Using deposit in lieu of last months rent.

SarahSassy

My tenants, dont have a formal lease as I was renting rooms out, have decided to get their own place. Thats fine but they want to use their deposit as the last months rent. I dont want this for obvious reasons and have told them so.

What rights do I have to force them to pay the rent?

D3PO

you cant force them to give you the money but as it appears these are rooms in your house you have the right to tell them to leave your property with immediate effect as they dont have the same rights as tennants renting a full property or under a lease.

so if they dont pay up tell them to pack up and move out the same day simple

MysticalSoul

Personally, I wouldn't be happy with that either. If I was in that situation, I would explain clearly what legally the deposit is for ie repairs etc, and how these cannot be ascertained until their last day of tenancy at the earliest.

SarahSassy

OK well I told them all I was not happy to accept the deposit in lieu of rent. One replied to say she will not be paying the rent as she is worried she wont get the deposit back cos she has no lease and does not have my home address. I do not operate like that and she has reneaged on bills before which she swears she has paid but could not prove it. It was only €30 so I let it go at the time.

She only rents a room in my houose.

I have told her she must pay and if she doesnt then she has until tomorrow to get out. Am I being fair?

Jo King

More than fair.

SarahSassy

Jo King wrote: »

More than fair.

So then I change the locks on her room?

Jo King

And the front door. Wait till she gets back and tries to get in. Tell her you want her old keys back and you will put her stuff in bags for her to take away. You will also give her back what remains of her deposit when she has taken her stuff away.

MysticalSoul

If she is renting a room in your house, she does have your home address though.

I am finding tenants are getting more pushy with the economy now, as have had potential lodgers ask if the deposit was the last month's rent on more than one occassion :eek:.

You should inform her that you intend to change the locks, but tell her when she is out at work or something, saying you are changing the locks, and she wont be given a key without the deposit. What she says works both ways ie you not having money to cover outstanding bills, damages etc. Can you legally take the lock change out of her deposit? I am not sure myself in this type of scenario, but may be worth checking out.

D3PO

SarahSassy wrote: »

OK well I told them all I was not happy to accept the deposit in lieu of rent. One replied to say she will not be paying the rent as she is worried she wont get the deposit back cos she has no lease and does not have my home address. I do not operate like that and she has reneaged on bills before which she swears she has paid but could not prove it. It was only €30 so I let it go at the time.

She only rents a room in my houose.

I have told her she must pay and if she doesnt then she has until tomorrow to get out. Am I being fair?

More than fair.

Hagar

Not much help now I know but the deposit should always be more than a single month's rent just to cater for messing like this.

D3PO

Hagar wrote: »

Not much help now I know but the deposit should always be more than a single month's rent just to cater for messing like this.

that will never happen. why ? because eery other landlord is accepting 1 months rent so why would somebody agree to give you more.

Victor

Am I being fair?

Probably, but get legal advice if you are evicting someone like this.

SarahSassy wrote: »

One replied to say she will not be paying the rent as she is worried she wont get the deposit back cos she has no lease and does not have my home address.

Give her a completed rent book, with all the details and the payments you have received filled in and signed off. Give her your address as the rented premises or your parents place or you solicitors office.

D3PO

Victor wrote: »

Probably, but get legal advice if you are evicting someone like this.

No legal advise needed. Shes renting a room in her house and has effectively the same rights as a guest i.e none.

belongings in a black bag, change the locks bye bye.

Jo King

Hagar wrote: »

Not much help now I know but the deposit should always be more than a single month's rent just to cater for messing like this.

About as much help as contact lenses to a blind man! If a two months deposit had been paid the lodger would just try to stop paying rent for the last two months. Whether anybody would pay a deposit greater than one month is another matter. Most unlikely in the current rental market

partyguinness

I posted a response here on Monday and it has gone.

Why?

complicit

First and last months rent is the only honourable and decent way
in this kind of situation .
The deposit is not supposed to cover repairs - They should come out of
the rent .
Many landlords unfairly withhold deposits so it is understandable that
the tenant would act this way .
Why not do a survey of the room now , while she is still living there .

D3PO

complicit wrote: »

The deposit is not supposed to cover repairs - .

If the repairs / damage are caused by the tennant outsid eof normal wear and tear thats exactly what the deposit is for.

complicit

And who decides what constitutes normal wear and tear and what is caused by the tenant . The greedy landlord ?

D3PO

complicit wrote: »

And who decides what constitutes normal wear and tear and what is caused by the tenant . The greedy landlord ?

Well its pretty easy to tell whats damage and whats wear and tear. :rolleyes:

complicit

Are you a landlord or involved in some capacity in that area . Because you
sound to me like you have an interest in defending landlords .

D3PO

complicit wrote: »

Are you a landlord or involved in some capacity in that area . Because you
sound to me like you have an interest in defending landlords .

No im not Im just somebody whos compelled to respond to ludacris and ill informed comments. if you actually follow my posts on this forum you will see i defend both landlords and tennants interests depending on the situation.as for being concenred about "greedy landlords" that swhy there is a dispute process available to both landlords and tennants via the PRTB. If a tennant believes all or part of thier deposit was being witheld without due reason they can raise this and have it adjucated on impartially.

subway

to the OP, be very careful.
ill give the benefit of the doubt and presume you are mixing up splitting up an investment property with the rent-a-room scheme.
you have stated that the tenants do not know your home address.
this means you are not covered by the rent a room scheme.
much of the advice here relates to the rent a room scheme.

i am under the impression that you will need to give notice or contact the PRTB.
im sure there are very large fines for landlords who change the locks on tenants.

they will also have your PPS number so you are not anonymous.

unless you are using the rent a room scheme and haven't given your PPS number. then your fcuked and i hope you get whats coming to you

Jo King

subway wrote: »

to the OP, be very careful.
ill give the benefit of the doubt and presume you are mixing up splitting up an investment property with the rent-a-room scheme.
you have stated that the tenants do not know your home address.
this means you are not covered by the rent a room scheme.
much of the advice here relates to the rent a room scheme.

i am under the impression that you will need to give notice or contact the PRTB.
im sure there are very large fines for landlords who change the locks on tenants.

they will also have your PPS number so you are not anonymous.

unless you are using the rent a room scheme and haven't given your PPS number. then your fcuked and i hope you get whats coming to you

The rent a room scheme is a tax scheme only. It has nothing to do with tenure or interests in the property. The occupants in this house have individual agreements with respect to bedrooms in the house. Since none of them are occupiers of a self contained dwelling they are not covered by the PRTB.
Below is a PRTB decision.

"Under the agreement entered into in December 2003 the Tenant is merely entitled to exclusive occupation of one bedroom and he shares other facilities including the kitchen, bathroom facilities and reception area facilities with other occupants.

The Landlord was of the view that the Tenant was not entitled to put a new lock onto the bedroom door. The Tenant contested this.

It is clear from the evidence that the letting does not come within the definition of “dwelling” as set out in section 4 of the Act of 2004. The shared facilities afforded to the Tenant could not be considered to be a “bed-sit” or any other form of “self-contained residential unit”.

It follows that the relationship between Landlord and Tenant is outside the scope of application of the Act of 2004 and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute."

subway

can you ;link to that judgment please.
ive never heard of it before.
and i would be interested to know how you came to that interpreattion that it means this isnt a tenant / landlord siatution.

just to add, if the person is renting out a room in their own home, it fundamentally changes the relationship.

Ste.phen

Yeah, if the landlord isn't living there, the 'change the locks' scenario could be VERY, VERY expensive if the tenant knows their rights.

Jo King

Ste.phen wrote: »

Yeah, if the landlord isn't living there, the 'change the locks' scenario could be VERY, VERY expensive if the tenant knows their rights.

What rights?

TR10/DR532&589/2006. 27 April 2006 that is the relevant PRTB decision. The landlord living there or not is irrelevant. The letting is not covered by the PRTB.

flowerific

The Deposit is not for rent so yes I would kick them out if the rent is not paid and give them back the deposit when you get the key back off them.
I have had lodgers before and I write down the agreement that one months notice is to be given by both parties and that the deposit to be returned once all outstanding bills are paid less any amount if damages, and I sign it and they sign it and both have a copy. This is a good idea especially if you have a landline as I have had foreign tennants ruin up huge oversees calls in their last few weeks thinking that when they leave the bill won't have come in, but the agreement is that they get their deposit back after outstanding bill are paid.

Ste.phen

The links in question are:
Complaint: http://www.prtb.ie/2006Disputes/TRIBUNAL06/TR10_Report.pdf
Decision: http://www.prtb.ie/2006Disputes/Tribunal/DOTR10_06.pdf

I think jo king is assuming that any instance in which people share a house is not covered by the PRTB under that ruling, but i can't necessarily see that, it seems that in this specific case the lease was drawn up in a way that specifically precluded it from being considered a 'self contained dwelling' under the terms of the 2004 act, but i can't imagine that applies in the general case, unless there are other cases with similar scenarios?

Jo King

Ste.phen wrote: »

The links in question are:
Complaint: http://www.prtb.ie/2006Disputes/TRIBUNAL06/TR10_Report.pdf
Decision: http://www.prtb.ie/2006Disputes/Tribunal/DOTR10_06.pdf

I think jo king is assuming that any instance in which people share a house is not covered by the PRTB under that ruling, but i can't necessarily see that, it seems that in this specific case the lease was drawn up in a way that specifically precluded it from being considered a 'self contained dwelling' under the terms of the 2004 act, but i can't imagine that applies in the general case, unless there are other cases with similar scenarios?

I am not doing anything of the kind. The o/p is specifically referring to her situation where the individual bedrooms are let. If there is a group sharing a house the entire group may have a lease of a self contained dwelling and would come under the remit of the PRTB. I am not commenting bout the general situation I am commenting on the topic raised.

subway

IANAL, perhaps Jo King is, but i would still suggest the OP get legal counsel or advice from the PRTB before making a decision based on the info provided.

Tattoo Stan

SarahSassy wrote: »

My tenants, dont have a formal lease

Why didn't you give them a formal lease? That's very amateurish behaviour for someone with a tenant.

I suggest next time you do things professionally.

D3PO

Tattoo Stan wrote: »

Why didn't you give them a formal lease? That's very amateurish behaviour for someone with a tenant.

I suggest next time you do things professionally.

Why would you have a formal lease for rent a room ? Hardly amateurish and infact I suggest is the best way in terms of rent a room lettings.

It keeps the tennant from having too many rights as rent a room gives them pretty much zip. Much better to have a draft set of rules and agreements than a formal lease in this situation.

now if your renting in general thats a different story but thats not the case here

Tattoo Stan

D3PO wrote: »

Why would you have a formal lease for rent a room ? Hardly amateurish and infact I suggest is the best way in terms of rent a room lettings.

It keeps the tennant from having too many rights as rent a room gives them pretty much zip. Much better to have a draft set of rules and agreements than a formal lease in this situation.

now if your renting in general thats a different story but thats not the case here

Anyone entering into a financial agreement like this should prepare a lease. This is basic knowledge for renting anything out.

Tenants have rights under the law, and as stated in a previous post the landlord should have registered their participation in the rent-a-room scheme as they have much more to lose.

This is amateur letting at it's worst. The fact the OP doesn't even know how the deposit system works is quite shocking.

No landlord worth their salt would ever ask such a fundamental question. Hopefully the recession has taken care of these amateurs.

D3PO

Tattoo Stan wrote: »

Anyone entering into a financial agreement like this should prepare a lease. This is basic knowledge for renting anything out.

Tenants have rights under the law, and as stated in a previous post the landlord should have registered their participation in the rent-a-room scheme as they have much more to lose.

This is amateur letting at it's worst. The fact the OP doesn't even know how the deposit system works is quite shocking.

tennants have rights "lodgers" DO NOT. Under rent a room you are a LODGER not a tennant.

The fact you dont even know how rent a room works is quite shocking.

clearly you consider your self in the category of landlords not worth their salt.

Tattoo Stan

D3PO wrote: »

tennants have rights "lodgers" DO NOT. Under rent a room you are a LODGER not a tennant.

The fact you dont even know how rent a room works is quite shocking.

clearly you consider your self in the category of landlords not worth their salt.

I would suggest you read up on some court cases referring to lodgers and the rent-a-room scheme before passing such comments.

And personal remarks are not allowed under the charter of this forum.

D3PO

Tattoo Stan wrote: »

I would suggest you read up on some court cases referring to lodgers and the rent-a-room scheme before passing such comments.

And personal remarks are not allowed under the charter of this forum.

correct so you should practice what you preach before you attack the OP. Not nice getting a taste of your own medicine is it.

also please provide the links to court judgements in favour of the lodger in rent a room situations like this that you say exist ?

Tattoo Stan

D3PO wrote: »

correct so you should practice what you preach before you attack the OP. Not nice getting a taste of your own medicine is it.

also please provide the links to court judgements in favour of the lodger in rent a room situations like this that you say exist ?

I refuse to spoon feed you information you already claim to know.

D3PO

Tattoo Stan wrote: »

I refuse to spoon feed you information you already claim to know.

i claim that they dont exist. so if you say they do provide the proof ?

subway

D3PO, the OP is not taking on lodgers.
she is renting indivudual rooms out in an investment property

The_Conductor

No. 1 Personal abuse is not tolerated. Consider yourselves lucky I am only closing this thread and not banning people.

No. 2- Under the rent-a-room scheme (which is a Revenue scheme), you are living with the owner of the property in their habitual residence (or PPR). If they do not live there- as is not the case in the example given, it is not the rent-a-room scheme. If it is the rent-a-room scheme- you have no tenancy rights whatsoever- you are simply living there under licence- and can be asked to vacate the room at any stage whatsoever, without any notice or reason- and must comply. You have precisely zero rights. If you are renting a room- which is a vastly different proposition- while you can be asked to leave- normal notice applies. Also- you have no rights to modify the property in any manner whatsover- without the prior consent of the owner of the property (this includes putting your own lock on a bedroom door- painting a room- or any other activity).

On that note- thread locked.

The_Conductor

Thread reopened at OPs request.
Please keep any comments pertinent to the subject being discussed, and based on factual information. No personal comments.

Jo King

smccarrick wrote: »

No. 1 Personal abuse is not tolerated. Consider yourselves lucky I am only closing this thread and not banning people.

If you are renting a room- which is a vastly different proposition- while you can be asked to leave- normal notice applies.

Not necessarily if you are sharing facilities with others and you are not part of a collective lease agreement for the entire property. You are not covered by the PRTB and are only covered by the general law of contract.
See these decisions.

http://www.prtb.ie/2006Disputes/TRIBUNAL06/TR10_Report.pdf
http://www.prtb.ie/2006Disputes/Tribunal/DOTR10_06.pdf

subway

thats a bit mad tbh.
im quite shocked.

i guess that you have some legal knowledge to be aware of that kind of thing. if this type of tenancy isnt covered by the 2004 act, is it covered by any other act?
if not then i guess its just contract law (verbal contract in place of lease) and if no terms are defined then its up to the parties to negotiate?

Captain Corelli

SarahSassy wrote: »

One replied to say she will not be paying the rent as she is worried she wont get the deposit back cos she has no lease and does not have my home address.

She only rents a room in my houose.

Is the crux of the issue not if Sarahsassy lives in the house or not? If she does, the other party is a lodger (and has no rights under tenant legislation).

If Sarahsassy does not live there then other party is a tenant & protected under tenant law (i.e entitled to notice/due process).

Jo King

Captain Corelli wrote: »

Is the crux of the issue not if Sarahsassy lives in the house or not? If she does, the other party is a lodger (and has no rights under tenant legislation).

If Sarahsassy does not live there then other party is a tenant & protected under tenant law (i.e entitled to notice/due process).

No. The crux is not whether Sarahsassy lives there. The crux is whether there is a lease of a self-contained dwelling in place. If bedrooms in a house are let separately then no occupant has a lease of a self contained dwelling and is not covered by the PRTB legislation. If the entire house is let as a unit to a group the it is covered by the PRTB legislation because there is a lease of a self contained dwelling.
Where the landlord lives in a dwelling sharing facilities with others, clearly none of the others has a lease of a self contained dwelling since they are not part of a group letting with a landlord.

In some houses the landlord does not live there but lets bedrooms individually and not the house as a whole to a group. In in this case no individual or group has a lease of a self contained dwelling.

ZYX

SarahSassy wrote: »

My tenants, dont have a formal lease as I was renting rooms out, have decided to get their own place. Thats fine but they want to use their deposit as the last months rent. I dont want this for obvious reasons and have told them so.

What rights do I have to force them to pay the rent?

Lets be honest here. The deposit is to cover for wear and tear and possibly to pay outstanding bills. Can't you see how much wear and tear there is at this stage? Also is it not possible to come to an estimate of bills outstanding at this stage?
It makes a lot more sense to sort these things out in a friendly way than resorting to changing locks, eviction, legal action etc.

ZYX

Jo King wrote: »

If the entire house is let as a unit to a group the it is covered by the PRTB legislation because there is a lease of a self contained dwelling.
.

Having read the original post again. To be honest this looks like the situation here.
She said her "tenants" are moving out and want to get "their own place". By the sounds of this the tenants are renting together and are moving out as a group. Perhaps SarahSassy will get back on but it sounds like she is an unregistered landlord.

Jo King

ZYX wrote: »

Having read the original post again. To be honest this looks like the situation here.
She said her "tenants" are moving out and want to get "their own place". By the sounds of this the tenants are renting together and are moving out as a group. Perhaps SarahSassy will get back on but it sounds like she is an unregistered landlord.

The question is:- did they move in as a group or are they replacements of a group which moved in? It appears that she made individuals with them originally. The fact that they move out together to another place as a group will not make them such a group in the o/ps house unless they moved in together and pay their rent as a group.

ZYX

Jo King wrote: »

The question is:- did they move in as a group or are they replacements of a group which moved in? It appears that she made individuals with them originally. The fact that they move out together to another place as a group will not make them such a group in the o/ps house unless they moved in together and pay their rent as a group.

As I said maybe she will get back on. She did say "they want to use their deposit as last months rent" rather than deposits. It is all guess work at the moment. If they did rent as a group, I hope she gets back on before she changes the locks or she could be in trouble:D

Jo King

ZYX wrote: »

As I said maybe she will get back on. She did say "they want to use their deposit as last months rent" rather than deposits. It is all guess work at the moment. If they did rent as a group, I hope she gets back on before she changes the locks or she could be in trouble:D

She did say one was refusing to pay.She seems to be accepting the situation after her solicitor gave a non committal answer.

bobbiw

D3PO wrote: »

you cant force them to give you the money but as it appears these are rooms in your house you have the right to tell them to leave your property with immediate effect as they dont have the same rights as tennants renting a full property or under a lease.

so if they dont pay up tell them to pack up and move out the same day simple

Dont tell her anything, tell her she has until tomorrow to pay the rent and then that is it.

Change the locks to the house and tell her she has to pay the rent to get back in,

And keep her deposit.