Landlord not giving back deposit

take everything

So this guy is refusing to abide by a PRTB judgement (which is binding apparently).

So my logical conclusions from this sorry saga are:

This guy is someone who does not recognise (quasi-) legal rulings.

A reasonable inference from that is that this guy isn't to be trusted.

A not unreasonable inference from that is that his reasons for not returning the deposit were without basis. Incidentally i know they were baseless anyway but I'm just interested in copperfastening this logically.

The PRTB believed an untrustworthy witness.

A reasonable inference from that is they are stupid or corrupt. I don't think it’s that they are just useless. It goes beyond that.

A reasonable inference from that is I wasted my time and money with these people.

I wonder is there any way of getting them to acknowledge their mistake of trusting him (given that I presume they won't be prepared to admit to corruption).

So robbing scumbag: 1
Stupid Irish quango: 1(they don't even know what happened so I don't think they care what score they are tbh)
Me: 0

take everything

Just got an email from the PRTB that finally the guy has agreed to send them on a cheque for the 103 euro. After the second time of asking by them.
And well outside the period of compliance.

So it had to be dragged out of him. 13 mths later.
Small bit of consolation I suppose.

take everything

Still waiting for the PRTB to send on the cheque.
They really are useless.

ahnowbrowncow

Have you contacted revenue? How many times in this thread did people advise you to do so? If he is tax compliant, great. If he isn't, great. Its a win win situation yet for some stupid paranoid reason you haven't.

It has actually been very frustrating reading this thread, maybe he would have been more amenable at the start if you had threatened to contact revenue. My sympathy for your plight has diminished because of this.

(If you have and I've missed it I apologise for my rant).

take everything

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Have you contacted revenue? How many times in this thread did people advise you to do so? If he is tax compliant, great. If he isn't, great. Its a win win situation yet for some stupid paranoid reason you haven't.

It has actually been very frustrating reading this thread, maybe he would have been more amenable at the start if you had threatened to contact revenue. My sympathy for your plight has diminished because of this.

(If you have and I've missed it I apologise for my rant).

I'm not worried about repercussions tbh (despite initially having reservations).

I've never contacted revenue before about anyone so i'm unfamiliar with that whole area.
Especially when I don't know anything definite about his tax status.

I could have (maybe should have) used it as leverage but genuinely wondered if it would have helped. I could well have been wrong not to do so.

I really wanted to do this by the book and not stoop to his level (as it were) but was let down by this useless organisation.

Now that the case is over i don't know about its value.

cerastes

take everything wrote: »

I'm not worried about repercussions tbh (despite initially having reservations).

I've never contacted revenue before about anyone so i'm unfamiliar with that whole area.
Especially when I don't know anything definite about his tax status.

I could have (maybe should have) used it as leverage but genuinely wondered if it would have helped. I could well have been wrong not to do so.

I really wanted to do this by the book and not stoop to his level (as it were) but was let down by this useless organisation.

Now that the case is over i don't know about its value.

Its revenue.ie, look for a phone number, speak to someone, hey presto, bobs your aunty.
It would have been just as much doing it by the book by contacting revenue in this case.

I havent read it in a while, I might go back and see how much of the deposit was agreed or determined to be withheld, given that you mention an amount of €103 which seems paltry if you had a legitimate claim, do you have a ref number of the case so people could review it on the prtb records? Im assuming the landlord didnt have a legitimate claim to some of the deposit, Ive had tenants outright refuse to agree to deductions and insisted I should repair a vertical blind (or accept other damage among other things), As I cant charge for my time and after a number of attempts to get spare parts which werent forthcoming or couldnt match the parts, ended up being a complete waste of time for me. Now I just photograph everything and do a full film sweep.

What did the landlord claim the deductions were for? or if you have the post #, I'll go back and look at it, if thats before I make it through the thread.

take everything

It's not up on PRTB site yet. It takes decades for them to do anything.

cerastes

you should have the case ref or whatever they call it so we can search.
Landlords generally consider the PRTB quite anti landlord and the PRTB will err on the side of the tenant where a landlord cannot provide proof such as photos of prior condition of items, so Im beginning to get a bit suspicious having read back that they awarded the landlord so much if neither of you have proof of condition, so the landlord must have had something to show?

My view is this would all be irrelevant if the stupid requirements for landlords to furnish properties was done away with, people should provide their own stuff and there can be no dispute about its condition.
Its a simple effective way to deal with it, as the case is they arent it just adds more hassle to both parties in the agreement, so inventories should be compulsorary really, and signed at the time of handover with pictures taken and distributed to both parties, the whole idea of independant assesors is money for old rope for someone, and further complicates a process to do things simply when it should be much very easy and straight forward.

Sligo1

cerastes wrote: »

My view is this would all be irrelevant if the stupid requirements for landlords to furnish properties was done away with, people should provide their own stuff and there can be no dispute about its condition.
.

I didn't know there was a requirement for LLs to furnish properties? Loads of LLs rent out unfurnished properties in my area. I think it's totally up to the LL whether they rent out twit properties furnished or unfurnished no?

The_Morrigan

cerastes wrote: »

you should have the case ref or whatever they call it so we can search.
Landlords generally consider the PRTB quite anti landlord and the PRTB will err on the side of the tenant where a landlord cannot provide proof such as photos of prior condition of items, so Im beginning to get a bit suspicious having read back that they awarded the landlord so much if neither of you have proof of condition, so the landlord must have had something to show?

My view is this would all be irrelevant if the stupid requirements for landlords to furnish properties was done away with, people should provide their own stuff and there can be no dispute about its condition.
Its a simple effective way to deal with it, as the case is they arent it just adds more hassle to both parties in the agreement, so inventories should be compulsorary really, and signed at the time of handover with pictures taken and distributed to both parties, the whole idea of independant assesors is money for old rope for someone, and further complicates a process to do things simply when it should be much very easy and straight forward.

The OP is under no obligation to provide you with anything here in relation to their PRTB Case.
Their identity here is anonymous, the PRTB case file would remove that anonymity and that is not something we encourage here - in fact it is frowned upon.
Stop this line of inquiry immediately.

cerastes

Sligo1 wrote: »

I didn't know there was a requirement for LLs to furnish properties? Loads of LLs rent out unfurnished properties in my area. I think it's totally up to the LL whether they rent out twit properties furnished or unfurnished no?

I have misquoted/referenced that incorrectly,

I mean properties should be allowed to be let out completely bare.

In effect most do let with contents but its also expected, my opinion is it would be so much simpler to allow tenants have all their own stuff, so long as it wasnt any harm or damage to the property, all the hassle of inventories and disputes (creates a nice backlog of work for some).

It would be better if properties were let without the required, washing machine, fridge or any freestanding equipment, maybe even some fitted stuff like a cooker and certainly the ridiculous requirement of a microwave and 4 ring hobs in properties that dont need them (ie converted bedsits where a 2 ring is more than adequete). I wouldnt think to go so far as floor coverings as they can last a long time and it adds uneccessary expense to tenants and its impractical to move around or fit/suit another place, that said any damage would need to account for the replacement cost-depreciation.

Mattresses, Id prefer use my own one and then turf it when it is done or bring it with me.

take everything

cerastes wrote: »

you should have the case ref or whatever they call it so we can search.
Landlords generally consider the PRTB quite anti landlord and the PRTB will err on the side of the tenant where a landlord cannot provide proof such as photos of prior condition of items, so Im beginning to get a bit suspicious having read back that they awarded the landlord so much if neither of you have proof of condition, so the landlord must have had something to show?

The landlord could show no photos of prior condition of items.
Something i repeatedly pointed out at the tribunal.

Despite this, they allowed him get away with what he claimed for the chair and lamp for example. They didn't even halve it like the other stuff. Which in itself, to me is a shocking indictment of the way the PRTB reach a decision.

And that's apart from lamely and lazily just halving his dreamt up figures for the supposed damage i did. Why his figures. As i say they took 13 months to divide by two.

Again as i say i was lucky he didn't decide to get in a 3000 euro suite of furniture; i could've been down another 1500 by that reasoning.

And as i said (and pointed out at the tribunal) this could have happened given that when i went back for my post a month later he had the hall furnished with new stuff, to my utter disgust. Something he did not contest at the tribunal.

This is simply crazy stuff.
I gave sworn testimony about all this stuff- that i didn't break his ****ty stuff, that he did the hall up et etc. That should be enough especially when uncontested. Yet the unaccountable (there's not a chance of contacting the chairman) PRTB gombeens still decided what they did.

It makes no sense on any level.

cerastes

it seems very uncommon for the prtb to make a decision strongly in favour of one side where some evidence hasnt been provided showing some form of fault or responsibility.

take everything

Finally got the 103 euro from the PRTB today FWIW.

El_Duderino 09

Fair play for sticking with it.

Happy you got that much at least.

Sligo1

Seems like an awful lot of hassle for 100 quid . Glad you got it in the end tho.

take everything

Sligo1 wrote: »

Seems like an awful lot of hassle for 100 quid . Glad you got it in the end tho.

It certainly was.
And I wouldn't do it again knowing how useless the PRTB are.