Can she keep the rent that I paid?

15-05-2021 10:25am

fvp4 wrote: »

Licensee “contracts” are just house rules. I don’t think any notice period matters, or is in fact common. When I rented a room to a friend of a friend for 3 months it was a handshake.

But let’s wait on the op on that.

The tenancy board recommends written agreements when living as a licensee which can help with getting a deposit back etc. A signed written agreement will be useful in a small claims court.

You'd hope renting between friends is not the same as renting from a randomer.

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 10:27am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We're going around in circles.

If there is a notice period the OP needs to pay that. She was given a notice to leave and made use of two weeks of that, if she didn't make use of any further period for which she possibly could have stayed she'll need to pay.

The op left “as soon as possible” as requested by the LL, I’m struggling to see why you think the op should pay rent for any period which exceeds the soonest date he/she could leave.

15-05-2021 10:27am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We're going around in circles.

If there is a notice period the OP needs to pay that. She was given a notice to leave and made use of two weeks of that, if she didn't make use of any further period for which she possibly could have stayed she'll need to pay.

No. You are totally wrong here. You don’t know the law.

The DayDream · 15-05-2021 10:28am

Definitely take her to court. I can't imagine any court thinking it's okay for a landlord to accept a months rent and kick them out in the same week. And taking 170 in bills for a month you won't be there as well. Unbelievable.

15-05-2021 10:30am

fvp4 wrote: »

No. You are totally wrong here. You don’t know the law.

What law?

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 10:30am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What law?

Exactly.

15-05-2021 10:31am

The DayDream wrote: »

Definitely take her to court. I can't imagine any court thinking it's okay for a landlord to accept a months rent and kick them out in the same week.

Definitely. If that's what happened. It wasn't. It seems like the OP vacated when it suited her, to a point.

15-05-2021 10:32am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What law?

The law on licensees. You are spouting the most insane balderdash. Apparently if evicted people have to also stay out their notice. That they didn’t give. That may not even be in the contract. It’s all rubbish.

15-05-2021 10:33am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Definitely. If that's what happened. It wasn't. It seems like the OP vacated when it suited her, to a point.

“as soon as possible” is rarely anybody’s idea of suitability.

15-05-2021 10:34am

Dav010 wrote: »

Exactly.

Contract law. Depends on what the OP signed. There was a detailed agreement, of which we know some detail.

Treppen · 15-05-2021 10:36am

Dav010 wrote: »

The op left “as soon as possible” as requested by the LL, I’m struggling to see why you think the op should pay rent for any period which exceeds the soonest date he/she could leave.

As soon as possible could be months, weeks, days, hours...

Rent was paid monthly. If the op paid for a month but decided to move out prior then it's on them, it's not a pro rata agreement (although bills would be).

It's like buying a coffee , the waitress says they'll need the table ASAP, drinking half and demanding half the cost back because you only drank half.

15-05-2021 10:37am

fvp4 wrote: »

The law on licensees. You are spouting the most insane balderdash. Apparently if evicted people have to also stay out their notice. That they didn’t give. That may not even be in the contract. It’s all rubbish.

The law on licences is as what was agreed. Do you understand that?

The OP will need to clarify.

15-05-2021 10:38am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Contract law. Depends on what the OP signed. There was a detailed agreement, of which we know some detail.

Licensees can be kicked out with minimal notice. As was the case here.

15-05-2021 10:38am

Treppen has explained it better than I tried.

15-05-2021 10:39am

Treppen wrote: »

As soon as possible could be months, weeks, days, hours...

Rent was paid monthly. If the op paid for a month but decided to move out prior then it's on them, it's not a pro rata agreement (although bills would be).

It's like buying a coffee , the waitress says they'll need the table ASAP, drinking half and demanding half the cost back because you only drank half.

The op didn’t decide to move out. She was evicted.

15-05-2021 10:40am

fvp4 wrote: »

Licensees can be kicked out with minimal notice. As was the case here.

The OP paid for a month and could have stayed for a month. Treppen explains it more succinctly.

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 10:41am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Contract law. Depends on what the OP signed. There was a detailed agreement, of which we know some detail.

I’d be surprised if that contract contained the clause “as soon as possible”. Even if there is a clause claiming one month, both parties can agree to a shorter period, by requesting the op move out asap, and the op doing so, I think you are wrong to them claim the op is bound by the month notice term.

Anyways, I’d leave it to the SCC to decide, I suspect once the LL gets that letter, a refund will be forthcoming.

Bass Reeves · 15-05-2021 10:44am

There has to be a bit of give and take here. However the owner asked the OP to vacate as she needed the room for her cousin. If the owner asked IP to vacate ASAP then she should refund the unused part of the rent.

170 sounds high for bills. What were the normal monthly bills. TBH if someone moves into a house with a owner occupier bills should be an agreed fixed amount/month ideally.

SCC may or may not help however owner may not want to go that far. However court will probably look at signed agreement and not defer from it. Threatening to stand outside the house every evening with a sign may sort it however it could amount to a libel situation.

Often it's a matter of sucking it up and learning from the experience.Do not pay rent before it's due in future. Getting things out of the way with money is bad financial discipline.

15-05-2021 10:44am

fvp4 wrote: »

The op didn’t decide to move out. She was evicted.

Now who's inventing the narrative. She was asked to leave as soon as possible. That's hardly getting the heavies around.

She paid for a month and could stay for a month. She left approx two weeks early, voluntarily.

15-05-2021 10:45am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The OP paid for a month and could have stayed for a month. Treppen explains it more succinctly.

No, he was talking bollocks too. if you are asked to leave “as soon as possible” by the licensor that’s the new notice period. When you do leave “as soon as possible” the period you are not there you cannot be charged rent for.

If the licensor wanted to abide by a clause in the contract of one month (which probably doesn’t exist) then she would have said “end of May”. She did not say “end of May” or “one month”. she said “as soon as possible”. Which ended up being two weeks.

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 10:45am

Treppen wrote: »

As soon as possible could be months, weeks, days, hours...

Rent was paid monthly. If the op paid for a month but decided to move out prior then it's on them, it's not a pro rata agreement (although bills would be).

It's like buying a coffee , the waitress says they'll need the table ASAP, drinking half and demanding half the cost back because you only drank half.

Poor analogy, it’s like you booking a table for an hour, the waitress asking you to leave as soon as possible during that hour because they want the table for another booking, then charging you the full hour even though the next person is sitting at it during your time.

The DayDream · 15-05-2021 10:47am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Definitely. If that's what happened. It wasn't. It seems like the OP vacated when it suited her, to a point.

You're making so little sense in this thread I don't think there's any use trying to logically explain to you why you're so wrong. You're either being purposefully obtuse or you're incredibly thick.

15-05-2021 10:49am

Dav010 wrote: »

Even if there is a clause claiming one month, both parties can agree to a shorter period

IF both parties agree. If that was a case the OP would hardly be posting here.

The OP had to move out, she had paid for a month, moved out approx two weeks early.

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 10:52am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

IF both parties agree. If that was a case the OP would hardly be posting here.

The OP had to move out, she had paid for a month, moved out approx two weeks early.

The LL requested the op move out as soon as possible, the op agreed to this and moved out as soon as possible. Is there anything more to be said?

15-05-2021 10:57am

Dav010 wrote: »

The LL requested the op move out as soon as possible, the op agreed to this and moved out as soon as possible. Is there anything more to be said?

Did the OP have to move out before the month she paid for was up?

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 11:01am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did the OP have to move out before the month she paid for was up?

No, but the LL asked the op to.

The op complied with the LLs request, why should the op be charged more than the LL requested?

15-05-2021 11:05am

Hey OP, the small claims court is a really easy and painless process, and not expensive at all. Went through it recently ourselves. You can even put your case in online. Just keep all correspondence between you and the LL. It doesn't always even need to go to court, although outs did, and I could tell the judge thought it was a load of insignificant nonsense and just ruled in our favour as the other party didn't even show up! Best of luck.

15-05-2021 11:05am

Dav010 wrote: »

No, but the LL asked the op to.

She did, and all things being fair the landlady should have given her a break, but didn't have to as we've established the OP could have stayed. Still, ****ty of the landlady.

That it took the OP 11 days to move out from when she could might have lost her any goodwill.

Dav010 · 15-05-2021 11:09am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She did, and all things being fair the landlady should have given her a break, but didn't have to as we've established the OP could have stayed. Still, ****ty of the landlady.

That it took the OP 11 days to move out from when she could might have lost her any goodwill.

Goodwill is a two way street, the op could have stayed longer, but didn’t, the LL wanted the room sooner, the op left sooner, both should be happy. I’m struggling to see what right you think the LL has to keep the rent beyond the earliest date of departure, after all the LL is getting the room sooner than expected, this is what the LL wanted.

15-05-2021 11:11am

Dav010 wrote: »

Goodwill is a two way street, the op could have stayed longer, but didn’t, the LL wanted the room sooner, the op left sooner, both should be happy. I’m struggling to see what right you think the LL has to keep the rent beyond the earliest date of departure, after all the LL is getting the room sooner than expected, this is what the LL wanted.

That the OP paid for a month, could have stayed for a month. Didn't.

We can argue that the Landlady is a meany, but how does that help the OP? For the sake of €25 she should take her case to the SCC, especially as it seems she hasn't got the deposit back. She should at least get that back, so may as well add on 17 days she left early. Can't hurt.

Can she keep the rent that I paid?

Comments