Deposit return for non-occupation? (rental)

Larbre34

House was available for rent. A person known to a close relation of the house owner expressed a desire to rent it as it would be more suitable than their existing place, so asked owner to hold it for a month so they could get themselves sorted and out of their current accom and then be able to move in. Owner agreed to hold for a month, for a deposit the value of one months rent. Owner turned down two other prospective tenants during that month. Person's personal circumstances changed towards the end of that month and he decided he would have to remain at his existing address.

Person is now demanding return of deposit, and that he will go to PTRB to get it, house owner is refusing and saying the deposit was for holding the house vacant and that he could have occupied the place several times over in the meantime.

Opinions on who is in the right?

Sleepy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the purpose of a deposit?

I can't see the PRTB ruling against the landlord in this case if common sense is used but I'm no expert on the legal aspects of this.

listermint

Tell them to jump, that is what deposits are for.

djimi

When you took the deposit did you give a receipt specifying that it was a non-refundable holding deposit?

Ray Palmer

In this case it was clearly a holding deposit and they lost it by not taking the place.

The LL is already down money for doing this. He effectively let them rent it while they weren't there for free. No good deed goes unpunished is apparently the case here

D3PO

held for a month. that's a holding deposit without question. PRTB wont even entertain it as anything else. The LL is right telling them to go jump.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Yup gotta take the LL side here. Tenant sounds like a bit of dick.

Victor

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Tenant sounds like a bit of dick.

No need for comments like this.

Moderator

---

It seems from what the OP has said that the situation changed and they were left out of pocket.

Larbre34

Thanks all, pretty much what I thought.

Yes the prospective tenant is out of pocket but the change of situation came about because of his circumstances, if he got his deposit back the owner would be the one out of pocket through no fault of his own

Gasherbraun

Not that it helps at all but I do not think the PRTB would deal with this; no tenancy was created (no rent was paid ) so outside of their remit and probably a small claims issue.