreed time

AndrewJRenko

davindub wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And with any joint loan, credit card or joint utility, there will be a nicely detailed 'terms and conditions' document outlining exactly the liability on the folks involved. There was no such detail here.

All contracts will have implied terms and conditions, sometimes a detailed contract will be used, sometimes not. There is a massive body of common law relating to contracts, there is no need to spell out in a contract what already exists, unless the parties are agreeing to terms that should act differently from assumed terms (you can not uphold terms that contradict legislation).

This benefits everyone, for example if I sold you a car with no engine, would you expect to be out of pocket if the contract of sale never mentioned the car should have a engine?

Consumer law is explicit that goods sold must be 'fit for purpose' - so no, I wouldn't expect a contract term to cover the car having an engine.
I'm not aware of any term in law that would require one student to pay the rent for his drop-out housemate, are you?

AndrewJRenko

siobhan08 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, a verbal contract is valid, but is also a lot more difficult to enforce. Especially if the LL is trying to make students pay the rent for an empty room.

If they don't pay the full agreed amount each month. They will lose their deposit when they move out. The LL shouldn't be out of pocket because one of the tenants decides to leave before the agreed time

Why should the housemates be out of pocket because one of the tenants leaves before the agreed time? Where did they sign up for this commitment?
You say that

* One person in regard to the house contacted the LL. The LL informed this person that the rent was X amount per month regardless of the number of tenants who would occupy the house and the deposit was X amount. The deposit was slightly more that monthly rent. This person is the main point of communication for the LL. The rest of them do not reply to calls or texts.

* When the LL met the other tenants, they told them the rent was X amount regardless of how many were living there.

There is nothing here to indicate that the other tenants were informed of shared liability for deposits, so why would the LL be trying to impose this now? Shared liability for rents is not the same as shared liability for deposits.

antoinolachtnai

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, a verbal contract is valid, but is also a lot more difficult to enforce. Especially if the LL is trying to make students pay the rent for an empty room.

Well the names of the tenants and the basic terms, I.e., the rent, will be recorded on the RTB registration. So it should not be a big deal to enforce on the basis of that.

AndrewJRenko

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, a verbal contract is valid, but is also a lot more difficult to enforce. Especially if the LL is trying to make students pay the rent for an empty room.

Well the names of the tenants and the basic terms, I.e., the rent, will be recorded on the RTB registration. So it should not be a big deal to enforce on the basis of that.

This issue isn't about the rent. It is about shared liability for deposits.

siobhan08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should the housemates be out of pocket because one of the tenants leaves before the agreed time? Where did they sign up for this commitment?
You say that

There is nothing here to indicate that the other tenants were informed of shared liability for deposits, so why would the LL be trying to impose this now? Shared liability for rents is not the same as shared liability for deposits.

The signed an agreement that stated was X amount per month. At no point did the LL state it was a room by room bases. They were aware from the point they moved in that the rent was X amount whether there was 2,3 or 4 etc in the house.
The agreement they signed stated they were agreeing to state the house for X amount per month and they jointly signed it.

The fact they apparently found replacement showed they understood that

TheChizler

siobhan08 wrote: »

If all is not agreeable the outgoing will receive their deposit back less any deductions and the incoming tenant will then pay their deposit.

If there is a gap in the old tenant moving out and the new moving in. This gap will be deducted from the outgoing tenants deposit.

If the old tenant moves out and no new tenants moves in. The monthly rent will be multiplied by the remaining rent to find out the total rent that would be earned from the house when rented as a unit. The deposit taken from the outgoing tenant will then be deducted from this number. The number that is remaining will then divided to find the remaining month the remaining tenants will be paying monthly.

With all due respect the above is needlessly complicated. Why not keep it simple and say the full rent is due when it normally is due, any arrangements they come to to make up the shortfall is entirely their business. Why should the landlord invite a potentially very messy situation on themselves?

I would just interview the new tenant and say yes or no. Take the old tenant off the lease and put the new one on. No need to mention rent or deposits.

I would also be worried that accepting some deposit substituted for rent one month could be viewed as a rent review. It's just inviting trouble to get involved like that IMO.

siobhan08

TheChizler wrote: »

With all due respect the above is needlessly complicated. Why not keep it simple and say the full rent is due when it normally is due, any arrangements they come to to make up the shortfall is entirely their business. Why should the landlord invite a potentially very messy situation on themselves?

I would just interview the new tenant and say yes or no. Take the old tenant off the lease and put the new one on. No need to mention rent or deposits.

I would also be worried that accepting some deposit substituted for rent one month could be viewed as a rent review. It's just inviting trouble to get involved like that IMO.

That was worked out so that it could not be said the landlord would not make anymore that they would receive for the remaining months rent. The LL is not interested in making extra they only what to make sure they do not make a loss.

If they were to keel the deposit of the out going tenant and chance the remaining the full rent they would be pocketing the outgoing tenants deposit and they are not interested in doing that. They just do not want to make a loss.

AndrewJRenko

Turtle_ wrote: »

Just on the last bit, you're way overcomplicated.

Let's say there's a shortfall of €500 in months 1 and 2, and the full rent is received  every month thereafter:

Begin eviction proceedings (including notice of arrears etc) as soon as the initial shortfall occurs - will focus their minds on filling the room and paying the full rent
If they make it to term, or upon eviction, deduct any remaining arrears and any amounts for damage done from the deposit and pursue through RTB for any not covered by the deposit.

No need to proportion anything, it's the ACTUAL shortfall in rent that's deducted from the deposit.

I'd strongly recommend that the LL takes serious legal advice before even thinking about going any where near an eviction notice. One possible outcome of this approach is that LL will be paying out a large settlement to the students for illegal eviction, a sum way, way beyond any shortfall in the deposit. Tread carefully.

Graham

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd strongly recommend that the LL takes serious legal advice before even thinking about going any where near an eviction notice. One possible outcome of this approach is that LL will be paying out a large settlement to the students for illegal eviction, a sum way, way beyond any shortfall in the deposit. Tread carefully.

Eviction notice does not equal eviction.