Advice for unofficial subletting

Meth

Dear all,

First I realize that I made a terrible mistake. I started a 1-year lease with a landlord 20 month ago. I subletted one room out a few month later without asking the landlord's permission (just now I checked the contract and the sublet is not allowed without consent of the landlord). Honestly I did not know the possible consequence of the unofficial subletting but I knew it was not a good thing to do. I did it because my family in my country needed cash for desperate health problem...

The landlord found the subletting two month ago and he increased the rent by 200 Euro per a month. Now I moved out with 45 days notice to the landlord. I was very cooperative when the landlord organizes people to view the house; and the rent was never delayed.

I cleaned the house the best I could (I spend 18 hours for cleaning in two days) but there were two 'dead corners' I was not aware of. One is a glass cover of a table which had stain from the spongy I used for cleaning; another is some dust under a radiator. There are also some stains on the wall, mattress and cupboard.

The landlord want to hold all my 900 Euro deposit; and, he need my current address for billing me further costs of replacement for the mattress/cupboard/wall painting/cleaning. On the day I left he shouted on me with insulting/abusive words, and turned to be dangerous so I left without reaching an agreement.

I know I am responsible for reconditioning the house. And I deserve some punishment for the unofficial subletting. But I was so stressed for the threaten reaction and do not know where is the end for paying the 'fine'. Really in depression as I do not know the worst consequence.

So I guess my question is, in my situation, what would be the maximum I would be paying? Will I have a credit record or something like that? What should I do? People say that PRTB is the place to go but the landlord is not registered.

Thank you very much for your opinion. Can I ask please do not quote as I may want to delete this later...

Monife

Easy way to get out of all of that.

Threaten the landlord with reporting him to PRTB and Revenue unless he returns your deposit. You are not responsible for general wear and tear. Unless there is a huge blood stain or something on the wall and mattress it is not your place to replace the mattress or pay for paint.

Avns1s

Monife wrote: »

Easy way to get out of all of that.

Threaten the landlord with reporting him to PRTB and Revenue unless he returns your deposit. You are not responsible for general wear and tear. Unless there is a huge blood stain or something on the wall and mattress it is not your place to replace the mattress or pay for paint.

Which would all be good advice were it not for the fact of the subletting!

I would say that you might be best advised to count the profit you made on the subletting as your deposit returned and walk away.

not even wrong

Avns1s wrote: »

Which would all be good advice were it not for the fact of the subletting!

What's your point? They broke the terms of their lease, yes, but the penalty for this is the landlord can tell them to move out, the penalty is not "losing your deposit".

The Residential Tenancies Act lays out very clearly all of the situations in which a landlord can retain all or part of the deposit. These situations are :

1. damage (beyond normal wear and tear)
2. unpaid rent

Note that "unauthorised subletting" or "breach of any random term of the lease" are not on this list.

odds_on

Monife wrote: »

Easy way to get out of all of that.

Threaten the landlord with reporting him to PRTB and Revenue unless he returns your deposit. You are not responsible for general wear and tear. Unless there is a huge blood stain or something on the wall and mattress it is not your place to replace the mattress or pay for paint.

Threaten is not good advice. Advise the landlord that .......

It does not matter if the landlord is not registered with the PRTB - that is to your advantage. You can make a claim against the landlord but the landlord (if he has not registered the tenancy) cannot make a claim against the tenant.

In this case, I would agree with Avns1s:

I would say that you might be best advised to count the profit you made on the subletting as your deposit returned and walk away.

Meth

Appreciated your advices everybody.

After I realizing how serious the unofficial subletting is, I am prepared to loss my deposit. Also when the landlord ask for the increase of the rent I did not say a word. But what I am afraid is that the landlord did ask more than the deposit for reconditioning. And he did not say how much would roughly cost. That worries me.

Icepick

Meth wrote: »

Appreciated your advices everybody.

After I realizing how serious the unofficial subletting is, I am prepared to loss my deposit. Also when the landlord ask for the increase of the rent I did not say a word. But what I am afraid is that the landlord did ask more than the deposit for reconditioning. And he did not say how much would roughly cost. That worries me.

Don't pay any more money?

Avns1s

not even wrong wrote: »

What's your point? They broke the terms of their lease, yes, but the penalty for this is the landlord can tell them to move out, the penalty is not "losing your deposit".

The Residential Tenancies Act lays out very clearly all of the situations in which a landlord can retain all or part of the deposit. These situations are :

1. damage (beyond normal wear and tear)
2. unpaid rent

Note that "unauthorised subletting" or "breach of any random term of the lease" are not on this list.

My point is simple. The OP lost the 'high moral ground' when they breached the lease. The landlord is able to play hardball as a result and the OPs case and ability to do anything about the landlord is severely compromised as a result of their breaching of the tenancy agreement.

The OP knowingly did wrong and now is paying the price for that.

not even wrong

Avns1s wrote: »

My point is simple. The OP lost the 'high moral ground' when they breached the lease

Unfortunately "the high moral ground" is not mentioned in the Residential Tenancies Act so the OP's ability to bring a complaint to the PRTB about unlawful deposit retention remains unaffected.

The landlord is able to play hardball as a result

No, the landlord is able to give the tenant notice to move out as a result of the breach of the "no subletting" clause, he is not able to retain the deposit. Read the law.

Avns1s

not even wrong wrote: »

Unfortunately "the high moral ground" is not mentioned in the Residential Tenancies Act so the OP's ability to bring a complaint to the PRTB about unlawful deposit retention remains unaffected.No, the landlord is able to give the tenant notice to move out as a result of the breach of the "no subletting" clause, he is not able to retain the deposit. Read the law.

Sure ... so advise the OP then instead of lecturing me.

silja

If the landlord wants more than the deposit, as for pictures showing the damage and receipts to prove items were professionally cleaned/ bought new.

dory

silja wrote: »

If the landlord wants more than the deposit, as for pictures showing the damage and receipts to prove items were professionally cleaned/ bought new.

Makes no difference if the landlord bought or cleaned professionally. If it's normal wear and tear then it's not up to the tenant to replace things. We really can't say unless we see pictures of the damage. But for breaking the lease and normal wear and tear no WAY should you pay more than the 900 OP.

Victor

Meth wrote: »

After I realizing how serious the unofficial subletting is, I am prepared to loss my deposit.

Don't worry about it. Assuming the landlord got the property back, subletting isn't a huge issue.

Demand you money back.

silja

dory wrote: »

Makes no difference if the landlord bought or cleaned professionally. If it's normal wear and tear then it's not up to the tenant to replace things. We really can't say unless we see pictures of the damage. But for breaking the lease and normal wear and tear no WAY should you pay more than the 900 OP.

I agree, hence the pictures.

bobbysands81

Victor wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Assuming the landlord got the property back, subletting isn't a huge issue.

Demand you money back.

Meth,

heed this advice.

Get your deposit back, it's your money.

www.prtb.ie

quozl

Avns1s wrote: »

My point is simple. The OP lost the 'high moral ground' when they breached the lease. The landlord is able to play hardball as a result and the OPs case and ability to do anything about the landlord is severely compromised as a result of their breaching of the tenancy agreement.

The OP knowingly did wrong and now is paying the price for that.

This is complete nonsense.

The OP is entitled to their deposit back if things are as they state. They should make a complaint to the PRTB.

The fact that the landlord is not registered with the PRTB is, if anything, to the tenant's advantage.

The sub-letting and the deposit are two completely separate issues.

Avns1s

quozl wrote: »

This is complete nonsense.

The OP is entitled to their deposit back if things are as they state. They should make a complaint to the PRTB.

The fact that the landlord is not registered with the PRTB is, if anything, to the tenant's advantage.

The sub-letting and the deposit are two completely separate issues.

Are you a Landlord, tenant or a member of the legal profession or otherwise qualified to make that statement?

not even wrong

Avns1s wrote: »

Are you a Landlord, tenant or a member of the legal profession or otherwise qualified to make that statement?

So are you actually disputing that the Residential Tenancies Act entitles the OP to their deposit back, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

quozl

Avns1s wrote: »

Are you a Landlord, tenant or a member of the legal profession or otherwise qualified to make that statement?

I'm qualified to manage basic reading on subjects before commenting on them on the internet, you should try it.

And yes, I am a tenant although that wasn't necessary to know you're wrong and giving shockingly bad advice to a vulnerable person in a lame situation

To substantiate my point
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/landlords_rights_and_obligations.html

As a landlord, you may withhold a deposit (or part of a deposit) only if:

The tenant has not given you proper notice when leaving
You have been left with outstanding bills (i.e., public utilities) or rent
The tenant has caused damage beyond normal wear and tear.

http://www.irishlandlord.com/index.aspx?page=infocentre_article_view&id=15

· Promptly refund deposits unless rent is owed, or there is damage beyond normal wear and tear

As I understand it, in the first of the 3 reasons listed by citizensinformation you can only withhold enough of the deposit to compensate yourself for loses incurred due to the lack of notice, and you are obliged to make reasonable efforts to try and replace the tenants in order to minimise said loses. I'm imagine that's why Irishlandlord.com don't mention it as it's not black or white.

Victor

Stop fighting

Avns1s

You can quote any law until you are blue in the face and if it always applied as it read, all those in the legal profession would be out of business. If the OP hadn't been subletting the law is clear in relation to the deposit. When the OP chose to sublet, they compromised their case in respect of the deposit. That's the reality whether you like it or not.

I have more than ample experience in property and residential and indeed general law to know that few cases ever work out as per the relevant acts.

I dont think that much purpose is being served by this ongoing debate on this topic. Some of it is bordering on legal advice which I understand is not permitted. Perhaps the OP might come back and let us know what way it worked out when it's resolved.

Icepick

OP did not pay taxes etc. so going into a legal argument would not be very wise.

BostonB

Avns1s wrote: »

...when the OP chose to sublet, they compromised their case in respect of the deposit. ....

I don't see how.

Didn't Landlord accept the sublet by increasing the rent.

Its unrelated to the deposit IMO.