Landlord forced students to pay rent for house they couldn't live in

awec

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/landlord-asked-students-to-pay-rent-to-hold-house-they-could-not-enter-1.3246159

The landlord in this case charged these students rent and electricity for July and August, but they were not allowed to move in until September. In the meantime, it turned out the landlord has some family members living there instead during the summer. Must have been lovely for them, having someone else pay their rent AND their electric.

Speaking to The Irish Times, the landlord of the property Ms Kennedy said: “I am not out there to screw anybody.”

Yea, right...

What an absolute chancer.

dudara

When I was a student in UCC years ago, it was very normal to have to pay from the start of September, even though you'd actually only be returning towards the end of September. This was because the CIT would be back earlier and the landlord basically didn't care.

It's a tough market because students essentially only need accommodation for 9-10 months per year. But what's a landlord supposed to do for the remaining two months?

Browney7

dudara wrote: »

When I was a student in UCC years ago, it was very normal to have to pay from the start of September, even though you'd actually only be returning towards the end of September. This was because the CIT would be back earlier and the landlord basically didn't care.

It's a tough market because students essentially only need accommodation for 9-10 months per year. But what's a landlord supposed to do for the remaining two months?

In this case though it reads that the tenants were not given access for the months they were forced to pay for

bucketybuck

Why does the thread title say "forced"?

Nobody was "forced" to do anything.

Michael D Not Higgins

There is some serious exploitation of vulnerable renters in Dublin. It appears anyway that he got his money back and never moved in, so I'm not sure what Threshold are mulling over. I'd like to hear more of the landlord's side to the story since it doesn't all add up.

C3PO

Personally I think a landlord is entitled to charge rent for the summer months even if the students don't want to live in the property but in this case the landlord was charging rent and not allowing the tenants to actually move in until September! Now that's taking the p*** in my opinion!

MysticMonk

I'll bet the students didn't actually pay anything out of their own pockets either..no doubt Daddy picked up the bill.

Varik

dudara wrote: »

When I was a student in UCC years ago, it was very normal to have to pay from the start of September, even though you'd actually only be returning towards the end of September. This was because the CIT would be back earlier and the landlord basically didn't care.

It's a tough market because students essentially only need accommodation for 9-10 months per year. But what's a landlord supposed to do for the remaining two months?

Did my master in UCC so was there in the summer too, rents weren't much different to dublin but during those summer months they plummeted.

Wondering now if LL can even do that with rent control as it is.

faceman

MysticMonk wrote:

I'll bet the students didn't actually pay anything out of their own pockets either..no doubt Daddy picked up the bill.

What's that got to do with it?

Michael D Not Higgins

MysticMonk wrote: »

I'll bet the students didn't actually pay anything out of their own pockets either..no doubt Daddy picked up the bill.

Mod: Don't post on this thread again.

jimmycrackcorm

The landlord should have just asked for a holding feeâ„¢ for the summer months instead of charging rent and electricity.

Otherwise I can't see how it is correct to charge rent but deny access.

SusieBlue

Varik wrote: »

Did my master in UCC so was there in the summer too, rents weren't much different to dublin but during those summer months they plummeted.

Wondering now if LL can even do that with rent control as it is.

Yeah you can rent a room on college road during the summer months for about €60 a week. Wouldn't get that kind of deal during term time at all.

rawn

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The landlord should have just asked for a holding feeâ„¢ for the summer months instead of charging rent and electricity.

A holding fee only works if the house is empty.

DubCount

I can understand the landlord charging for rent for the summer months rather than have an unpaid vacant period while waiting for the students to start college. I don't think the landlord should be charging them while providing the property for someone else to use (even if it is a family member in a bind), although maybe that could be twisted in some way to make sense as it may have been unplanned etc.. Charging tenants for utilities - to people who were not living in the property when the utility bills were being run up - that is simply wrong.

The_Conductor

The student got their rent and deposit refunded to them in full (according to the article).
Not entirely sure what Threshold are mulling over here?

The landlord obviously was wrong to charge rent if the students didn't have access to the unit- however, a holding fee for the summer months- and scheduling any works for that time- is far from unusual. The unusal aspect of this particular case- was someone else living in the property- regardless of what the circumstances were.

The landlord was in the wrong to allow someone else stay there- when the students had paid rent in full for the summer months. This is what she did wrong. The student- has gotten a full refund and his deposit back though- so I'm not entirely clear what basis he is taking a case against the landlord?

awec

C3PO wrote: »

Personally I think a landlord is entitled to charge rent for the summer months even if the students don't want to live in the property but in this case the landlord was charging rent and not allowing the tenants to actually move in until September! Now that's taking the p*** in my opinion!

Charging rent and electricity.

Some laugh.

Dodgy landlords like this are what give landlords in general a bad name unfortunately.

The_Conductor

awec wrote: »

Dodgy landlords like this are what give landlords in general a bad name unfortunately.

+1

By rights she (the landlord) should have fully refunded any rent paid by the other 3 students for the summer months too........... Those three are in my reckoning the people who may now have a case to take against the landlord- not the guy who has had everything refunded to him.

pilly

Charging a holding fee is one thing but the electricity?

Lux23

MysticMonk wrote: »

I'll bet the students didn't actually pay anything out of their own pockets either..no doubt Daddy picked up the bill.

And? So they deserve to be ripped off by this criminal.

The_Conductor

Lux23 wrote: »

And? So they deserve to be ripped off by this criminal.

Technically its a civil rather than a criminal matter, however, that's splitting hairs.

The landlord should not have done what she did- and the only right course of action is to refund any and all monies paid for the period- back to all 4 of the students. At present- its not obvious that the three remaining students have been refunded- just the guy interviewed in the article.

jimmycrackcorm

rawn wrote:

A holding fee only works if the house is empty.

Call it an acceptance guarantee then.

pilly wrote:

Charging a holding fee is one thing but the electricity?

Such a fee should be less than rent but even without occupancy there would be an electricity standing charge and possibly some minimal electricity use such as burglar alarm.

ludite

MysticMonk wrote: »

I'll bet the students didn't actually pay anything out of their own pockets either..no doubt Daddy picked up the bill.

So? It's not fair no matter who has to pay it.

Grumpypants

It seems like a big hulabaloo over €44.

elperello

Grumpypants wrote: »

It seems like a big hulabaloo over €44.

I would work on the basis that "it's better in my pocket" whatever the amount.