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
Comments
-
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.
LL as absolutely no interested In Looking for an eviction notice. They were happy with the tenants and no issue until this. Like I said before they do no want to make a loss should this potential new tenant not exist.0 -
And at no point did the LL state that the tenants would be liable for any deposit shortfall arising from the early departure of one of their housemates, right? TBH, unless you can post the exact wording of the agreement they signed, I don't know that anyone will be able to shed any more light on this.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 that0 -
So just a bit of friendly intimidation then? But possibly enough to inspire one or two other of the students to find alternative accommodation, and exacerbate the problem by a factor of two or three. And if the tenants do take it literally, possibly enough to leave the landlord facing legal action. What's the odds that one of the students has a parent who is a solicitor or barrister?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.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »And at no point did the LL state that the tenants would be liable for any deposit shortfall arising from the early departure of one of their housemates, right? TBH, unless you can post the exact wording of the agreement they signed, I don't know that anyone will be able to shed any more light on this.
If they don't pay the full rent as agreed. They will lose the deposit. There were informed they were all jointly liable for the rent. They knew that before moving in.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »So just a bit of friendly intimidation then?
Unnecessary.
It's part of the legal process when the rent is not paid.0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »And at no point did the LL state that the tenants would be liable for any deposit shortfall arising from the early departure of one of their housemates, right? TBH, unless you can post the exact wording of the agreement they signed, I don't know that anyone will be able to shed any more light on this.
Doesn't have to. It was rented as a single unit. If they don't like it they can pursue their friend who moved out early.
Tbh op, you have your answer here already. It's being derailed by people who reckon the students think place was rented room by room. They clearly don't, and it was clearly rented as a whole.
Any shortfall in rent gets a notice of arrears followed by eviction proceedings, and any arrears at the end of the tenancy are taken from the deposit. Anything not covered by the deposit is pursued through the RTB.
That's it. Nothing more to it.
Probably won't even be an issue if they have found a replacement.
Just make sure the LL documents everything.0 -
Doesn't have to. It was rented as a single unit. If they don't like it they can pursue their friend who moved out early.
Tbh op, you have your answer here already. It's being derailed by people who reckon the students think place was rented room by room. They clearly don't, and it was clearly rented as a whole.
Any shortfall in rent gets a notice of arrears followed by eviction proceedings, and any arrears at the end of the tenancy are taken from the deposit. Anything not covered by the deposit is pursued through the RTB.
That's it. Nothing more to it.
Probably won't even be an issue if they have found a replacement.
Just make sure the LL documents everything.
Yes I have gotten the answers I was looking for. So can the mod lock the thread or whatever you do?0 -
But saying business as usual would mean the exact same thing no? LL makes the exact same as they would have for the house anyway.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.0 -
Just in case anyone has lost sight of it, the students are not a legal process, they are people - young people. People who were probably first-time renters, and probably never signed a financial contract before themselves. People who were probably under considerable pressure to get accommodation for college. People who were given no explicit indication that they could find themselves on the hook for their housemates' unpaid rent or deposit. I get that the LL is in a business, and is not a charity, and not their mammy and daddy. But that doesn't take away the need for fairness and reasonableness. And to impose terms after the fact is not fair or reasonable.AndrewJRenko wrote: »So just a bit of friendly intimidation then?
Unnecessary.
It's part of the legal process when the rent is not paid.
The LL seems to have had detailed discussions with one particular tenant, and perhaps some kind of case could have been made for that person have some kind of overall responsibility. If that tenant was smart, they might even had opportunity to build in a fee or rent discount for themselves for the work of collecting rent and managing replacements.
But to simply say that 'rented as a whole' therefore they are all on the hook is a cop-out.0 -
Eh no, it is being 'derailed' by people who see that the LL did not make the terms and conditions clear up front and is now trying ti impose terms to fix a small problem for themselves afterwards.AndrewJRenko wrote: »And at no point did the LL state that the tenants would be liable for any deposit shortfall arising from the early departure of one of their housemates, right? TBH, unless you can post the exact wording of the agreement they signed, I don't know that anyone will be able to shed any more light on this.
Doesn't have to. It was rented as a single unit. If they don't like it they can pursue their friend who moved out early.
Tbh op, you have your answer here already. It's being derailed by people who reckon the students think place was rented room by room. They clearly don't, and it was clearly rented as a whole.
Any shortfall in rent gets a notice of arrears followed by eviction proceedings, and any arrears at the end of the tenancy are taken from the deposit. Anything not covered by the deposit is pursued through the RTB.
.
I'd be very doubtful that the RTB would uphold a decision against other shared tenants in these circumstances. In fact, they may well uphold a decision against an LL who tries to move to evict tenants who have continued to pay their own rent and not breached any terms in their contract.0 -
Advertisement
-
First, landlords don't ever move to evict anybody without a court order. They can terminate but that is quite a different thing.
The landlord is entitled to be paid rent, and not just any rent, but 'the' rent. It is there in black and white in 16(a)((i) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The idea that there is some technicality or some slick legal argument which allows a person to stay in a premises when the rent has not been paid is just bunkum.
The RTB doesn't have any discretion where the tenants persist in not paying the rent and valid notice has been served. They can't overturn a termination in such circumstances.0 -
antoinolachtnai;102062242
First, landlords don't ever move to evict anybody without a court order. They can terminate but that is quite a different thing.
So are you drawing a distinction between issuing an eviction order and moving to evict somebody? I'm not quite sure I see the distinction. Surely issuing an eviction order is the first stop on moving to evict somebody.
And if the tenants leave after getting an eviction order, they have been evicted.
You seem to keep ignoring the question of whether a simple signature on some kind of DIY lease agreement that doesn't include any specific details of joint/several liability or termination procedures. The question of who has the liability to pay the rent is still legally unclear.antoinolachtnai wrote: »The landlord is entitled to be paid rent, and not just any rent, but 'the' rent. It is there in black and white in 16(a)((i) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The idea that there is some technicality or some slick legal argument which allows a person to stay in a premises when the rent has not been paid is just bunkum.
.
I'm not quite sure it is that simple. The question of whether joint and several liability applies has certainly been an issue in other cases:antoinolachtnai wrote: »The RTB doesn't have any discretion where the tenants persist in not paying the rent and valid notice has been served. They can't overturn a termination in such circumstances.
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tr-tribunal-documents/tr1213-000543-(0613-06499)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=00 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »antoinolachtnai;102062242
So are you drawing a distinction between issuing an eviction order and moving to evict somebody? I'm not quite sure I see the distinction. Surely issuing an eviction order is the first stop on moving to evict somebody.
No. There are at least nine steps and many more sub-steps a landlord has to take before they will be in a position to even apply for an order to have someone evicted where rent is in arrears. (These are something like: informal notice of arrears, formal notice of arrears, termination, termination reminder, notice of intent to seek RTB adjudication, RTB adjudication or mediation hearing, RTB Tribunal hearing, determination order reminder, pre-litigation notice)And if the tenants leave after getting an eviction order, they have been evicted.
No. They will have left voluntarily if they leave when they get the eviction order but before they are actually evicted.You seem to keep ignoring the question of whether a simple signature on some kind of DIY lease agreement that doesn't include any specific details of joint/several liability or termination procedures. The question of who has the liability to pay the rent is still legally unclear.
It's really not. The piece of paper the OP described and the RTB registration will make it crystal clear who the tenants. The RTA is crystal clear on who is liable to pay the rent (the tenants).
The landlord can write whatever he/she likes in the lease spelling out the termination procedures. The rules about termination in the RTA are still going to prevail in practice.I'm not quite sure it is that simple. The question of whether joint and several liability applies has certainly been an issue in other cases:
http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/tr-tribunal-documents/tr1213-000543-(0613-06499)-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0
The facts and the questions at issue in that car-crash of a case are totally different from what is being discussed here. In particular, the OP's friend benefits from copious paperwork, written, signed terms, and RTB registration, in comparison to the case you cite, where there was absolutely no documentation of any nature and no RTB registration.
Could the tenants get a fancy solicitor and make some big argument about how badly they have been done by? Sure, they could, and maybe they would even win. But that doesn't mean that the law is on their side. And it is a lot more likely that they would be told to just pay their rent.
If you rent a property, you are bound by section 16 of the RTA, i.e., you have to pay the rent. Not the rent you want to pay or or the rent you think is fair, but the rent that was agreed at the outset or at the review and which was registered with the RTB. You are bound by Section 16 of the RTA even if you are ignorant of it.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Eh no, it is being 'derailed' by people who see that the LL did not make the terms and conditions clear up front and is now trying ti impose terms to fix a small problem for themselves afterwards.
I'd be very doubtful that the RTB would uphold a decision against other shared tenants in these circumstances. In fact, they may well uphold a decision against an LL who tries to move to evict tenants who have continued to pay their own rent and not breached any terms in their contract.
Its such a basic and standard part of a lease for a full unit that it shouldn't have to stated in a lease. If you rent a house you pay the rent. If that's one person or 5 people it doesn't matter, the LL should receive his rent in full at the end of the month. Rooms let seperately is such a clearly different thing that it's obvious this isn't the case here.
If a couple rented an apartment and they broke up and one moved out do you seriously think the remaining person could even try to get away with only paying half the rent? No they couldn't and this case is no different. The RTB can be a kangaroo court a lot of the time but there is no way even they would be on the tenants side in a case like this.0 -
<quote snipped>
There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.0 -
But this isn't a couple, and the landlord knows well that it isn't a couple. It is five people who have no deep relationship with each other, going to college. The landlord knows well that lots of people drop out of college, and a 1 in 5 drop out rate isn't unusual.Rayne Early Revolver wrote: »AndrewJRenko wrote: »Eh no, it is being 'derailed' by people who see that the LL did not make the terms and conditions clear up front and is now trying ti impose terms to fix a small problem for themselves afterwards.
I'd be very doubtful that the RTB would uphold a decision against other shared tenants in these circumstances. In fact, they may well uphold a decision against an LL who tries to move to evict tenants who have continued to pay their own rent and not breached any terms in their contract.
Its such a basic and standard part of a lease for a full unit that it shouldn't have to stated in a lease. If you rent a house you pay the rent. If that's one person or 5 people it doesn't matter, the LL should receive his rent in full at the end of the month. Rooms let seperately is such a clearly different thing that it's obvious this isn't the case here.
If a couple rented an apartment and they broke up and one moved out do you seriously think the remaining person could even try to get away with only paying half the rent? No they couldn't and this case is no different. The RTB can be a kangaroo court a lot of the time but there is no way even they would be on the tenants side in a case like this.
When you say that 'it shouldn't have to be in the lease', it sounds like an aspirational claim for you. If you want joint and several liability for five young people who are new to this renting lark, you should spell it out. If you don't spell it out, you're on dodgy ground.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »you want joint and several liability for five young people who are new to this renting lark, you should spell it out. If you don't spell it out, you're on dodgy ground.
Lack of knowledge by a tenant/tenants is not a defence for them. There is no difference between a couple renting a place togeather and a group of people renting a place as a group (which is what they are doing here). 5 names on a lease and the rent due in one transaction to the LL = full unit rented to the group, one person stopping to pay does not mean the rent amount changes and I have no idea why you think it would.
How do you think they would get on if they pay 4/5 of the esb bill and tell the esb the other person moved out and they only owe their share?
If each person was paying their rent to the LL seperately this would be a totally different scenario but as it's being let as a single unit then the full rent is due.0 -
I think you'd find that the RTB would understand the difference between 5 students sharing and a couple sharing, in terms of the degree of influence and control and responsibility they have for the behaviour of others in the group. The RTB case report that I posted above indicates that the lack of relationship between two joint tenants was a factor in that case.Rayne Early Revolver wrote: »AndrewJRenko wrote: »you want joint and several liability for five young people who are new to this renting lark, you should spell it out. If you don't spell it out, you're on dodgy ground.
Lack of knowledge by a tenant/tenants is not a defence for them. There is no difference between a couple renting a place togeather and a group of people renting a place as a group (which is what they are doing here). 5 names on a lease and the rent due in one transaction to the LL = full unit rented to the group, one person stopping to pay does not mean the rent amount changes and I have no idea why you think it would.
How do you think they would get on if they pay 4/5 of the esb bill and tell the esb the other person moved out and they only owe their share?
If each person was paying their rent to the LL seperately this would be a totally different scenario but as it's being let as a single unit then the full rent is due.
And I think you'd find that if the ESB did set up a joint account for five tenants, they would have clarified the joint and several liability for those tenants at the time of signing - which the LL failed to do here.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »I think you'd find that the RTB would understand the difference between 5 students sharing and a couple sharing, in terms of the degree of influence and control and responsibility they have for the behaviour of others in the group. The RTB case report that I posted above indicates that the lack of relationship between two joint tenants was a factor in that case.
Thre is no difference between a couple renting a full apartment and 5 students doing so when it's under a single rental agreement with the full rent paid to the LL in one transaction and all their names on the lease. This is standard and I don't know why you think it needs to be stated on a lease. If there no written lease whatsoever each tenant would still be liable for the full rent simple as that. I have no idea why you think otherwise as this is how leases work.
The RTB case you are linking to is of no relavence whatsoever as the tenants paid their rent to the LL seperately and this was the agreement. I've said in a number of posts that this is a totally different scenario to the one being discussed here.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I
And I think you'd find that if the ESB did set up a joint account for five tenants, they would have clarified the joint and several liability for those tenants at the time of signing - which the LL failed to do here.
if they do or do not it changes nothing all account holders are liable the same as they are in a rental contract. It does not need to be stated it's just as simple as that.0 -
IF this is such 'standard' information, is there any chance that you could provide a reputable source, like Threshold, or a legal firm or even a landlord group stating that this is the 'standard' approach - that tenants have a hard, joint and several liability in these circumstances even when it is not spelt out in the lease.Rayne Early Revolver wrote: »AndrewJRenko wrote: »I think you'd find that the RTB would understand the difference between 5 students sharing and a couple sharing, in terms of the degree of influence and control and responsibility they have for the behaviour of others in the group. The RTB case report that I posted above indicates that the lack of relationship between two joint tenants was a factor in that case.
Thre is no difference between a couple renting a full apartment and 5 students doing so when it's under a single rental agreement with the full rent paid to the LL in one transaction and all their names on the lease. This is standard and I don't know why you think it needs to be stated on a lease. If there no written lease whatsoever each tenant would still be liable for the full rent simple as that. I have no idea why you think otherwise as this is how leases work.
The RTB case you are linking to is of no relavence whatsoever as the tenants paid their rent to the LL seperately and this was the agreement. I've said in a number of posts that this is a totally different scenario to the one being discussed here.AndrewJRenko wrote: »I
And I think you'd find that if the ESB did set up a joint account for five tenants, they would have clarified the joint and several liability for those tenants at the time of signing - which the LL failed to do here.
if they do or do not it changes nothing all account holders are liable the same as they are in a rental contract. It does not need to be stated it's just as simple as that.0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »IF this is such 'standard' information, is there any chance that you could provide a reputable source, like Threshold, or a legal firm or even a landlord group stating that this is the 'standard' approach - that tenants have a hard, joint and several liability in these circumstances even when it is not spelt out in the lease.
Well it's there in the statute. The tenants are liable for the rent.
You are the one making the very technical point that there can be no joint liability without a specific clause or that joint liability is somehow at the discretion of the adjudicator or tribunal. It would really be more appropriate if you were to provide your authoritative source.0 -
You may have missed my earlier post, stating;antoinolachtnai wrote: »AndrewJRenko wrote: »IF this is such 'standard' information, is there any chance that you could provide a reputable source, like Threshold, or a legal firm or even a landlord group stating that this is the 'standard' approach - that tenants have a hard, joint and several liability in these circumstances even when it is not spelt out in the lease.
Well it's there in the statute. The tenants are liable for the rent.
You are the one making the very technical point that there can be no joint liability without a specific clause or that joint liability is somehow at the discretion of the adjudicator or tribunal. It would really be more appropriate if you were to provide your authoritative source.
There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.
Failure to pay the agreed rent would be an act of all the tenants.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »You may have missed my earlier post, stating;
There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.
That really does nothing to support what you are claiming. There is a lot of common law relating to contract law, none of which you will find in the Act but applies nonetheless when the Act has not stipulated otherwise and even then Judges often decide what way a term should be interpreted and this is binding on lower courts. That's our legal system!0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »You may have missed my earlier post, stating;
There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.
There is. It says that the tenants are obliged to pay the rent. It's there in section 16. It may be understood that 'tenants' means all the tenants and that rent means the rent in its entirety.
Section 51 has to do with a part IV tenancy. This does not arise in the case being discussed. Termination and liability for the rent are two separate things. Anyway, the section does not confer a right to sign a rental agreement, live in a property and not pay rent in any case.
Your interpretation of section 51 leads to the conclusion that joint and several clauses are forbidden. This is absurd.0 -
There is nothing in the Act to support this view.AndrewJRenko wrote: »There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.
Failure to pay the agreed rent would be an act of all the tenants.0 -
Yes, I'm aware of the basics of our legal system. And I'm aware that the RTB and possibly eventually a judge could interpret a case like this either way. Unless you are aware of some specific common law provision that imposes a joint and several liability on people who didn't sign up to that joint and several liability?AndrewJRenko wrote: »You may have missed my earlier post, stating;
There is nothing in the RTA about joint and several liability of tenants to pay rent. There is an explicit statement in Section 51 of RTA that no act of one of multiple tenants can result in termination of tenancy for remaining tenants.
That really does nothing to support what you are claiming. There is a lot of common law relating to contract law, none of which you will find in the Act but applies nonetheless when the Act has not stipulated otherwise and even then Judges often decide what way a term should be interpreted and this is binding on lower courts. That's our legal system!0 -
Thread closed at the OP's request
Mod0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement