Rent increase?

daisyscience

My landlord has informed me that due to an error on both our parts, I have been paying €40 too little on my rent per month for the last six months and now he wants to increase my rent going forward by that amount, but he has said that I only have to back pay half the amount.

He seems like a pretty genuine and nice guy except for the fact that our place is really damp and he has done nothing about it. I've lost a couple of hundred euros worth of items to this damp including clothes, shoes, food, utensils etc. I told him that I have to turn on the heating and leave the windows open to dry the apt. out daily but he has yet to offer to buy a dehumidifier which I have heard is very expensive to run.

I'm not sure how to go forward with this. The rent is due so I will have to tell him that I am not paying the amount he specified (or didn't because he has yet to get back to me with the total figure). This would add €160 to my rent this month. Its the holidays so I am assuming that threshold and the PRTB are closed although I am looking into their websites. I found PRTB confusing as I am not sure, is this a rent increase if we should have been paying this amount all along? I really don't want to have to move again.

stateofflux

did you sign a lease agreement?

daisyscience

Yes but the rent amount isn't listed on it. The deposit amount of €500 is though (which I was paying as rent).

silja

What exactly is the error? I am confused how it can be both his and your error- either it is his (such as wrong amount stated on the lease) or yours (direct debit set up for the wrong amount, or you are paying every month when lease states 4 weeks etc).

daisyscience

I had the option to pay the rent monthly or weekly. I was told it was €125 per week but we agreed I would pay monthly on the last Friday of every month. I cant remember if we agreed €500 per month but we definitely did not agree €540 per month or this would not have become an issue. So I was paying €500 per month and after six months he said that he had gotten some accounting stuff mixed up and had only realised that I was not paying the full amount for the property. I'm just going to find the lease again now to see if the €125 per week is written on it but I don't think it is. I am fairly sure that we did agree €500 per month but I am not certain and do not have it in writing.

daisyscience

Just found it there, the only details filled in the tenancy agreement are the landlords name, our address, length of lease and deposit amount of €500. When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

ted1

sounds about right.

125*52=6500
500*12=6000
540*12=6480

Slydice

ted1 wrote: »

sounds about right.

125*52=6500
500*12=6000
540*12=6480

Looks right. If you agreed 125 a week, then that's 6500 a year whereas 500 a month only works out 6000 a year.

The difference is 500 which divided by 12 months is 500/12 = 41.66. If he's asking you to pay 540 from now on, then he's down by the €1.66 a month.

Asking you to pay half of the other €40 payments which he says you should have paid starts to confuse the matter for me. It sounds like he's admitting he got it wrong but wants to cover it with a "show of good faith". It might be a good idea to talk to the PRTB (http://www.prtb.ie) or to Threshold (http://www.threshold.ie) about it.

I'd say you're in a dodgy situation now either way. I see three possibilities:
1. you end up paying what the landlord wants (and you feel bad)
2. you do not pay what the landlord wants (and the landlord feels bad)
3. you work out some other arrangement (but at the end of the day, your relationship with the landlord has changed and so someone might feel bad)

Not what you need at this time of the year. Good luck to ya.

djimi

If its is a fixed term lease then he cannot review the rent until the lease is up.

Legally the landlord can review the rent once in a 12 month period, but seeing as how it would have been "reviewed" when you moved in, he cannot look to increase it until you have been there 12 months.

The error is on his part. You have been there for 6 months; that is more than enough time for him to realise that you have not been paying enough. Tell him that there will be no rent increase until you have been there 12 months, and under no circumstances will you be paying any back rent (thats just pure nonsese from him). If he doeesnt like it tell him that you will take a case with the PRTB and let them sort it, but that he will almost certainly lose the case, and while you are waiting for the case to be heard (which will most likely be somewhere in the region of 6 to 9 months) you can legally continue paying the rent that you have been paying.

This guy sounds like he hasnt got a breeze of his legal obligations. Do not give him the time of day.

daisyscience

Thank you all for your advice. I'm still not sure what exactly I will do but at least am more aware of my options now. Really appreciate it.

djimi

My advice is to do nothing. I dont think the landlord has a leg to stand on here if Im honest. Contact Threshold if you want to get a more official line on where you stand (probably no harm tbh).

mlumley

Tell him to fix the damp first and in the mean time, you will contact the PRTB. The place has to be habitable, the PRTB will not like him not doing anything about the damp.

Tails142

djimi wrote: »

My advice is to do nothing. I dont think the landlord has a leg to stand on here if Im honest. Contact Threshold if you want to get a more official line on where you stand (probably no harm tbh).

The lease says 125 per week and the tenant hasn't been paying this amount to date so the tenant is in error.

The landlord is going to let you off by only having to pay half of the rent you haven't paid so far, seems fair to me.

Leroy42

Firstly you need to separate the situation from the emotion. You mention two distinct issues in your OP. One is the rent amount, the second if the damp/conditions.

You mention that you paid 1 week in advance, 125. Why do you then think that you should not pay for each week. The landlord agreed that you could pay in monthly instead of weekly but miscalculated it. Would you accept being paid for only 48 weeks instead of 52 for a year? I think he is being quite reasonable in not expecting all the monies back in one go, although to be fair he would have to be some fool to look for it since it was partly his mistake. I say partly because it was your mistake too. You knew the rent was 125 per week and therefore in some months that would be more.

The second issue of the damp is more on your side. Simply make the case in writing, detailing out the problem, the extra costs etc, and give him an appropriate amount of time to rectify the problem. If he doesn't, then decide whether the rent is appropriate for the place you live and if not move out.

ted1

djimi wrote: »

If its is a fixed term lease then he cannot review the rent until the lease is up.

Legally the landlord can review the rent once in a 12 month period, but seeing as how it would have been "reviewed" when you moved in, he cannot look to increase it until you have been there 12 months.

The error is on his part. You have been there for 6 months; that is more than enough time for him to realise that you have not been paying enough. Tell him that there will be no rent increase until you have been there 12 months, and under no circumstances will you be paying any back rent (thats just pure nonsese from him). If he doeesnt like it tell him that you will take a case with the PRTB and let them sort it, but that he will almost certainly lose the case, and while you are waiting for the case to be heard (which will most likely be somewhere in the region of 6 to 9 months) you can legally continue paying the rent that you have been paying.

This guy sounds like he hasnt got a breeze of his legal obligations. Do not give him the time of day.

It's not an increase, they agreed to a price which isn't being paid.
For someone who appears to know what they are talking about you really dropped the ball on your advice here.
Your very fast to bring in the PRTB. The rent should just be paid as agreed.

faceman

daisyscience wrote: »

He seems like a pretty genuine and nice guy except for the fact that our place is really damp and he has done nothing about it. I've lost a couple of hundred euros worth of items to this damp including clothes, shoes, food, utensils etc. I told him that I have to turn on the heating and leave the windows open to dry the apt. out daily but he has yet to offer to buy a dehumidifier which I have heard is very expensive to run.
.

Just on this bit. I've been in that boat. Most Landlords are clueless when comes to addressing damp and when they see the cost of doing it properly, they'll just give you a plugin dehumidifier which is worthless if the whole property is affected.

Damp can seriously affect your health. In my situation I just moved out. Going to threshold (there was no one else at the time) would have involved to much to-ing and fro-ing and I'd imagine its still the same the other regulatory body too

If its an option find somewhere else?

stateofflux

i would not pay it. its the landlords fault for not stating the rent amount on the lease agreement. he was ok with €500 and now he wants to put you in a situation over his accounting error. also its not as if he gives a stuff about you getting pneumonia from a dampness...some cheek

Agent J

daisyscience wrote: »

Just found it there, the only details filled in the tenancy agreement are the landlords name, our address, length of lease and deposit amount of €500. When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

The Op has clearly said that the 125 Euro a month is not on the lease.

It should be but it isn't. How that affects the issue legally i've no idea. Threshold & PRTB would be the people to ask on that front. Ask Threshold, The PRTB will take forever.

However, this isn't a rent increase. It's paying what was initally agreed. Just because you've been accidently underpaying your rent for the last 6 months doesn't mean you get to continue now it has been recognized.

As for back rent, honestly i would try to meet the landlord half way here. You both made an agreement & both got the sums wrong.

The_Conductor

Guys- you're meandering all over the place.
The dampness, lack of a dehumidifier and leaving the windows open all the time- are not related to the OP's initial query. Amateur legal advice is also unhelpful- as is bickering about who is right and who is wrong.

If you want to help the OP- respond to his or her initial question- wandering around other issues is a red herring and waste of both your time and his or hers.

djimi

Tails142 wrote: »

The lease says 125 per week and the tenant hasn't been paying this amount to date so the tenant is in error.

The landlord is going to let you off by only having to pay half of the rent you haven't paid so far, seems fair to me.

The lease doesn't mention the rent amount.

I Wold say that after 6 months of the OP paying 500 it would be very hard for the landlord to argue that they verbally agreed something different.

djimi

ted1 wrote: »

It's not an increase, they agreed to a price which isn't being paid.
For someone who appears to know what they are talking about you really dropped the ball on your advice here.
Your very fast to bring in the PRTB. The rent should just be paid as agreed.

Without the agreed amount in writing how can the landlord prove anything? This is their problem; they didn't bother to check what rent the OP was paying, or they didn't bother rectifying the problem until now if they did notice it, so I would say they will have a very hard time proving their story if the OP were to take a case against them. As it stands, in my eyes its an attempt at a rent increase.

dahamsta

I disagree. The landlord made an error in not specifying the rent in the lease therefore the tenant is in a strong position to use the damp as a bargaining chip. If it was me I'd tell the landlord I'd be happy to pay the "new" amount and some or all of the "back rent" if he fixes the issue with the damp first. If he doesn't, I'd be gone and stuff him for not fixing it when he was asked.

smccarrick wrote: »

Guys- you're meandering all over the place.
The dampness, lack of a dehumidifier and leaving the windows open all the time- are not related to the OP's initial query. Amateur legal advice is also unhelpful- as is bickering about who is right and who is wrong.

If you want to help the OP- respond to his or her initial question- wandering around other issues is a red herring and waste of both your time and his or hers.

tara73

daisyscience wrote: »

Just found it there, the only details filled in the tenancy agreement are the landlords name, our address, length of lease and deposit amount of €500. When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

OP, did you doublecheck there isn't written the amount of rent you have to pay weekly or monthly in the lease?
very weird
If it's really not, I would say you're in a good position with paying only 500/month as your deposit is obviously stated with 500€ and the usual deposit for renting is 1 month rent.
I would say this to your landlord first, if he doesn't agree to it I would let him know you'll talk to the PRTB and also would hint about bringing up the dampness in the apartment to the PRTB...see how he reacts.

xper

djimi wrote: »

Without the agreed amount in writing how can the landlord prove anything? This is their problem; they didn't bother to check what rent the OP was paying, or they didn't bother rectifying the problem until now if they did notice it, so I would say they will have a very hard time proving their story if the OP were to take a case against them. As it stands, in my eyes its an attempt at a rent increase.

The OP has stated that the place was offered at 125/wk. The OP paid 125 for the first week before switching to monthly payments. Ergo, the OP knows damn well that the agreed amount was 125/wk, equivalent to c.540/mth.

A mistake was made by both parties. One party has now spotted it and taken some responsibility by only asking for half the outstanding amount. I think the landlord should also consider the practicality that it is the week after Christmas when money might be very tight and allow the outstanding amount to be paid over a couple of months but it is quite clear that the agreed rent for the property is and always has been 540/mth.

The damp, etc is a separate matter.

djimi

xper wrote: »

The OP has stated that the place was offered at 125/wk. The OP paid 125 for the first week before switching to monthly payments. Ergo, the OP knows damn well that the agreed amount was 125/wk, equivalent to c.540/mth.

A mistake was made by both parties. One party has now spotted it and taken some responsibility by only asking for half the outstanding amount. I think the landlord should also consider the practicality that it is the week after Christmas when money might be very tight and allow the outstanding amount to be paid over a couple of months but it is quite clear that the agreed rent for the property is and always has been 540/mth.

The damp, etc is a separate matter.

Nowhere in writing does it say that the rent is 125 per week. The OP also paid 500 for the last 6 months, which in fairness gives a lot more weight to their story that there was a verbal agreement of 500 a month, rather than the landlord saying that it was agreed at 125 per week. The landlord might have had some claim after a month or two tops, but not half way into the lease.

To be honest I dont believe for a second that the landlord did not notice this until now. Either it suited them to collect 500 a month and something has changed recently that they want/need more, or they really dont keep an eye on their affairs in which case its their own problem that they are not getting the amount that they want. There is nothing in writing to back up their claim of a verbal agreement of 125 a month, so I have no sympathy for them now and I dont think the PRTB would either. Its a hard lesson for them to learn about why they should run their business properly.

Of course, this is all just my opinion; I am not giving legal advice and as I have already said the OP should contact Threshold if they want proper advice on the matter.

beaner88

The rent is 500 per month as that is what you have been paying. Unless the landlord can produce documentary evidence of him demanding a higher rent from the beginning or in the proceeding months then it has to be assumed that he was happy with the rent received.

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

Nowhere in writing does it say that the rent is 125 per week. The OP also paid 500 for the last 6 months, which in fairness gives a lot more weight to their story that there was a verbal agreement of 500 a month, rather than the landlord saying that it was agreed at 125 per week.

The OP has said they agreed to 125 euro a week verbally.

daisyscience wrote: »

I had the option to pay the rent monthly or weekly. I was told it was €125 per week but we agreed I would pay monthly on the last Friday of every month..

daisyscience wrote: »

When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

We can argue about the rights & wrongs of that being legally enforcable since it wasn't written down however the weekly amount isn't in dispute.

The OP knows this. It's a matter of whether they are going to stick to their original agreement (Monthly miscaluation by both sides notwithstanding) or try to argue their way out. They may even have cover because of the landlords mistake on the lease. However then it is just the OP exploiting a mistake by the Landlord to go back on their word.

I don't see why either the Landlord or the Tenant should be punished for a mutual mistake hence meeting them halfway.

djimi wrote: »

To be honest I dont believe for a second that the landlord did not notice this until now. Either it suited them to collect 500 a month and something has changed recently that they want/need more

Are you seriously suggesting the Landlord intentionally ignored being underpaid by a tenant for 6 months?

dahamsta

It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not, he screwed up by not correcting the problem earlier, he screwed up by not putting the correct amount in the lease and he screwed up by not correcting the problem with the damp. The tenant may be wrong but so is the landlord, so the tenant might as well take advantage of that.

Not everything is black and white.

djimi

Agent J wrote: »

The OP has said they agreed to 125 euro a week verbally.

We can argue about the rights & wrongs of that being legally enforcable since it wasn't written down however the weekly amount isn't in dispute.

The OP knows this. It's a matter of whether they are going to stick to their original agreement (Monthly miscaluation by both sides notwithstanding) or try to argue their way out. They may even have cover because of the landlords mistake on the lease. However then it is just the OP exploiting a mistake by the Landlord to go back on their word.

I don't see why either the Landlord or the Tenant should be punished for a mutual mistake hence meeting them halfway.

Im going to be honest, it doesnt actually matter a jot what was verbally agreed. The OP was of the impression that they were to pay 500 a month in rent, and for the last 6 months that is what they have been doing. Thats 6 months in which the landlord could have raised it as an issue but didnt. You can argue the morality of the situation all you want; legally there is nothing in writing to backup the landlords story while the OP has the fact that for the past 6 months they have been paying 500 a month to back up their story.

Its not a mutual mistake; its a mistake on the part of the landlord to firstly not write the rental amount into the lease, and secondly to not check the amount that has been coming in until half way through the lease.

Its a business transaction; there is no such thing as fair, and the verbal word means nothing unless it can be proven, which in this case it almost certainly cannot.

Agent J wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting the Landlord intentionally ignored being underpaid by a tenant for 6 months?

Can you give me any other explination why it took them 6 months to notice this as an issue? Either they didnt bother checking their bank account for 6 months or they were happy with the amount that they were receiving until recently.

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

Its a business transaction; there is no such thing as fair, and the verbal word means nothing unless it can be proven, which in this case it almost certainly cannot.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but i believe a person is as good as their word. It doesn't matter a damn legally of course.

I think it's rather disingenuous to now claim it is a rent increase when they have admitted the monthly amount is incorrect & has been all along. Both sides screwed up on the monthly figure but the OP knew the agreed weekly figure.

If the OP wants to go back on their word that is their business. They probably even have the legal cover to do it (Opinion only) but at least be honest about their intentions. I accept there is very little the Landlord can do about this.

I think the OP is going to hurt themselves long run with this. By adopting a hard line approach they sour the relationship with the landlord meaning if they want to stay on longer , get a reference or anything else which falls under discretion of the Landlord they will run into a brick wall.

djimi wrote: »

Can you give me any other explination why it took them 6 months to notice this as an issue? Either they didnt bother checking their bank account for 6 months or they were happy with the amount that they were receiving until recently.

They probably made the same calculation error the OP did.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Or to borrow another phrase "Cock up before conspiracy".

djimi

Agent J wrote: »

Maybe I'm old fashioned but i believe a person is as good as their word. It doesn't matter a damn legally of course.

I think it's rather disingenuous to now claim it is a rent increase when they have admitted the monthly amount is incorrect & has been all along. Both sides screwed up on the monthly figure but the OP knew the agreed weekly figure.

If the OP wants to go back on their word that is their business. They probably even have the legal cover to do it (Opinion only) but at least be honest about their intentions. I accept there is very little the Landlord can do about this.

I think the OP is going to hurt themselves long run with this. By adopting a hard line approach they sour the relationship with the landlord meaning if they want to stay on longer , get a reference or anything else which falls under discretion of the Landlord they will run into a brick wall.

The way Im reading it the landlord was a bit ambiguous about how they wanted to get paid, and the OP seems to be a bit unsure as to what was agreed. If I was the OP, the fact that the landlord seemingly accepted 6 monthly payments of 500 would say to me that they are happy with such an arrangement. After such a long period I think its ridiculous of the landlord to expect that they can not only change the payment amount, but actually look for back rent to cover their error.

Had it been written into the lease that the rent was 125 a week and the OP had paid 500 a month then the landlord could have cause for complaint. As it stands I dont believe that they do. It might sound like Im being harsh about it, but this is exactly why any agreement should be put down in writing. Verbal agreements mean nothing, and for the most part only lead to confusion at a later date as to what was agreed. Had the landlord acted professionally and shown that they knew what they were doing there would not have been a problem as they arrangement would be in writing for all to see.

Agent J wrote: »

They probably made the same calculation error the OP did.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Or to borrow another phrase "Cock up before conspiracy".

If he expected to be paid weekly then why did he not notice that he had only received 6 payments instead of the 26 he should have gotten in that time? I know the weekly vs monthy discrepancy can cause confusion, but the problem really should be been sorted long before it was addressed if the landlord was to have any realistic hope of getting it rectified.

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

If he expected to be paid weekly then why did he not notice that he had only received 6 payments instead of the 26 he should have gotten in that time?

Because they agreed the OP could pay monthly. They both just screwed up on the amount. (Or Someone miscalculated & the other agreed - Still both screwed up)

I've read other posts of yours on this forum & normally you are pretty on the mark with tenants rights, however i think this time you are being a bit blinkered on it.

Look, I see where you are coming from & agree it all should've been written down. However i just can't agree that it is an increase when the OP knows otherwise(Legality not withstanding).

djimi

Youre probably right in that Im being a bit blinkered; I just feel that its the landlords responsibility to sort out the rent and how much they want to get paid, and I just feel that its a bit much to come back 6 months later and try to get the OP to back date rent for a mistake that should not have been made in the first place had the landlord gotten all of the ducks in a row from day one. Leaving things ambiguous at the start and not writing the rental amount and payment period into the lease is ultimately what has caused this issue. The 500 deposit just blurs things even further as it is the norm for the deposit to reflect one rent payment.

The OP seems to be a bit unsure of what was actually agreed in terms of how much was to be paid monthly (in the same post they say that they are unsure of the agreed amount and that they think that it was 500), so perhaps they are just being coy as they know that they were taking advantage of an error by the landlord. They too should have clarified the situation from the start. It doesnt really change things though.

As I said this is all just my opinion. Were it to go to a PRTB case they might take a very different view; Threshold would probably be able to give better advise in that regard.

the_syco

Agent J wrote: »

The OP has said they agreed to 125 euro a week verbally.

I wonder did the landlord agree to fix the damp issue verbally?

Agent J wrote: »

I think the OP is going to hurt themselves long run with this. By adopting a hard line approach they sour the relationship with the landlord meaning if they want to stay on longer , get a reference or anything else which falls under discretion of the Landlord they will run into a brick wall.

It looks like the tenant is not too worried about this, as the landlord has seemed to have lost respect for the OP by not fulfilling his landlord duties?

=-=

On a side note; OP, move out of the house as soon as you can, as the damp can effect your health badly - there are a good few houses in Limerick for €500 and below.

daisyscience

Agent J wrote: »

Look, I see where you are coming from & agree it all should've been written down. However i just can't agree that it is an increase when the OP knows otherwise(Legality not withstanding).

It is an increase as far as I'm concerned as we did agree on €500 a month which I have been paying for 6 months. I didn't have any doubts about the amount until he contacted me with his story about mixing up stuff and whatever other excuse he had for bringing this up now.

I have been going over and over this in my head and have contacted Threshold for advice. They agree that it should have all been written down and that the deposit is normally an indicator of the monthly rent. If the landlord genuinely did make a mistake then he should have noticed sooner than at the end of the lease (it's a 6 month contract). I have been talking to him a few times, it's not like I have had no contact with him and my next step will be putting all this in writing and sending him a letter. Its up to him then if he wants to take it further but the matter is resolved in my mind. I've had enough with landlords screwing me over (last landlord took my full deposit - owner occupied, different story.

I kept thinking that he is a nice guy, that I kind of understand where he is coming from and I don't want him to lose out if what he says is true, but in retrospect I don't know the guy and if he was that nice then he would have sorted out the issues with the damp and bins when requested instead of ignoring them. I know that his wife had a baby just before Christmas (awwww!!! how could anyone with a new baby be taking advantage of me???) and my dad is a landlord in another city so I hate hearing about the hassle that he gets from tenants sometimes. But I'm a quiet tenant who pays my bills on time and keeps the apartment in good repair, even my dad says it's the landlords problem and he is probably only 'chancing his arm'.

I'm not sure if I posted this before but he also owns the other two apartments in this building that are larger two bedroom apartments and I know that they pay €540 for each of those, if that helps to put things into perspective at all.

Moving isn't an issue right now as I will be moving anyway in about 2 months time and I have a dog so it would be difficult to find somewhere short term that is suitable and will accept pets.

Leroy42

You agreed to pay a monthly payment of €500, although you stated in your OP that you paid a week in advance of €125. you are well aware that the weekly rent is €125.

Now, whether you want to wiggle out of what you agreed to and take advantage of this loophole is entirely up to you. I don't have much sympathy for the landlord in this case. 1st off in the scheme of things its not a huge amount of money. Secondly, they should have realised the mistake earlier.

What they charge for the other apartments is totally irrelevant. You agreed a price with them, that you felt was reasonable. It seems now that you have the chance to save some money. Yes, you are effectively renaging on your agreement but who wouldn't I guess.

I get the feeling that you know you owe this money, you are aware the rent is €125 per week and can see that this is a way to save a bit of money. You have brought up spurious arguements about damp, other apartments to give your decision more credibility but in the end you make whatever decision you feel comfortable with.

What I don't understand is why bother with Threshold. There are people out there with genuine issues that can only be resolved with agencies like Threshold, yours is not one of them. You are simply wasting resources. You want them to backup your decision. If you think you are right, make your case to the landlord and if he doesn't agree you are leaving in two months anyway so what can he do?

daisyscience

Leroy42 wrote: »

You agreed to pay a monthly payment of €500, although you stated in your OP that you paid a week in advance of €125. you are well aware that the weekly rent is €125.

Now, whether you want to wiggle out of what you agreed to and take advantage of this loophole is entirely up to you. I don't have much sympathy for the landlord in this case. 1st off in the scheme of things its not a huge amount of money. Secondly, they should have realised the mistake earlier.

What they charge for the other apartments is totally irrelevant. You agreed a price with them, that you felt was reasonable. It seems now that you have the chance to save some money. Yes, you are effectively renaging on your agreement but who wouldn't I guess.

I get the feeling that you know you owe this money, you are aware the rent is €125 per week and can see that this is a way to save a bit of money. You have brought up spurious arguements about damp, other apartments to give your decision more credibility but in the end you make whatever decision you feel comfortable with.

What I don't understand is why bother with Threshold. There are people out there with genuine issues that can only be resolved with agencies like Threshold, yours is not one of them. You are simply wasting resources. You want them to backup your decision. If you think you are right, make your case to the landlord and if he doesn't agree you are leaving in two months anyway so what can he do?

Any place I have ever lived in before has charged monthly rent as four weeks and/or the deposit has always equaled 1 months rent in advance. This is not just my own experience or opinion, many others agree including Threshold. I have been renting for 10 years. I did not just make up the sum of €500 per month and hide the fact that I was underpaying for 6 months. If I was such a criminal mastermind I would probably come up with a better scam. This might not be a lot of money to you but it is to me.

Of course I don't want to pay more money for anything than what I believe I agreed to pay. I won't pretend otherwise. But I will pay what was agreed. This was, I have come to believe, the result of a miscommunication on what that agreed amount was and this miscommunication has lead to the landlord losing money. I don't like this situation but these things happen and if he wants to take this to the PRTB that is his choice. If they decide that I have to pay the money then of course I would.

I came here looking for advice (before contacting Threshold due to Christmas holidays) as I was confused about this issue, its not straightforward and as someone posted earlier, either way there's going to be bad feelings. Posting on here enabled me to see it in black and white and to take all sides of the situation into consideration. Nothing was posted on here that I hadn't already thought of, including your opinion. The best advice that I got was to contact threshold which I have done and have now resolved the issue. By contacting the professionals they could help me to take my emotions out of the decision. I gave them all the same information and they guided my decision to this end.


I don't know why you would say that mine is not a genuine issue, I hope that you don't give that 'advice' to others in similar situations. I can imagine why you feel the need to share such an opinion but I won't speculate. Threshold is there to assist with situations such as this and I would urge anyone else having rent issues to contact them and make sure to remember that whatever you read on here is only someones opinion. That someone could be an asshole landlord, a child, a mentally deranged individual or just a regular idiot.

cypressg

Op this isn't directed at you but the amount of apartments I've been in where there has been "damp" is ridiculous,and they are usually full of girls for some reason,and all have the windows closed and wet clothes and towels lying around the shop.
But now back to you,in your first post you said that you had to open the windows daily to dry out the place as if this was something irregular-living spaces have to be ventilated daily to allow the condensation from breathing,washing and drying out whether they are damp or not,you seem to think that you have to do this because it's damp?
My bet is that the apartment is good and airtight and that you don't air the place enough?Most kids these days have no clue about dealing with moisture in a gaff for some reason and leave all the windows closed and then start complaining about damp when mould etc starts to materialise.
At least this is my experience.

Leroy42

Daisyscience, you can slag me off as much as you want, but again you are letting your emotions enter the arguement. Just because you don't like what I have to say does not make me an idiot, or an asshole landlord. It is that type of language and response that confirms that really all you wanted was others to back up your stance that you didn't have to pay the money.

You paid €125 week in advance and then a agreement was made to make a monthly payment of €500. Evan a regular idiot like myself can work out that that doesn't tally. As I mentioned in an earlier post, would you accept only being paid for 48 weeks in a year if you worked 52?

I'm glad you got it sorted out, and as I said I have little sympathy for the landlord. He made a mistake and you have the advantage of it, that's life.

In terms of the case to Threshold, what I meant was that this isn't a case of a landlord claiming for something way out of left field. This isn't a case where the landlord is being unfair. He is being very fair and seems to have being honest about the mistake and asked that you rectify it on terms that would be suitable. You quite rightly have argued that he doesn't have the evidence to back up his claim so he losses out.

The size of the amount was in relation to him not you. As he rents out a few properties I doubt he will lose too much sleep over this (and if he did he only has himself to blame).

At the end of it, you saved some money and since the landlord didn't bother to clear up the damp etc I wouldn't be too worried about him losing out. But don't try to portray yourself as anything other than someone who has taken advantage of someone else. The fact that he may well be an asshole doesn't change that fact.

I ask again, would you accept only being paid for 48 weeks in a year if you worked 52? If your employer stated a lack of communication would you just accept it? If your answer if no, then I don't follow how you can argue why it shouldn't be the same in this case.

djimi

Threshold are there to advise tenants of their rights and give guidance in situations relating to renting. The OP was perfectly within their rights to contact them; I have no idea why you would think otherwise?

djimi

Leroy42 wrote: »

You paid €125 week in advance and then a agreement was made to make a monthly payment of €500. Evan a regular idiot like myself can work out that that doesn't tally. As I mentioned in an earlier post, would you accept only being paid for 48 weeks in a year if you worked 52?

The deposit was 500 as were the first 6 monthly rental payments. If the landlord wanted 52 weeks of 125 then they should have written that into the lease; as it stands it was their ambiguity and general haphazard approach to the agreement that caused the confusion. Its not the OPs problem that the landlord didnt consider the 48 weeks vs 52 weeks issue of paying monthly vs weekly; by the sounds of it no one thought of it, but in this case thats not the tenants problem to be quite blunt about it.

whiteandlight

Having read all of this I would be monumentally pissed if my landlord turned around after 6 months wanting an increase of 40e a month and back pay. I've been renting for 9 years and it is the landlords job to set the rent, the tenants agree to it before moving in and agree to pay on time. The OP has done this. The discrepancy between the two figures was the landlords fault.

I would never think to check the 4weeks vs a month thing and after 6 monthly payments of 500e I would feel it is entirely the landlords fault for not realising the difference.

As everyone has stated it would be a different situation if the amount was written in the lease but it isn't

Leroy42

Djimi, I never said the OP wasn't within their rights, but I expect that Threshold are not exactly over staffed so is this really a useful use of their time? That is what they are there for I guess, but I wouldn't consider this a big issue.

I have never argued that this isn't the landlords fault, or indeed their problem. They should have ben better prepared in writing the lease, paid closer attention to the amounts being paid etc. I have also never said that the OP isn't within their rights to not pay. That doesn't make it right though.

The Op has said that they agreed €125 per week. They then agreed to pay €500 monthly, which was the mistake by the landlord. Maybe it was a genuine mistake by the landlord, wanting to keep things simple rather than having to set up a weekly direct debit (we don't know why it was agreed). Are you really all argueing that nobody is entitled to make a mistake? and if they do it is fair game to take full advantage?The fact remains the OP knows the rent is €125 but thinks they should not now have to pay that amount.

Again, I simply ask the question what you you guys do if it was you on the receiving end in terms of wages etc. If for example the wages dept only gave you 4 weeks of tax credits instead of 5 would you just let it go?

djimi

Leroy42 wrote: »

Djimi, I never said the OP wasn't within their rights, but I expect that Threshold are not exactly over staffed so is this really a useful use of their time? That is what they are there for I guess, but I wouldn't consider this a big issue.

Of course its the best use of their time; its what they are there for. This is hardly a stupid question from the OP; its not like they rang Threshold asking how to change a lightbulb...

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have never argued that this isn't the landlords fault, or indeed their problem. They should have ben better prepared in writing the lease, paid closer attention to the amounts being paid etc. I have also never said that the OP isn't within their rights to not pay. That doesn't make it right though.

The Op has said that they agreed €125 per week. They then agreed to pay €500 monthly, which was the mistake by the landlord. Maybe it was a genuine mistake by the landlord, wanting to keep things simple rather than having to set up a weekly direct debit (we don't know why it was agreed). Are you really all argueing that nobody is entitled to make a mistake? and if they do it is fair game to take full advantage?The fact remains the OP knows the rent is €125 but thinks they should not now have to pay that amount.

Again, I simply ask the question what you you guys do if it was you on the receiving end in terms of wages etc. If for example the wages dept only gave you 4 weeks of tax credits instead of 5 would you just let it go?

If I was on the receiving end I wouldnt have let it go for 6 months before looking to sort it.

Of course the landlord is entitled to make a mistake. Buts thats exactly what this is; their mistake. Their biggest mistake is not putting whatever amount was agreed in writing. Their second mistake was being totally ambiguous about the rental amount, to the point where the OP doesnt seem sure what was agreed. Their third mistake was not checking their incomings and letting their mistake run for 6 months before looking to sort it.

Who cares if it the OP is wrong or right to take advantage (if indeed they did so intentionally)? Its a business arrangement; fair doesnt come into it, and one party ended up getting burned from their own negligence. The OP did nothing wrong in this case imo (legally I mean), and at the end of the day that is all that matters.

Im aware that comes across as harsh, but its business, and let this be a lesson to the landlord why he needs to run his business properly.

repsol

djimi wrote: »

Of course its the best use of their time; its what they are there for. This is hardly a stupid question from the OP; its not like they rang Threshold asking how to change a lightbulb...



If I was on the receiving end I wouldnt have let it go for 6 months before looking to sort it.

Of course the landlord is entitled to make a mistake. Buts thats exactly what this is; their mistake. Their biggest mistake is not putting whatever amount was agreed in writing. Their second mistake was being totally ambiguous about the rental amount, to the point where the OP doesnt seem sure what was agreed. Their third mistake was not checking their incomings and letting their mistake run for 6 months before looking to sort it.

Who cares if it the OP is wrong or right to take advantage (if indeed they did so intentionally)? Its a business arrangement; fair doesnt come into it, and one party ended up getting burned from their own negligence. The OP did nothing wrong in this case imo (legally I mean), and at the end of the day that is all that matters.

Im aware that comes across as harsh, but its business, and let this be a lesson to the landlord why he needs to run his business properly.

I agree. The landlord was obviously under the impression that there are 48 weeks in a year and not 52.Its his problem not the OP's.The fact that the deposit is 500e would suggest that it is a months rent.Landlord needs to learn difference between pm and pcm. He doesn't sound like a guy who should be given any slack due to his attitude towards damp.I would give him 500e pcm and start looking for a new place.

franktheplank

cypressg wrote: »

Op this isn't directed at you but the amount of apartments I've been in where there has been "damp" is ridiculous,and they are usually full of girls for some reason,and all have the windows closed and wet clothes and towels lying around the shop.
But now back to you,in your first post you said that you had to open the windows daily to dry out the place as if this was something irregular-living spaces have to be ventilated daily to allow the condensation from breathing,washing and drying out whether they are damp or not,you seem to think that you have to do this because it's damp?
My bet is that the apartment is good and airtight and that you don't air the place enough?Most kids these days have no clue about dealing with moisture in a gaff for some reason and leave all the windows closed and then start complaining about damp when mould etc starts to materialise.
At least this is my experience.

I live with OP and certainly am not a girl.

When we moved to the apartment the front room flooded after 2-3 days following exceptionally heavy rain. The landlord immediately replaced the carpet but his only solution to fix the problem was to fill some cracks in the concrete back yard.

It has only had limited success, the place hasn't flooded since (there hasn't been the same heavy rain either) but there is still clearly a huge amount of moisture entering the house. Based on the previous flooding and old water stains on the concrete floor when the carpet was removed, I'm assuming it's coming through the foundations.

No amount of 'airing' this place will make it habitable and we will be leaving as soon as it's possible for us.

As regards the rent, I wasn't there for all the negotiations but I suspect that while the place was originally quoted at 125 per week the landlord would have been quite happy to accept a 500/month deal given the going rates in the area and the condition of the apartment (he must have had some idea of the damp problem)

My further suspicion is that having bought the place at the peak of the property boom (I saw the price it was advertised for on a web search :eek:) and now facing financial problems of his own he has decided to squeeze it for every penny. (He might not have much of a choice)

franktheplank

Just to further clarify. When we moved in, we paid for a 'week' just to bring us up to the beginning of the next month and it was vague to a certain degree as to when exactly we moved in. It may have been 6 days, 8 days etc. It was just for that period, the rent was still negotiated at a monthly rate I believe after this.

Leroy42

I have at no point argued that this is not the landlords fault. I'm sure they will learn from it, make sure they pay closer attention to the job they have to do and make sure they do it right from now on. Having no amounts on the lease agreement is entirely their fault.

However, the OP came on here looking for advice on what to do. The options are very clear. Legally they have the room to get out of this, due to the lack of clarity on the agreement.

However, the OP asked for opinions and advice and whatever way you guys dress this up the OP understood that the rent was €125 but has paid less than that. It may well be business to screw the landlord but that doesn't make it right and you are all taking the OP's side against this 'horrible' landlord who according to Franktheplank "is trying to squeeze it for every penny."

Again, I ask the question whether people would just accept this if it was to do with their wages. If a company paid them 4 weeks instead of five since they normally get 4 weeks in a month would they simply accept it? Or what you if you overpaid the rent for a month, would the OP be so willing to let the landlord keep the overpayment.

Of course not, so why do you all think that it is right for the OP to act is such a way towards the landlord. Pay what you agreed, or don't, but don't get stroppy with me and call me names because I call you out on what you are doing.

djimi

Nothing in writing = nothing agreed. You can go on about morals or whatever all you want; that's the bottom line. There is no such thing as a verbal agreement in this kind of situation.

You're comparison to wages is a bit ridiculous. As I said, I, nor any sane person, would not allow a discrepancy in their wages go unnoticed or unsorted for 6 months. And even if it did, I would not turn around 6 months later if nothing is in writing in my contract or whatever and try and argue that something different from what I had been receiving for those 6 months was agreed initially. What would be the point?

Tigger

I have lived in a good few rented properties and I would always offer 4 times the weekly rent ( if they quote a weekly price) as a negotiation down. If a person dosent know there are 4.3333 weeks in a month on average then that's their issue IMHO. The last property I lived in I rented out in 2002 and the landlady agreed to 4 times the weekly rent as a monthly payment and then after 7 years she turned up saying that she wanted the extra third of a week added each month ( no back rent) I told her that I'd be out of her way ASAP and we agreed on three months notice that was 2009 and the property is still empty. A month before we left she offered my wife the property at 10% less than we had been paying but by that stage we had signed a lease on the next property.

If I was you op I'd tell the landlord that a deal was made at €500 a month and obviously that's less than €125 a week.

To those saying €125 was agreed I don't agree €125 was discussed and €500 was agreed.

Xeyn

I agree the comparison with being paid wages for 4 weeks is a bit nonsensical.
If you are paid weekly, you would in fact be paid weekly and your pay would be detailed in the contract. The same if you are paid monthly therefore a similar situation would not arise not to mention the employer wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they underpaid the employee. This is simply comparing apples with oranges.
There is simply no way the landlord was unaware of the amount he was receiving each month therefore there was simply no 'mistake'. He knew he was receiving €500 each month and was satisfied with it.
IMO there is no ambiguity in this situation. None.