Issues with Landlord - Unpaid Rent

Mixupat

Looking for advise on issues with Landlord.

I moved into 3 bed semi rental propery in Oct 08 on 1 year lease. House is owned by a builder and is currently for sale as brand new house in unsold line of houses.

Had issues since day 1 including Radiators not working, Toilet not flushing in main bathroom, non maintenance of gardens plus 3 or 4 other things.

Chased landlord on issues with little response. After paying 4 months rent, in Feb 09 wrote to landlord saying i was withdrawing rent until issues were sorted, asked for compensation on rent paid and review of rent also as market crashed in this time.
And then nothing happened...Wrote again in april 09..No rent paid since Feb09.

I heard nothing from landlord until Oct 09 and his staff fixed a few small things but would not look at everything. Still never maintained gardens despite it being in contract.

1 Year lease ran out at end of Sep 09. No rent paid Since end Jan 09.

Wrote to landlord in Nov 09 asking how can this be resolved and to agree an amount to pay going back and rent going forward. Had demanded compensation since day 1 of rental for issues.

Landlord is a developer, have only ever dealt with staff in his office and the 2 i have spoken with over the last year have been let go.

Again, no response til Feb 10! Now landlord has new staff member ring up and demand all rent including backdated...We are out of lease for 5 months and have had issues since the day we moved in.

13 months rent owed, 5 without any lease. We need to come to agreement.
Willing to move over this now as plenty of options but probably need rental house in area for 1-2 years.

Monthly rent was 650pm. while in lease. Current rents pm in area are around 500 - 550 pm.

Any advise on this one, dont like owing this sort of cash, any advise on what we should be paying based on scenario above! House is well looked after.

Thanks in advance!

hohojojo

i'm sorry to hear about your problems but i wouldn't be suprised if you get a court order against you to pay as with holding the rent was probably the wrong thing to do if this was your issue and you were unhappy you should of moved out as soon as you withheld enough rent to cover you deposit

you agreed a price on your contract why should this landlord give you a reduction for a years rent the rent dropping in your area after you signed your contract means nothing unless you have a contract that states that if the market drops you automatically get a reduction

i hate this type of thing you can read this type of stuff everywere now and as far as you explained you have stole 6500 or more off your land lord and even though you are willing to pay something you are not willing to pay if all because you got away with it to long for you to be covering the total amount surely you knew what your rent was and you should have been putting that amount aside for the end result

oh and by the way after holding back maybe 1 or 2 months rent you could have got the problems fixed your self and withheld that money from your rent and you probably would have got away with this but with holding as much as you did was just plain wrong

now i do think you should have definately have moved out after your lease was up but you continued to live there even if you thought it was sub standard that just says to me you were happy living there for free


and by the way this is what the ptrb is for nobody's advise here will really help

but i will tell you the developer can't sell that house as a new house now as once it is rented who ever buys has to pay stamp duty i know from the last house i bought

i'm sorry as i feel sorry for both you and the landlord thats why my rant goes in and out at you and them

axer

Mixupat, the landlord would have breached your contract for renting the property by continuing to live there you accepted the breach without coming to any sort of agreement as to how to remedy the breach. You cannot just continue living somewhere without paying anything and claim that everything was not working thus....

You unfortunately legally owe the money. You could probably try and make a deal with the landlord to pay the rent owed. You'd probably get away with agreeing to pay only 75% of the monies owed if you paid in one go but then again my understanding is you are still living there so the landlord might not accept it.

I also have a feeling that you did not put the rent you should have been paying aside while you are living there so that you could deal with the payment of rent when it arose. Bad judgement on your behalf here and you are also completely in the wrong.

Agent J

Its been a year since you have paid rent? You are Liable for the whole lot.

You dont have a leg to stand on. First question you would get asked in court

"Why did you say there so long?"

Any answer is going to run counter to your claims about the place not being up to spec.

Contact threshold http://www.threshold.ie/ and see what they say.

Is your tennacy registered with the PRTB? If so then not a huge amount of point in contacting them since you seem to be the one at fault(No offence intended- Its just my personal opinion).

Even if you arent the Landlord can go to court of it and given the fact its a couple of grand they may well do so.


Just for future record. You never ever stop paying rent to a landlord. This means you are now in breach of contract and any attempt to legally force the landlord to do anyting loses its empahsis. Best course of action would have been to hand a months notice last Jan and bail on the place.

Mixupat

Rent is put aside..

After begging landlord to fix issues, i wrote to him stating i would pay rent when
he fixed issues. I have been very reasonable all the way and will pay him cash now...Just not paying it all to him as i believe he has acted badly. I dont believe in shafting him and will pay him. Why should landlords get away with no acting on tenents legit requests and expect full payment.

I do believe we will come to agreement, its just the amount i will pay.

When i withdrew rent, i expected a prompt response, he was fully aware i withdrew rent and didnt bother to act on it. From reading your responses, it possibly was a smart move on his part rather than sorting issues. I didnt think he'd leave it sit for 10 months.

I should have moved out..

Maybe he has me over a barrel now but i'm peeved with these developers who think they can build shoddy house, rent them out, not bother sorting issues and then demand every penny...Thats why this country is a mess.

Thanks for responses so far, a few opinions is what i want as this will kick off from tomorrow.

Cathmandooo

Yes but you accepted the problems and continued to live there, that's the big problem. You've taken too long letting them away with it.

You're most likely going to have to pay all the rent in full.

If I were you I'd be finding somewhere else to live asap and go to Threshold and the PRTB to see if you're entitled to anything.

axer

Mixupat wrote: »

After begging landlord to fix issues, i wrote to him stating i would pay rent when
he fixed issues. I have been very reasonable all the way and will pay him cash now...Just not paying it all to him as i believe he has acted badly. I dont believe in shafting him and will pay him. Why should landlords get away with no acting on tenents legit requests and expect full payment.

The market will punish the landlord as people will not stay in the apartment but you choose to stay dispite the failings of the landlord thus you pretty much accepted the faults.

Mixupat wrote: »

I should have moved out..

You live you learn. Your best bet still is to move out and then come to an agreement of a lump sum payment which you might be able to lower if you pay all in one go e.g. 75%.

Mixupat wrote: »

Maybe he has me over a barrel now but i'm peeved with these developers who think they can build shoddy house, rent them out, not bother sorting issues and then demand every penny...Thats why this country is a mess.

No that is not the problem with this country. The problem with this country is that people put up with the crap and don't act when they give out about something. If you had left the apartment after moving in when you found out the landlord was useless then the landlord would have suffered instead you stayed there and just gave out thus the landlord did not lose out. The developers just got away what they were allowed to get away with.

Agent J

I was in a similar situation before with a landlord and the place wasnt up to spec.

Was told before we moved it would be fixed. Long story short it wasnt. 3 months of promises etc and we left the place and had most of our deposit kept on us.

It took me 18 months but i got the deposit back off that "Landlord".

I would have never dreamed of staying there for a further year. The problem in this country is people shifting responability to others and looking to blame other peoples inaction as an excuse for their own lack of action.

The landlord was wrong to have a place which was not up to spec. However you implicitly consented to the situation by remaining there. Id figure the Landlord just didnt pay attention to the rent rather then a a consious act of letting you sit there. Never attribute to malice... etc etc ...

useruser

I suggest you assign a monetary value to the inconvenience you think you have endured over the last year, deduct it from the amount owing and send a cheque to your landlord with a letter outlining this and stating that this should be considered a full settlement of affairs. Your landlord would be nuts not to take it if it is within an ass's roar of what is owed. If this cleans the slate you can then negotiate the future rent.

The_Conductor

useruser wrote: »

I suggest you assign a monetary value to the inconvenience you think you have endured over the last year, deduct it from the amount owing and send a cheque to your landlord with a letter outlining this and stating that this should be considered a full settlement of affairs. Your landlord would be nuts not to take it if it is within an ass's roar of what is owed. If this cleans the slate you can then negotiate the future rent.

Legally- the tenant would be found culpable, were the developer to pursue the matter with either the PTRB or through the courts. At present- the banks are pressurising developers to get every penny possible- doing something like this would like waving a red flag in a solicitors office.......

Mixupat

Thanks Folks, Hopefully we will sort this out fairly quickly..I'm willing to pay and now see from your responses why the landlord didnt act when we didnt move out..

Does the fact that we've no lease since beginning of october make any difference?

The_Conductor

Mixupat wrote: »

Does the fact that we've no lease since beginning of october make any difference?

The terms of the original lease continue to apply. Lapse of lease, without renewal, does not mean the articles of original lease no longer apply- in addition they have precendent over any terms in the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act........

useruser

smccarrick wrote: »

Legally- the tenant would be found culpable, were the developer to pursue the matter with either the PTRB or through the courts. At present- the banks are pressurising developers to get every penny possible- doing something like this would like waving a red flag in a solicitors office.......

Yes yes, we have established that the OP very likely owes the money legally. However, I contend that the landlord is unlikely to pursue the OP for the balance owed if the deduction made is small by comparison to the total amount.

Let's say the OP deducts 800 Euro (remembering that he does have a valid grievance - even if not legally valid), do you think the landlord is going to chase the OP for it? What's the worst that could happen even if he does go after the OP? Just pay back the entire amount in that case.

The OP has a good negotiating position and you are all recommending that they back down immediately, hardly the smartest of moves.

useruser

smccarrick wrote: »

The terms of the original lease continue to apply. Lapse of lease, without renewal, does not mean the articles of original lease no longer apply- in addition they have precendent over any terms in the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act........

Are you sure? Surely it becomes a Part 4 tenancy when the fixed term lease expires?

The_Conductor

useruser wrote: »

Are you sure? Surely it becomes a Part 4 tenancy when the fixed term lease expires?

Not necessarily- if you have a fixed term lease and you intend to remain in the property under rights acquired under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act- you have to notify your landlord of your intention to remain in the property between 1 and 3 months before the expiry of the fixed-term lease. If you do not notify the landlord- the tenant is automatically liable to compensate the landlord for any financial loss the landlord may incur as a result of a failure on the part of the tenant to notify them of their intention to remain in the property.

The existence of the original fixed term lease- complicates matters- and the original articles of the lease remain in force, and supercede any rights that may accrue under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act.

The_Conductor

useruser wrote: »

Yes yes, we have established that the OP very likely owes the money legally. However, I contend that the landlord is unlikely to pursue the OP for the balance owed if the deduction made is small by comparison to the total amount.

Let's say the OP deducts 800 Euro (remembering that he does have a valid grievance - even if not legally valid), do you think the landlord is going to chase the OP for it? What's the worst that could happen even if he does go after the OP? Just pay back the entire amount in that case.

The OP has a good negotiating position and you are all recommending that they back down immediately, hardly the smartest of moves.

The 'landlord' may be unlikely to pursue the OP for the balance owed. If the property is part of a portfolio being transferred into NAMA- its entirely possible that the banks may pursue the tenant for any monies deemed to be owing- its in their interests to do so.

Its not the OP's perogative to make any deductions whatsoever from the rent due- they have no right to withold rent.

If the landlord, their bank or the NTMA or NAMA decide to pursue the OP- what happens is the OP is automatically liable for any legal costs they may incur. Legal costs- even if it doesn't go to court may be several times the original amount owing........

useruser

smccarrick wrote: »

The 'landlord' may be unlikely to pursue the OP for the balance owed. If the property is part of a portfolio being transferred into NAMA- its entirely possible that the banks may pursue the tenant for any monies deemed to be owing- its in their interests to do so.

Its not the OP's perogative to make any deductions whatsoever from the rent due- they have no right to withold rent.

If the landlord, their bank or the NTMA or NAMA decide to pursue the OP- what happens is the OP is automatically liable for any legal costs they may incur. Legal costs- even if it doesn't go to court may be several times the original amount owing........

Yeah OK, and what if the DEA get involved and frame the OP by planting drugs in the apartment, what then? The point might be moot when the aliens take over in any case.

If it were me, I would negotiate a deduction with the landlord, the OP believes that they have been poorly treated so should be able to make a reasonable, albeit not legally binding, case for this. I believe the OP has a good bargaining position.

useruser

smccarrick wrote: »

Not necessarily- if you have a fixed term lease and you intend to remain in the property under rights acquired under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act- you have to notify your landlord of your intention to remain in the property between 1 and 3 months before the expiry of the fixed-term lease. If you do not notify the landlord- the tenant is automatically liable to compensate the landlord for any financial loss the landlord may incur as a result of a failure on the part of the tenant to notify them of their intention to remain in the property.

My understanding is that the compensation is only due if the tenant leaves immediately after the end of the fixed term lease without notification. This would make sense, clearly the landlord is not out of pocket if the tenant stays on and continues to pay rent even if no new lease has been established. However, I really think you are not correct about the terms of the old lease applying (how could they? A fixed term lease is a contract with an expiry date, it could not be valid once expired.) I also understand that the tenancy then reverts to Part 4. I must re-read the relevant section of the act but I honestly believe you are not correct, I will attempt to find the wording and post it.

edit: My statement above is not correct regarding compensation. I suppose compensation is intended to cover any advertising etc that the landlord may have taken out believing that the property was due to become available at the end of the fixed lease. There should be no need for a tenant to notify if they intend to leave at the end of a fixed lease.

useruser

From here: http://www.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Termination%20of%20FT.pdf

If a tenant wishes to remain in occupation after the fixed term, the tenant must notify the landlord of his or her intention. This must be done not later than one month before the expiry of the fixed term tenancy nor any sooner than three months before it expires. If the tenant fails to do so and the landlord has suffered damage as a result, the landlord may refer a dispute to the Private ResidentialTenancies Board.

Once a fixed term tenancy comes to an end, in circumstances where the tenant remains in occupation and the landlord subsequently wishes to terminate the tenancy, the landlord can rely on the provisions of Section 34 to terminate the tenancy, as the fixed term has come to an end.

(Section 34 - is the reasons permitted for termination of a Part 4 tenancy)

This is for information only, I don't think the OP would have a leg to stand on going down a formal legal route as clearly by not paying their rent they have breached both the terms of their lease and the terms of the act. That said, I still believe they have a good bargaining position and should attempt to negotiate a reduction in the amount owed.

eth0_

Mixupat wrote: »

Any advise on this one, dont like owing this sort of cash,

I presume you were putting the monthly rent away in another bank account so you could re-pay the landlord the witheld rent when he resolved your issues, yes? :rolleyes:

I don't think you did enough to contact the builder and I fear a judge would think the same. Why didn't you get his personal phone number or home address (through the CRO) and try to contact him that way? And I presume the letters you sent him were recorded delivery and you have evidence of this?

It's also not in your favour that you stayed in this sub-standard house for over a year, without paying rent. If the problems were that bad, you would have moved out, surely?

Mixupat

Cheers for the replies and debate, from all your replies i can see that i'm not in a great position legally. I'm sure we will sort it out as i'm willing to pay the back rent but i feel i he owes me some dues as the landlord has broken our contract. For instance, "Landlord will maintain gardens in property" is
on the lease. This has not happened in 18 months and i have done this. This is an example. Also lease states "Tenant cannot hire outside parties for work completed, landlord must do so" so no option on this to fix toilet, rads etc. If i end up having to pay every cent, in this case i will have been a fool for not moving out.
Hopefully it all works out!

Agent J

you might just have to chalk this one up to experience im afraid.

The counter to all you said there is

"The tennant agrees to pay X in rent". You broke your terms as well.

By all means try and argue it in court or PRTB. I just dont see you having a defencable position.

mistermarantz

useruser wrote: »

I suggest you assign a monetary value to the inconvenience you think you have endured over the last year, deduct it from the amount owing and send a cheque to your landlord with a letter outlining this and stating that this should be considered a full settlement of affairs. Your landlord would be nuts not to take it if it is within an ass's roar of what is owed. If this cleans the slate you can then negotiate the future rent.

USERUSER You're talking a lot of common sence here. If the OP waves a cheque (discounted amount of course) in front of the landlord in order to make a settlement, he'll pull your arm off. If he doesnt he's an idiot. Why would he want the hassle of going through PRTB, courts etc.

The_Conductor

useruser wrote: »

Yes yes, we have established that the OP very likely owes the money legally. However, I contend that the landlord is unlikely to pursue the OP for the balance owed if the deduction made is small by comparison to the total amount.

Let's say the OP deducts 800 Euro (remembering that he does have a valid grievance - even if not legally valid), do you think the landlord is going to chase the OP for it? What's the worst that could happen even if he does go after the OP? Just pay back the entire amount in that case.

The OP has a good negotiating position and you are all recommending that they back down immediately, hardly the smartest of moves.

While you're accepting that the landlord is unlikely to pursue the OP for any balances owed, if the deductions made are small in comparison to the total amount- you still don't get it. The Landlord may have no say in this. At present most of the cases similar to this in the courts (and there are several) are being dictated by the banks, not the developers. This is not going to get any better when NAMA etc enter the equation.

The OP has no negotiating position- they have witheld rent (regardless of whether they lodged it into a seperate account- unless it was lodged with a solicitor and details conveyed to the developer's solicitor- its irrelevant.

The worst case scenario if they go after the OP- is not just that the entire amount is outstanding- its the costs associated with going after the OP.

The_Conductor

useruser wrote: »

Yeah OK, and what if the DEA get involved and frame the OP by planting drugs in the apartment, what then? The point might be moot when the aliens take over in any case.

If it were me, I would negotiate a deduction with the landlord, the OP believes that they have been poorly treated so should be able to make a reasonable, albeit not legally binding, case for this. I believe the OP has a good bargaining position.

If the OP is going on the internet and seeking advice- the imperative is to pass good advice- not opinions to him/her. By rights he/she should park this with their solicitor, but they haven't done so. Suggesting the OP purloin any amount from the rent due, without the prior knowledge and agreement of the landlord- is against the law- its black and white- there is no grey area here.

By all means negotiate with the landlord- but unless you have specific agreement with him/her- you do not have a leg to stand on.

By not paying rent- the OP is in an incredibly poor position. There seems to be some disconnect here- you simply don't get it.

The_Conductor

mistermarantz wrote: »

USERUSER You're talking a lot of common sence here. If the OP waves a cheque (discounted amount of course) in front of the landlord in order to make a settlement, he'll pull your arm off. If he doesnt he's an idiot. Why would he want the hassle of going through PRTB, courts etc.

The developer may not want the hassle- but when its in a stack of 20 or 30 with the banks in-house solicitor- its an irrelevance. There is nothing whatsoever to stop the developer from taking the cheque in lieu of a portion of the unpaid rent- and park the o/s balance with the bank either- so the bank would be chasing a smaller amount (much smaller) but they'd tenaciously chase it nonetheless.

The developer, is only a minor part of this equation now- and what he/she wants or agrees, means very little in the scale of things. Any possible cash income- will already be factored into the equations banks are using for servicing the various loans outstanding against the developer.

useruser

I find it extraordinary that people believe the OP should just throw in the towel without any negotiation. OP, go to your landlord - explain that you intend to settle the outstanding rent but also want compensation for the missing services and name your price. Have a cheque written and ready to hand over for this amount. Make sure you get the agreement in writing. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If this approach fails, what is the worst that could happen? You will end up paying the full amount and then entering further negotiation to sort out the outstanding problems.

Not every problem requires legal involvement to resolve - as another poster pointed out this is just common sense.

The_Conductor

useruser wrote: »

Not every problem requires legal involvement to resolve - as another poster pointed out this is just common sense.

If this was any landlord at all- yes, it would be common sense.
The big difference here- is the developer may have very little say in the matter- part of the scheme for letting unsold homes involved lodging fresh business plans with the banks, as security on the loans- these loans have been accessed as part of the NAMA exercise- and there are several thousand actions pending at present.

If this was 'a landlord'- I'd agree with you- the problem is the landlord in this case does not have the normal rights you might expect your landlord to have when negotiating or discussing with you.

useruser

smccarrick wrote: »

If this was any landlord at all- yes, it would be common sense. The big difference here- is the developer may have very little say in the matter- part of the scheme for letting unsold homes involved lodging fresh business plans with the banks, as security on the loans- these loans have been accessed as part of the NAMA exercise- and there are several thousand actions pending at present.

If this was 'a landlord'- I'd agree with you- the problem is the landlord in this case does not have the normal rights you might expect your landlord to have when negotiating or discussing with you.

SM you have made a lot of assumptions. My advice to the OP stands, you have a good negotiating position - make your landlord a reasonable offer and see what happens. If they are unable to accept it then so be it, if (as I suspect) they understand the nature of a bird in the hand then you will be quids in.

Good luck.

Mixupat

Thanks useruser, i dont think this one will go anywhere like suggested...
Well at least i hope not..
I dont believe this is a NAMA case either...but who knows!

I've paid half owing already to landlord this morning. I've forwarded all letters and complaints again so landlord doesnt forget why this happended and why we had issues.

Based on reponses, i now know legally i'm not in a great position but i wont roll over and just pay the whole lot.....Its in both parties interest to sort this..No Nama and no solicitors hopefully...

shoegirl

smccarrick wrote: »

The terms of the original lease continue to apply. Lapse of lease, without renewal, does not mean the articles of original lease no longer apply- in addition they have precendent over any terms in the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act........

Actually if I am reading correctly, if your lease expires and you don't sign a new one or notify your landlord in writing of your intention to continue the tenancy as a Part 4 tenancy, you are technically "overholding" or overstaying your lease. Not sure however what they means in technical legal terms.

shoegirl

Mixupat wrote: »

I moved into 3 bed semi rental propery in Oct 08 on 1 year lease. House is owned by a builder and is currently for sale as brand new house in unsold line of houses.

Had issues since day 1 including Radiators not working, Toilet not flushing in main bathroom, non maintenance of gardens plus 3 or 4 other things.

Chased landlord on issues with little response. After paying 4 months rent, in Feb 09 wrote to landlord saying i was withdrawing rent until issues were sorted, asked for compensation on rent paid and review of rent also as market crashed in this time...No rent paid since Feb09.

13 months rent owed, 5 without any lease. We need to come to agreement.
Willing to move over this now as plenty of options but probably need rental house in area for 1-2 years.

Monthly rent was 650pm. while in lease. Current rents pm in area are around 500 - 550 pm.

Ok
1. The fact that the house is "for sale" is of no consequence to your case.

2. Market rents "crashed" after you signed a lease: your lease is a legally binding document and the landlord is under no account bound to reduce your rent until the lease expires. You can ask for a rent review at the end of the existing lease, which is now. Market rents at the end of the lease could give you a PRTB review, not sure if tenants have been using PRTB to enforce their rights to reduce in line with the market - I'm assuming the onus would be on you anyway to prove that the market is genuinely gone down and not just a portion of it.

3. As I noted in the above post, staying after a lease expiry without a) a new lease or b) notification of part 4 tenancy is "overholding." What this means in practice is debatable. If the tenant is continuing to pay rent I would guess that legally the conditions of the original lease apply aside from possible breaks - that would probably apply as for part 4 (a lawyer would need to confirm this).

4. Repairs etc, even where stated in the lease, in practice CAN be a grey area. As far as the law is concerned unless the place is completely uninhabitable through no fault of yours, there would be an expectation you continue to pay rent.

5. I get where you are coming from in withholding rent. This used to be the only way to get things done in the bad old days when there was little regulation and no enforcement. With PRTB, this is no longer considered acceptable. Especially not for a year. Unfortunately you are 100% in the wrong on this and whatever you signed the original lease for is what you legally owe.

6. As for minimum conditions, I'm sorry to disappoint you but these are so basic and minimal you really would find it difficult to get all but very extreme cases through. Most of the concern at the moment is about tenement standards in conversions. See here
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/repairs-maintenance-and-minimum-physical-standards
In practice, however, very little enforcement takes place and it can be difficult to establish exactly what is required. Again, it is not considered a justification to staying long term without paying rent.

I'd suggest you talk to Threshold about your situation and if standards are not being met ring the county council or corporation and ask to speak to whoever is in charge of private rented housing standards inspections. The bad news there is many councils haven't been doing this properly, and in most cases they only check the worst cases.

useruser

shoegirl wrote: »

Actually if I am reading correctly, if your lease expires and you don't sign a new one or notify your landlord in writing of your intention to continue the tenancy as a Part 4 tenancy, you are technically "overholding" or overstaying your lease. Not sure however what they means in technical legal terms.

As I mentioned above, the PRTB website implies that once a fixed term lease expires without notification the Part 4 rules apply. This is not direct wording from the act so could be incorrect although it is one of the PRTBs' publications so I imagine we can rely on it somewhat. There is an additional stipulation that the tenant could be liable for compensation if the landlord is somehow out of pocket.