Looking for an apartment at the moment, but have a small problem with references

Dredd_J

I have been looking for an apartment for the last month in Dublin and am finding it a pain staying in the parents house at this stage.
In any of the nice ones I have got to the deposit and reference stage but keep getting turned down. They are saying someone else was chosen ahead of me and nothing else.

So in the last week i have been told twice (I suspect this is the problem in the other cases too but they are just not saying) that I have been rejected after a call to my last landlord.

I used my last months rent as my deposit is all. That is what is getting me now.
When they ring my old landlord he they seem to all ask him did i pay the last months rent or use the deposit. And when told i used the deposit I am rejected. I know because i rang my old landlord to ask him and he said - well thats the truth isnt it - I have no argument to that.

So now on this apartment hunt im being asked to produce references from my last two or three landlords as well. I always use my deposit as last months rent.

What should I do? I might have to just fake references and have friends on the end of the phone. Landlords never really phoned previous landlords before, but they seem to do it always now. And not just the last landlord either.

Chattastrophe!

Could you ask your old landlord to emphasise that this was done with his permission and full agreement? (I assume this was the case.)

I'm not surprised this is causing problems for you. What if you left and there was damage done to the house - the landlord is then left with absolutely nothing to cover it.

quadrifoglio verde

Not to be harsh but tough ****. It's a sign of a bad tenant, that used the deposit as the last months rent. It isn't meant to be used a for that purpose. It's to cover damage above wear and tear and you've basically left your old landlord liable for any (even if there wasn't, it'll ring warning bells with potential new landlords).
you'll be hard pressed to find a good landlord willing to have you in this market. Why would a good landlord take a risk with you when they have people looking to rent of them with excellent references?

Dredd_J

It wasnt done with his full permission though. He was a bit annoyed about it actually, but nothing he could do to stop me. It was me just covering my arse just in case he tried to pull a fast one. Everything was left in great condition. I always did it and didnt see the harm tbh.

Well i can see the problem now. I have to hope either they dont ring my landlord, or i have to get a fake landlord for them to ring. Such a pain - for no reason. I didnt even have to do it. I was just being careful with protecting my deposit. LLs are getting a lot more fussy these days. And asking for two or three last landlords for references too. In my case they will all say the very same thing with the deposit question.

Tea drinker

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Not to be harsh but tough ****. It's a sign of a bad tenant, that used the deposit as the last months rent. It isn't meant to be used a for that purpose. It's to cover damage above wear and tear and you've basically left your old landlord liable for any (even if there wasn't, it'll ring warning bells with potential new landlords).
you'll be hard pressed to find a good landlord willing to have you in this market. Why would a good landlord take a risk with you when they have people looking to rent of them with excellent references?

Mutual agreement? It's a sign of a good tenant, many landlords wouldn't agree to this with bad tenants.

cmssjone

Dredd_J wrote: »

It wasnt done with his full permission though. He was a bit annoyed about it actually, but nothing he could do to stop me. It was me just covering my arse just in case he tried to pull a fast one. Everything was left in great condition. I always did it and didnt see the harm tbh.

Well i can see the problem now. I have to hope either they dont ring my landlord, or i have to get a fake landlord for them to ring. Such a pain - for no reason. I didnt even have to do it. I was just being careful with protecting my deposit. LLs are getting a lot more fussy these days. And asking for two or three last landlords for references too. In my case they will all say the very same thing with the deposit question.

So you broke the terms of the lease that you signed with your last landlord and wonder why prospective landlords are not interested. No sympathy from me to be honest...

Dredd_J

cmssjone wrote: »

So you broke the terms of the lease that you signed with your last landlord and wonder why prospective landlords are not interested. No sympathy from me to be honest...

Yep. Thats about the size of it. Didnt see any harm, but suffering now. I should have known how important references were as i work in HR. but I simply didnt think LLs checked refs as much as HR do. But it looks like its all changed in the last three years since i went looking before. Now they all seem to call and ask particularly that question. And they are calling multiple previous LLs

Kicking myself.

Chattastrophe!

Dredd_J wrote: »

It wasnt done with his full permission though. He was a bit annoyed about it actually, but nothing he could do to stop me. It was me just covering my arse just in case he tried to pull a fast one. Everything was left in great condition. I always did it and didnt see the harm tbh.

Well i can see the problem now. I have to hope either they dont ring my landlord, or i have to get a fake landlord for them to ring. Such a pain - for no reason. I didnt even have to do it. I was just being careful with protecting my deposit. LLs are getting a lot more fussy these days. And asking for two or three last landlords for references too. In my case they will all say the very same thing with the deposit question.

You wanted to protect your deposit; potential new landlords are more interested in protecting their property.

Coles

No sympathy for you. Might be best to keep living with the parents until you understand the significance of a lease agreement.

miss no stars

Eh, get a character reference from work and state that you've always lived with your parents?

Dredd_J

Folks. I have already pleaded guilty. And understand what I did wrong.
Im looking for solutions, not internet finger wagging.

Dredd_J

miss no stars wrote: »

Eh, get a character reference from work and state that you've always lived with your parents?

I think thats a good suggestion. But I am 45 years old.
Saying Ive always lived with my parents might look worse than those references

You've given me an idea though.
My company owns a a couple of dozen apartments and houses that they rent out to contractors when they come over. I'll talk to the boss and get references from him as a landlord. He owes me for a few things anyway.

Good call.

miss no stars

Dredd_J wrote: »

I think thats a good suggestion. But I am 45 years old.
Saying Ive always lived with my parents might look worse than those references

You've given me an idea though.
My company owns a a couple of dozen apartments and houses that they rent out to contractors when they come over. I'll talk to the boss and get references from him as a landlord. He owes me for a few things anyway.

Good call.

Sounds like your best bet if your boss would be on board for it, you're not going to get anywhere with a bad reference from your last LL. You could also say that you used to have your own house but split from partner so you both sold up or something like that. Just make sure you're not dealing with the same estate agents as before??

December2012

Dredd_J wrote: »

I think thats a good suggestion. But I am 45 years old.
Saying Ive always lived with my parents might look worse than those references

You've given me an idea though.
My company owns a a couple of dozen apartments and houses that they rent out to contractors when they come over. I'll talk to the boss and get references from him as a landlord. He owes me for a few things anyway.

Good call.

Why not rent one of them?

smcgiff

You've effectively not given a deposit to your last few LLs.

The most surprising thing in this thread is that you've been sneaky enough to deceive your LLs, but not devious enough to come up with the solution you've arrived at without help.

evolving_doors

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Not to be harsh but tough ****. It's a sign of a bad tenant, that used the deposit as the last months rent. It isn't meant to be used a for that purpose. It's to cover damage above wear and tear and you've basically left your old landlord liable for any (even if there wasn't, it'll ring warning bells with potential new landlords).
you'll be hard pressed to find a good landlord willing to have you in this market. Why would a good landlord take a risk with you when they have people looking to rent of them with excellent references?

Leaving aside the OP's actions .. using the last months deposit as rent with the agreement of the landlord is the sign of a great tenant in which a landlord has full trust! (Unlike the OP's case of course!!)

Dredd_J

December2012 wrote: »

Why not rent one of them?

You should see the price of them

Dredd_J

smcgiff wrote: »

You've effectively not given a deposit to your last few LLs.

The most surprising thing in this thread is that you've been sneaky enough to deceive your LLs, but not devious enough to come up with the solution you've arrived at without help.

Its always good to look for options. Obviously you have nothing to add but another wag of the internet finger.

A Greedy Algorithm

Just don't use your last land lord as a reference. Say you were living with your parents, a friend or relative etc and give a friends phone number for them to call.

athtrasna

A Greedy Algorithm wrote: »

Just don't use your last land lord as a reference. Say you were living with your parents, a friend or relative etc and give a friends phone number for them to call.

The OP has already said they did the same to their previous landlordS. So it's not just one bad reference. As they have also already said, who is going to believe a 45 year old was living at home.

A work reference and bank statements are probably all you can rely on OP. Fake references are never a good idea.

_Kaiser_

Seeing as we're into "out of the box" solutions here, here's what I'd do OP:

Say you were living with the gf in a house she owned (that way there's no fear they'll worry about you being able to pay the rent - also gf so no support payments) but due to a break-up you were forced to move home for a while but are now looking for a place of your own.

You're 45 and in HR so presumably secure and on decent money. That plus a reference from your boss should be enough.

(I feel like there should be an evil laugh in here somewhere - Mwahahahaha! )

murphaph

Surely it's a sign of a professional landlord (what people are crying out for) that he/she checks references and asks specific questions like this. It warms my heart a bit to think Irish landlords are getting more selective. It's all we have to protect ourselves really. The second and third last landlords can be much more useful in providing important information to a prospective landlord. A free resource that just needs checking to eliminate 90% of the wasters out there. The previous landlord's reference is really not worth paying much heed to as people will say mass to get rid of problem tenants.

OP: You don't sound like a "bad guy" so once you get this sorted, please just pay your rent as agreed and leave the deposit for its intended purpose.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

Surely it's a sign of a professional landlord (what people are crying out for) that he/she checks references and asks specific questions like this. It warms my heart a bit to think Irish landlords are getting more selective. It's all we have to protect ourselves really. The second and third last landlords can be much more useful in providing important information to a prospective landlord. A free resource that just needs checking to eliminate 90% of the wasters out there. The previous landlord's reference is really not worth paying much heed to as people will say mass to get rid of problem tenants.

OP: You don't sound like a "bad guy" so once you get this sorted, please just pay your rent as agreed and leave the deposit for its intended purpose.

And yet you see no reason for tenants to be afforded the same protections from what I recall. It's not just (SOME) tenants who are "wasters". We see that on this forum every week.

A free resource to check both tenants AND landlords would be a good idea though.

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And yet you see no reason for tenants to be afforded the same protections from what I recall.

A free resource to check both tenants AND landlords would be a good idea though.

Tenants have more protection than landlords simply because the most a tenant stands to lose is a withheld deposit. Any failure of the LL to maintain things they should be maintaining can be legally maintained by the tenant and deducted from the rent.

The LL stands to lose over a year's rent and stands to see his property ruined and it remains a civil matter.

I favour better security for both sides, but anyone can see that the law currently does indeed give tenants more protection and LLs have more to lose when the other party plays dirty. The LL only has any "power" BEFORE the tenancy commences, so he should exercise it and do his checks on the 2nd and 3rd last landlords of any prospective tenant. Getting fake "landlords" to provide telephone references won't work unless they really are LLs because a LL will know what to ask to sniff a fake out.

The tenant in contrast has no "power" until AFTER the tenancy commences and then he/she has LOTS of power and if they decide to just stop paying rent and remain over holding, can ONLY be removed when a court, not the PRTB, deems the tenancy to be at an end and the Sherrif can be called in to evict them. That's a long process that can easily financially ruin a LL. A LL cannot ruin a tenant financially. Just doesn't happen because the LL only has a month's rent belonging to the tenant and nothing else.

Edit: I'm on record on this forum as stating that there should be a register of LLs and tenants where prospective candidates on both sides can find the dodgy ones. In the absence of such a system, LLs need to look out for themselves.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

Tenants have more protection than landlords simply because the most a tenant stands to lose is a withheld deposit. Any failure of the LL to maintain things they should be maintaining can be legally maintained by the tenant and deducted from the rent.

The LL stands to lose over a year's rent and stands to see his property ruined and it remains a civil matter.

I favour better security for both sides, but anyone can see that the law currently does indeed give tenants more protection and LLs have more to lose when the other party plays dirty. The LL only has any "power" BEFORE the tenancy commences, so he should exercise it and do his checks on the 2nd and 3rd last landlords of any prospective tenant. Getting fake "landlords" to provide telephone references won't work unless they really are LLs because a LL will know what to ask to sniff a fake out.

The tenant in contrast has no "power" until AFTER the tenancy commences and then he/she has LOTS of power and if they decide to just stop paying rent and remain over holding, can ONLY be removed when a court, not the PRTB, deems the tenancy to be at an end and the Sherrif can be called in to evict them. That's a long process that can easily financially ruin a LL. A LL cannot ruin a tenant financially. Just doesn't happen because the LL only has a month's rent belonging to the tenant and nothing else.

I disagree that a landlord has more to lose - ultimately the landlord sets the rent, can evict a tenant for no reason if they chose under the guise of needing the property back leaving the tenant homeless, can withhold some or all of a deposit for any reason, and can drag their heels or ignore any issues that arise completely, or can leave the tenant dealing with the consequences of their landlord's bankruptcy or non-payment of management fees.

All of these are regular occurrences on this forum. Now, you can say the PRTB is there to address all that but in real-life a tenant probably won't have the year or so for it to get decided on - especially if the issue is one with immediate consequences for them.

I agree with you that a better, more efficient system is badly needed to address these issues and protect tenants AND landlords from bad examples of the other - however in the absence of that..

Edit: I'm on record on this forum as stating that there should be a register of LLs and tenants where prospective candidates on both sides can find the dodgy ones. In the absence of such a system, LLs need to look out for themselves.

.. this advice equally applies to tenants!

athtrasna

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I disagree that a landlord has more to lose - ultimately the landlord sets the rent, can evict a tenant for no reason if they chose under the guise of needing the property back leaving the tenant homeless, can withhold some or all of a deposit for any reason, and can drag their heels or ignore any issues that arise completely, or can leave the tenant dealing with the consequences of their landlord's bankruptcy or non-payment of management fees.

All of these are regular occurrences on this forum. Now, you can say the PRTB is there to address all that but in real-life a tenant probably won't have the year or so for it to get decided on - especially if the issue is one with immediate consequences for them.

None of this comes near equating to the tens of thousands of euros of damage some tenants have done to landlords houses not to mind tenants who refuse to move out. I know of two cases personally where the house owners (both reluctant landlords) were out of pocket over 20k :O

_Kaiser_

athtrasna wrote: »

None of this comes near equating to the tens of thousands of euros of damage some tenants have done to landlords houses not to mind tenants who refuse to move out. I know of two cases personally where the house owners (both reluctant landlords) were out of pocket over 20k :O

I would wager that such examples - while deplorable - are a lot rarer than the issues faced by tenants as a result of landlords ignoring their responsibilities or holding deposits for spurious reasons.

Anyway, way off-topic now. My point was to refute the idea that are mostly the problem here - most threads on this forum seem to be tenants having issue with a landlord's inaction or strokes regarding deposits. Landlords are free to post their issues too right?

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I would wager that such examples - while deplorable - are a lot rarer than the issues faced by tenants as a result of landlords ignoring their responsibilities or holding deposits for spurious reasons.

I've had an over holding commercial tenant. That cost a lot of money to resolve. A LOT.

It's more common than you think.

Tenants are free to ask LLs for references if they wish.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

I've had an over holding commercial tenant. That cost a lot of money to resolve. A LOT.

It's more common than you think.

Tenants are free to ask LLs for references if they wish.

As long as it's not you they're asking.

I wouldn't provide any information to a prospective tenant no. It's my property. If I only want to let to people who provide me with what I require to commence a tenancy then that's my choice and it's your choice not to entertain such requests and to move on to a landlord that doesn't. It's not about fairness. It's about minimising my risk as I see it. Yes, I will certainly alienate some potentially good tenants, but I calculate that I will alienate almost all potentially delinquent tenants by requesting such things, so the move is a sensible one from my perspective.

You're being a tad disingenuous really. You want all of the reward with none of the risk and are pushing the idea of bad tenants being the norm, and a different market/culture/regulatory structure in Germany, to validate your opinion in regards to the Irish market.

Why are you even involved in the market if it's such a risk?

Dredd_J

murphaph wrote: »

Surely it's a sign of a professional landlord (what people are crying out for) that he/she checks references and asks specific questions like this. It warms my heart a bit to think Irish landlords are getting more selective. It's all we have to protect ourselves really. The second and third last landlords can be much more useful in providing important information to a prospective landlord. A free resource that just needs checking to eliminate 90% of the wasters out there. The previous landlord's reference is really not worth paying much heed to as people will say mass to get rid of problem tenants.

OP: You don't sound like a "bad guy" so once you get this sorted, please just pay your rent as agreed and leave the deposit for its intended purpose.

You are dead right there. In my job we usually ignore the current employers reference in the rare case that we are given one, for that very reason. We always go back a couple of refs

Dredd_J

murphaph wrote: »

I've had an over holding commercial tenant. That cost a lot of money to resolve. A LOT.

It's more common than you think.

Tenants are free to ask LLs for references if they wish.

Internet stalking is rife
As you can see from the previous post.
Be careful out there.

_Kaiser_

Dredd_J wrote: »

Internet stalking is rife
As you can see from the previous post.
Be careful out there.

Nah.. I just don't like when people throw out stuff with an obvious agenda that's all and I remembered that comment from a previous recent discussion as it's a common theme with the poster in question.

I've never disputed that there aren't problem and delinquent tenants, but the all-too-common inference/assumption that this applies to most if not all tenants is what I have a problem with myself, especially when the evidence posted on this very forum suggests that cowboy landlords are just as much a problem and it's usually their tenant who ends up dealing with the consequences.

Anyway, as we're way off topic "we'll leave it there" as Bill says.

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're being a tad disingenuous really.

Not at all. I'm free as a LL to ask prospective tenants for previous references. They are free to ask me for previous tenant references. I won't rent to anyone who won't provide what I ask and tenants (presumably) won't rent from me when I refuse to provide such references.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You want all of the reward with none of the risk and are pushing the idea of bad tenants being the norm, and a different market/culture/regulatory structure in Germany, to validate your opinion in regards to the Irish market.

Why are you even involved in the market if it's such a risk?

To make a profit of course. Business comes with risk but if I open a SPAR shop and Johnny comes in and helps himself to a couple of bottles of vodka, then the state will intervene, will arrest him, charge him and prosecute him for larceny. If Johnny rents a property from me and just stops paying rent (stealing the service I provide for a fee) then the state will not do anything. I will have to take him to court to get him out. It will take well over a year if Johnny wants.

You believe there's lots of risk associated with being a tenant and that most LLs are out to steal deposits and so on, so why are you a tenant? See how silly that question is?

Btw, I never said bad tenants are the norm and don't believe that they are. The point (which in fairness you seem to not get) is that JUST ONE bad tenant can ruin a LL financially.

odds_on

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I disagree that a landlord has more to lose - ultimately the landlord sets the rent,

Incorrect, the market sets the rent - what a willing tenant will give and a willing landlord will accept.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

can evict a tenant for no reason if they chose under the guise of needing the property back leaving the tenant homeless,

A LL may only evict under a fixed term lease if the tenant is in breach of the lease agreement. A tenant has the option of vacating by assigning the lease - a landlord has no such option of exiting a fixed term lease. If there is a Part 4 tenancy in existence it is the tenant who has requested it and must suffer the less secure form of renting.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

can withhold some or all of a deposit for any reason,

NOT for any reason, only those set out in the RTA 2004, in which the greatest percentage of claims are for "arrears of rent"

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

and can drag their heels or ignore any issues that arise completely,

This is mainly due to tenants not advising the landlord/agent in the correct manner (in writing) and setting a time frame for the work to be carried out.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

or can leave the tenant dealing with the consequences of their landlord's bankruptcy or non-payment of management fees.

This, I agree with in that there seems to be little legal framework in this regard and anything is in favour of the receiver in the case of bankruptcy/repossession and lack of any simple collection of management fees. However, many owners in estates/complexes suffer where other owners (and not necessarily landlords) fail to pay their fees/charges on time or at all.

MouseTail

OP, are you not in a position to buy?

Santa Cruz

If he had obeyed the terms of the lease he would be in no difficulty. It's a legal agreement, He failed to honour it and really can't complain when caught out

tinkerbell

OP, tis your own fault - you completely screwed the previous LL over. Not sure what you can do unless perhaps you offer to pay 2 months deposit instead of 1 but even at that it may not get you anywhere. And learn your lesson - you cannot decide to withhold rent!

murphaph

The OP has recognised all that already.

Dredd_J

Ah lads. Read the thread before you post will you.
Its like having 50 grannies in the one room when you burn yourself playing with the fireplace.

Grayditch

Here... It's about time someone spoke up....


It serves you right...

Dredd_J

MouseTail wrote: »

OP, are you not in a position to buy?

I am, I would be a cash buyer, but i think im going to hold out for another year or two to see if prices go down anymore before buying. If they dont i wont be buying.

MouseTail

Dredd_J wrote: »

I am, I would be a cash buyer, but i think im going to hold out for another year or two to see if prices go down anymore before buying. If they dont i wont be buying.

Personally, think thats a mistake. Be done with the hassle of renting / living with parents and buy now. Predict a +5% rise this year, thats just personal opinion of course.

Dredd_J

MouseTail wrote: »

Personally, think thats a mistake. Be done with the hassle of renting / living with parents and buy now. Predict a +5% rise this year, thats just personal opinion of course.

I feel deep down that you are right. Its just when the houses I was looking at and thought were two expensive the last 3 years or so are now going for €150k or more more than I was looking at them at then, its very hard to press the button now.

But im well aware that in another couple of years i could be looking at the price i pay now as a bargain too.

A friend who works in a bank dealing with Nama sales is going to be showing me a 4 bed semi in Stillorgan next week that im very interested in. He can arrange for me to buy it for the asking price and not have it shown to anyone else, so at least there will be no bidding competition, but im still not sure. tbh im 80 - 20 in favour of buying and having had a quick sly look around the house a few weeks ago I do like it. If I was more sure that the prices were going to go up id buy it anyway. Its a very good price for NOW, but not for what it would have been a couple of years ago.

Procrastination will be my downfall.

Thats why i wont be even attempting to rent again for another couple of weeks anyway. I might just be buying instead.

MouseTail

Yep you, missed the bottom by not buying a couple of years ago, and imo, if you are waiting for those prices again, you will be 50 and still living at home or trying to pull a fast one on landlords by withholding last months rent. That sort of practice can be excused in young 20 somethings starting out and living week to week. But for a middle aged professional with a cash pile, its absolutely inexcusable.

Santa Cruz

Dredd_J wrote: »

I am, I would be a cash buyer, but i think im going to hold out for another year or two to see if prices go down anymore before buying. If they dont i wont be buying.

I'm afraid if you are looking for anything in the greater Dublin area you have missed the bus. The rest of the country outside the cities may have something

on_my_oe

Dredd_J wrote: »

A friend who works in a bank dealing with Nama sales is going to be showing me a 4 bed semi in Stillorgan next week that im very interested in. He can arrange for me to buy it for the asking price and not have it shown to anyone else, so at least there will be no bidding competition, but im still not sure.

Is it just me, or does this just stink like a pile of s*** There are plenty of folk who are competing to buy 3/4 bed homes, why do you get special treatment?

davo10

45 years old, living with mum and dad, screwed over multiple LL's, didn't understand this would have repercussions, cash buyer, loads of savings, waiting for prices to DROP in Dublin, has a friend in bank who will "sell" him a NAMA property, is your surname Mitty by any chance?

Dredd_J

Santa Cruz wrote: »

I'm afraid if you are looking for anything in the greater Dublin area you have missed the bus. The rest of the country outside the cities may have something

Im a bit peeved that I missed the bottom alright.
My master plan to retire at 45 is in jeopardy, 50 will be more like it tbh.
Unless we retire to spain where my partner is from. Its a lovely place, we have a house there and will retire there eventually, but wanted to stay in Ireland for another 8 years until both my sons are finished with school and college. The only reason I am even considering buying is that if rents keep going up at the rate they are now they will be some price by then though.
At least if i buy a house here, which i was thinking of doing as an investment anyway, we would be protected against rent rises etc and then that could be added back to the retirement pot. The fear is another crash though, and its a big fear.

And to the poster who said i screwed my landlord. I did not. My sole reason for using the deposit as last months rent was to protect myself in case i got screwed. There was no damage any time ever. None of us did get screwed anyway. There is a lot of hate in this thread.

astrofool

You could be up front with any potential new landlord about what previously happened, and offer two months rent as deposit.

Dredd_J

astrofool wrote: »

You could be up front with any potential new landlord about what previously happened, and offer two months rent as deposit.

Most of them are asking for teo months rent as a deposit anyway.

Raphael

You could call up your old landlord, apologise profusely for what you did and tell him that his reference is keeping you from getting another place. Tell him you ****ed up, say that you/a friend/family member got burned by an old landlord and were scared you wouldn't have the deposit for a new place if you paid the last months rent. Ask if he incurred any costs at all that he would have otherwise deducted from the deposit, and offer to pay those costs now if he'll tell anyone else who calls that you did use the deposit for rent, but with his consent.