Can she keep the rent that I paid?

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Because the LL asked him/her to leave at the earliest opportunity.Did.

Though the RTA does not apply here of course, there is a section (69) which allows for agreement between LL and tenant to a shorter notice period after the correct notice had been given, so it isn’t like there isn’t a legal precedent for agreement to be reached between LLs and renters for shorter notice periods. Also, the terms of a standard contract can be changed by mutual agreement. The LL requested a shorter notice period by asking the op to leave asap, the op agreed, so why are you insisting that the op should be bound by the longer notice?

The OP left voluntarily. You're making the point this was a verbal agreement that the Landlady would have to refund a part of the monthly rent. That doesn't automatically follow.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The OP left voluntarily. You're making the point this was a verbal agreement that the Landlady would have to refund a part of the monthly rent. That doesn't automatically follow.

She didn’t leave voluntarily. She was told to leave “as soon as possible”. She did exactly that getting a room a few days later and then leaving 2 weeks later.

In effect this was an eviction.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

In effect this was an eviction.

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless it’s changed under covid here is the rule.

A If you are renting a room in your landlord's home, your situation is very different ….

Any notice you may get of the termination of the tenancy is at your landlord's discretion (although the landlord is obliged to give reasonable notice, the specifics of this notice may vary)

Even if there was a legally bound agreement, you seen to think the landlady has no responsibility to give notice of one month to leave, but the tenant has to stay one month even if told to leave ASAP.

In other words even in a standard tenancy the op would probably get the rent back.

Jim2007

Lorlaa wrote: »

Until recently I was renting a room in an owner occupied apartment; on 23rd April I paid my May rent (which was due on 1st May but it was payday so I wanted it out of the way) and on 29th April she told me that she needed the room for her cousin so I’d have to move out. I found a place, paid deposit, and got keys by the Sunday (2nd May) and had everything moved out of the room as of end of business yesterday (13th May). She’s now saying that she’s taking €170 out of my deposit to cover the May bills and she won’t be returning any of the rent that I paid for the month of May (approx €350). There’s no damage and no reason for her to keep my money and I’ve moved out and given the keys back within two weeks of her asking me to leave.

I know that the PRTB don’t deal with owner occupied tenancies so I don’t know where to turn.

Also, as an aside, I have the room rental agreement that I signed and it appears to be different to the one she showed me; an additional sentence was in hers (from what I can remember). The rental agreement also states that no guest can stay for longer than 3 days without prior agreement but her boyfriend was there every night this year so it seems to me that she was in breech of the agreement that she made.

Anyway, any in put would be appreciated and if you want anything clarified, just ask ‚ thanks in advance.

From a practical point of view without a lot of hassle and involving a solicitor.... not much.

On the other hand maybe a game of bluff... if on top of everything else she altered the contract, you were to suggest an immediate return of your money would ensure you were not going to make a criminal complaint... see what happens.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Even if there was a legally bound agreement, you seen to think the landlady has no responsibility to give notice of one month to leave, but the tenant has to stay one month even if told to leave ASAP.

No, I think the OP has a right to stay a month. The landlady didn't say she had to move out today, tomorrow, next week or next fortnight. In fact, as soon as possible itself doesn't preclude the OP moving out at any time, even into June or longer if she hasn't found a place, making it possible for her to move out.

The DayDream

[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.

There is no 'early' when 'as soon as possible' is requested. It literally means 'you cannot do this too early, in fact, immediately would be best.'

Cop on

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, I think the OP has a right to stay a month. The landlady didn't say she had to move out today, tomorrow, next week or next fortnight. In fact, as soon as possible itself doesn't preclude the OP moving out at any time, even into June or longer if she hasn't found a place, making it possible for her to move out.

If the landlady meant a month or later she would have said that. No court is going to take the phrase as being ambiguous or an arbitrary length of time. It means “start looking now”.

The DayDream

The DayDream wrote: »

There is no 'early' when 'as soon as possible' is requested. It literally means 'you cannot do this too early, in fact, immediately would be best.'

Cop on

You're making an assumption that the Landlady is Cruella Deville. As soon as possible is open ended.



That the Landlady may have WANTED her to leave straight away is irrelevant. The OP could have stayed, and was was not even in the neighbourhood of being evicted.

The DayDream

Having the right to stay a month doesn't give the LL the right to keep a months rent when she moved out ASAP to accommodate the LL's request.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

If the landlady meant a month or later she would have said that. No court is going to take the phrase as being ambiguous or an arbitrary length of time. It means “start looking now”.

Yes, 'start looking now'. We'll agree on that. She still didn't have to move out, especially not before her paid up month was up.

The DayDream

The DayDream wrote: »

Having the right to stay a month doesn't give the LL the right to keep a months rent when she moved out ASAP to accommodate the LL's request.

How many times is this around the circle again? But, where are you getting a month's rent? Surely, you're only advocating 17 days at most.

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many times is this around the circle again? But, where are you getting a month's rent? Surely, you're only advocating 17 days at most.

I suspect until you comprehend that by requesting the op leave as soon as possible rather than at the end of the notice period, the LL gave up the right to charge for the full notice period after the op abided by her request and left as soon as possible. I’m not confident.

I'm pretty sure the SCC doesn't set precedent, so it's basically how the judge feels on the day.

That the LL hasn't returned the deposit may sway the judge to side fully with the OP, and may get back the 17 days, or even the full month. Depends on how the judge is feeling.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

I suspect until you comprehend that by requesting the op leave as soon as possible rather than at the end of the notice period, the LL gave up the right to charge for the full notice period after the op abided by her request and left as soon as possible. I’m not confident.

I refer you to post 63.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I refer you to post 63.

One minute you are complaining about the thread going around in circles, next you are linking back to some argument you made which has been refuted.

You don’t prove your point by repeating it.

I think this is a slam dunk case for the SCC, she will get the 17 days back.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

One minute you are complaining about the thread going around in circles, next you are linking back to some argument you made which has been refuted.

You don’t prove your point by repeating it.

I think this is a slam dunk case for the SCC, she will get the 17 days back.

The very fact this is going around in circles means it can be answered by referring to previous posts.


It looks like she'll have to go to the SCC anyway to get the deposit, so she can tack on what she likes. Depends on the judge, based on the OP there's no suggestion why she wouldn't be entitled to the deposit.

Dav010

Deleted User wrote: »

I refer you to post 63.

I'm going to trump that with post 15.

Lorlaa wrote: »

She told me she needed the room as soon as possible so I moved as soon as possible.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

I'm going to trump that with post 15.

Post 63 again.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Post 63 again.

Which is you agreeing to disagree. Normally people end it there but you haven’t so I don’t see the point of you keeping referencing it.

(But I’m not agreeing to disagree with you, you are wrong).

Bass Reeves

As this is a licencee arrangements a judge will have to take the situation into account. Often house owners who take in tenants have unreal expectations. They want the money but often do not want the tenant. My daughter has been in two licencee situations. In one it was owner occupier and in the other one it was a friend who had broken up with a partner.

While both rentals worked well the one where she was in a sub let ended kinda peculiar. Her friend out of the blue last December decided that she wanted the house to herself and just indicated again she wanted daughter to move out. My daughter complied with the request but indicated she would move out before Christmas as it was easier than moving out in January as it it would be in the school term. Her friend was a bit peeved but she pointed out that it was as here requested her to leave. She was refunded unused rent and full deposit

Licencee arrangements will often lead to tension when notice is given. Because of that it is better for both parties to be flexible regarding unused rent. A person sub letting it an owner who is renting often fails to be clear in there notice period. If they fail to be clear in there notice period then unused rental periods should be refunded.

'' I want the room for my cousin leave can you move as soon as is convenient'

means just that and any unused rental period is refunded.

" I want the room for my cousin who will be moving in 6 weeks time so I am giving you 4 week notice and your tent is paid until then.

TBH any owner occupier who is renting should refund any unused rental periods of they request tenant to leave. If you are in someone else's house and they want you to leave then there is a tension from that on that is unhealthy

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Which is you agreeing to disagree. Normally people end it there but you haven’t so I don’t see the point of you keeping referencing it.

(But I’m not agreeing to disagree with you, you are wrong).

No, how can you take post 63 as agreeing to disagree?


There are different rights at play here. The OP living in the LL's house while prepaid is one. The right of the landlord to a months rent is another.



The LL asking the OP to move out when possible is not, as is being claimed by some, a demand to move out straight away. She could have stayed for the rest of the month. Possibly even longer if nowhere else found.



By, asking the OP to move out doesn't preclude the LL to a set month's rent if the renter leaves early.


The case in favour of the OP is that the LL was giving up their right to a full month's rent when the OP moved out. It's arguable, but presumptious.

It might be an idea to ask someone in the legal forum to give a look at the thread and see what they think. It would be best coming from the OP.

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

We're did she say she was evicted.

Treppen

Dav010 wrote: »

I suspect until you comprehend that by requesting the op leave as soon as possible rather than at the end of the notice period, the LL gave up the right to charge for the full notice period after the op abided by her request and left as soon as possible. I’m not confident.

How much time is ASAP?
1 hour ?
1 day ?
1 week ?
1 month?

If the LL accepted 1 months rent then that's the minimum time, as no further discussion took place on returning pro-rata.

Diceicle

Would it not be the case that it is up to the LL, as the person making the request for OP to leave, to also provide a defined timeline for her to vacate? 'ASAP' can be 24 hours. It could also be 6 months.

Dav010

Treppen wrote: »

How much time is ASAP?
1 hour ?
1 day ?
1 week ?
1 month?

If the LL accepted 1 months rent then that's the minimum time, as no further discussion took place on returning pro-rata.

Are you really asking how long “as soon as possible” is? Surely not.

Diceicle

Diceicle wrote: »

Would it not be the case that it is up to the LL, as the person making the request for OP to leave, to also provide a defined timeline for her to vacate? 'ASAP' can be 24 hours. It could also be 6 months.

ASAP means what it says. As soon as possible. If the landlady wanted to give the months notice she would have given a months notice.

Lots of defending the indefensible here.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Are you really asking how long “as soon as possible” is? Surely not.

Why, do you think you can answer it? It's open ended, but you knew that already. It was ended at the OPs timing.

Take the emotion out of it guys. The judge is unlikely to get so tied up in it.