Not having full use of property

Noo

Just wondering if anyone has experienced this, not for me as I'm not in ireland but a situation I know of.

Four bed rental. One bedroom gets severe, and I mean severe mould, entire ceiling criss crossed, very quickly (turns out to be leaky pipe in roof). So bad that tenants move out of room into living room, takes landlord a month to get it sorted. At same time another bedroom gets a leak across an entire beam (hole in roof, no pipe this time) cant put anything in the room as it leaks everytime it rains. Takes 6 months for it to be fixed (roofers come the day after lease ends and tenants move out). End of lease and estate agent saying they still owe a few days rent, they never missed a single payment and lease ended the day before it started so no half weeks or anything. The house was only two bed for a month and a three bed for 6 months, and they never asked for reduced rent. Can they argue any of this now with the agent still asking for rent money?

Ctrl Alt Delete

TBH I'd tell the agent to bring it up with the PRTB and I'd say they would know how far they would get if the house was in that condition

Michael D Not Higgins

Whatever about the leaks and mould, that's a separate issue that has no direct bearing on the payment of rent. List out the rent payments made and the period of occupation and ask for where the discrepancy is.

AfterHrsProp

When there is an issue as serious as the above with a property, its important the tenants bring it to the owners attention as soon as possible. If works are not carried out within a reasonable period of time(this is open to interpretation), this is the time then to discuss a reduction to the rent with the landlord or an early exit from the lease.

If the landlord is not interested in either of these options, then the tenant should contact threshold & the PRTB.

By not doing either of these, the tenant can potentially leave themselves in a tricky situation if they want to finish the lease early or not pay the rest of their lease.

So all in all, the tenant may lose part of their deposit unless they can prove they brought the defects of the property to the attention of the agent/landlord when they initially started happening.

This is why it's important for tenants to keep receipts & any correspondence they have in relation to their tenancies.

Michael D Not Higgins

AfterHrsProp wrote: »

When there is an issue as serious as the above with a property, its important the tenants bring it to the owners attention as soon as possible. If works are not carried out within a reasonable period of time(this is open to interpretation), (1)this is the time then to discuss a reduction to the rent with the landlord or an early exit from the lease.

(2)If the landlord is not interested in either of these options, then the tenant should contact threshold & the PRTB.

(3)By not doing either of these, the tenant can potentially leave themselves in a tricky situation if they want to finish the lease early or not pay the rest of their lease.

(4)So all in all, the tenant may lose part of their deposit unless they can prove they brought the defects of the property to the attention of the agent/landlord when they initially started happening.

This is why it's important for tenants to keep receipts & any correspondence they have in relation to their tenancies.

(1) Just to be clear, there is no legal recourse for these actions.
(2) The first step to take is to discuss with the landlord bringing in your own workmen to fix the issue and issuing the invoice to the landlord or agreeing the repayment via a reduction in rent or lump sum repayment.
(3) This is not the issue in this instance, the OP said they left at the end of the lease and always paid on time.
(4) Again, doesn't appear to be the case here.

AfterHrsProp

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

(1) Just to be clear, there is no legal recourse for these actions.
(2) The first step to take is to discuss with the landlord bringing in your own workmen to fix the issue and issuing the invoice to the landlord or agreeing the repayment via a reduction in rent or lump sum repayment.
(3) This is not the issue in this instance, the OP said they left at the end of the lease and always paid on time.
(4) Again, doesn't appear to be the case here.

1) Where did I mention going down the legal route?? The OP is looking for advice on the best way to deal with a situation like the above. No-one would advocate going down the legal route as a first port of call unless they didn't know what they were talking about. Have you professional experience in property management, property law or dealing with tenancy rights?

2) Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make in relation to my post here. I would recommend the tenant to contact threshold or the PRTB in the event that his landlord was not co-operating with the above.

3) It is a possible issue in this instance as the agent/landlord may withhold part/all of the tenants deposit if they have previously signed a fixed lease and leave it early without paying the remainder. The OP would have to expand more on their opening post in order for us to know if it was relevant or not.

4) Again, potentially relevant depending upon the type of lease the tenants were operating under. The OP would have to expand further.

Refrain from dissecting my posts if you're going to misread & misquote them.

Michael D Not Higgins

AfterHrsProp wrote: »

1) Where did I mention going down the legal route?? The OP is looking for advice on the best way to deal with a situation like the above. No-one would advocate going down the legal route as a first port of call unless they didn't know what they were talking about. Have you professional experience in property management, property law or dealing with tenancy rights?

2) Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make in relation to my post here. I would recommend the tenant to contact threshold or the PRTB in the event that his landlord was not co-operating with the above.

3) It is a possible issue in this instance as the agent/landlord may withhold part/all of the tenants deposit if they have previously signed a fixed lease and leave it early without paying the remainder. The OP would have to expand more on their opening post in order for us to know if it was relevant or not.

4) Again, potentially relevant depending upon the type of lease the tenants were operating under. The OP would have to expand further.

Refrain from dissecting my posts if you're going to misread & misquote them.

(1) I was pointing out that it wasn't the route to pursue in the first instance, as there is no legal recourse. In the first instance you attempt to get the landlord to repair it or do it yourself as laid out in the RTA 2004.

(2) You want the tenant to give the landlord an option that is not within the legal framework of the RTA then run to the PRTB if they don't agree? I'm sorry but you're wrong.

(3) From the OP it appears they informed the landlord on time and had to wait months for rectification works, also it reads that they moved out on the last day of the lease and paid on time. I agree that it could be taken otherwise but that is how it reads.

(4) See above, they notified the landlord.

AfterHrsProp

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

(1) I was pointing out that it wasn't the route to pursue in the first instance, as there is no legal recourse. In the first instance you attempt to get the landlord to repair it or do it yourself as laid out in the RTA 2004.

(2) You want the tenant to give the landlord an option that is not within the legal framework of the RTA then run to the PRTB if they don't agree? I'm sorry but you're wrong.

(3) From the OP it appears they informed the landlord on time and had to wait months for rectification works, also it reads that they moved out on the last day of the lease and paid on time. I agree that it could be taken otherwise but that is how it reads.

(4) See above, they notified the landlord.

1) Where did I mention it was the route to take in the first instance?? You're the one that brought it into the conversation while quoting my post at the same time. Try reading you're own post back again.

2) Again, you're misquoting my post. I encouraged the OP to speak to threshold or the PRTB to see if they could help them in this situation or possibly speak on their behalf if the tenant wasn't having any success with the landlord making the necessary repairs.

3) You're making assumptions now. The OP has also said the agent has informed them they are short with the rent. We wont know the full story unless the OP expands further.

4) You can notify your landlord leaving early or not paying him the full rent, that doesn't make it right. Again op would have to expand further

Michael D Not Higgins

AfterHrsProp wrote: »

1) Where did I mention it was the route to take in the first instance?? You're the one that brought it into the conversation while quoting my post at the same time. Try reading you're own post back again.

2) Again, you're misquoting my post. I encouraged the OP to speak to threshold or the PRTB to see if they could help them in this situation or possibly speak on their behalf if the tenant wasn't having any success with the landlord making the necessary repairs.

3) You're making assumptions now. The OP has also said the agent has informed them they are short with the rent. We wont know the full story unless the OP expands further.

4) You can notify your landlord leaving early or not paying him the full rent, that doesn't make it right. Again op would have to expand further

I'm not the one misquoting here. Combine 1 and 2 from your first post that i highlighted and you've encouraged them to operate outside the legal framework, then use that framework against the landlord.

3 I agreed is open to interpretation and requires more information.

Read your own 4 again. I never said anything about leaving early. It was notification of the defects.

AfterHrsProp

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm not the one misquoting here. Combine 1 and 2 from your first post that i highlighted and you've encouraged them to operate outside the legal framework, then use that framework against the landlord.

3 I agreed is open to interpretation and requires more information.

Read your own 4 again. I never said anything about leaving early. It was notification of the defects.

Again, where did I mention going down the legal route or for them to operate outside the current legal framework?? You're assuming again. Only somebody giving out poor misinformed advice would advocate going down the legal route to start off with, it's always best to avoid this if possible. I recommended him to make his landlord aware of the defects & then if the landlord still wasn't cooperating after a reasonable period of time to seek advice from threshold or the PRTB as to his/her rights given their particular situation.

As I said already, try reading my post correctly before you start misquoting it & making you're own misinformed assumptions.

Michael D Not Higgins

Fine I'll quote you again

"(1)this is the time then to discuss a reduction to the rent with the landlord or an early exit from the lease.

(2)If the landlord is not interested in either of these options, then the tenant should contact threshold & the PRTB."

The correct advice to give is the "fix it yourself and seek repayment from landlord" which I advised. This is what Threshold or the PRTB will advise as this is what's covered in the legislation. There is no legal recourse for your advice so why even suggest it. It is plainly bad advice.

AfterHrsProp

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Fine I'll quote you again

"(1)this is the time then to discuss a reduction to the rent with the landlord or an early exit from the lease.

(2)If the landlord is not interested in either of these options, then the tenant should contact threshold & the PRTB."

The correct advice to give is the "fix it yourself and seek repayment from landlord" which I advised. This is what Threshold or the PRTB will advise as this is what's covered in the legislation. There is no legal recourse for your advice so why even suggest it. It is plainly bad advice.

You recommended for the tenant to bring in his own people to fix the problem or to fix it himself.That's ridiculous advice, there isn't a landlord around who would agree to that. Only somebody completely naive in property management would advocate that course of action. What about the potential for poor workmanship? overpriced work?making the problem worse?

I advised the tenant to first seek a resolution with the landlord whether that was monetary or not or to fix the particular issue. Failing that then if the landlord wasn't co-operating to seek advice from threshold or PRTB as to his/her rights. If there is issues with damp potentially impacting the structure of the property the landlord could be open to the idea of a tenant leaving the property early so he properly rectify the problem.

Michael D Not Higgins

AfterHrsProp wrote: »

You recommended for the tenant to bring in his own people to fix the problem or to fix it himself.That's ridiculous advice, there isn't a landlord around who would agree to that. Only somebody completely naive in property management would advocate that course of action. What about the potential for poor workmanship? overpriced work?making the problem worse?

I advised the tenant to first seek a resolution with the landlord whether that was monetary or not or to fix the particular issue. Failing that then if the landlord wasn't co-operating to seek advice from threshold or PRTB as to his/her rights. If there is issues with damp potentially impacting the structure of the property the landlord could be open to the idea of a tenant leaving the property early so he properly rectify the problem.

In the context of doing it themselves it was clear I meant getting workmen in as I advised first. If the landlord does not fulfil their obligations they are running the gauntlet themselves in the quality of work if the tenant has to do their job for them. This is covered in the RTA. Your advice is not.

AfterHrsProp

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

In the context of doing it themselves it was clear I meant getting workmen in as I advised first. If the landlord does not fulfil their obligations they are running the gauntlet themselves in the quality of work if the tenant has to do their job for them. This is covered in the RTA. Your advice is not.

You recommended they discuss with the landlord first them bringing in their own workmen to do it themselves. Do you really think any landlord in their right mind would agree to that???? They would be laughed out of it, it's poor advice

I offered a practical solution because I live in the real world & any landlord with an ounce of cop on would understand the seriousness of the above if it ever happened to one of their properties. Anything that could affect the integrity of the structure needs to be taken very seriously & a landlord should be open to some sort of resolution as quickly as possible if it's necessary

Michael D Not Higgins

AfterHrsProp wrote: »

You recommended they discuss with the landlord first them bringing in their own workmen to do it themselves. Do you really think any landlord in their right mind would agree to that???? They would be laughed out of it, it's poor advice

I offered a practical solution because I live in the real world & any landlord with an ounce of cop on would understand the seriousness of the above if it ever happened to one of their properties. Anything that could affect the integrity of the structure needs to be taken very seriously & a landlord should be open to some sort of resolution as quickly as possible if it's necessary

They shouldn't agree to it. They should fix it themselves. If they don't, like in the OP's case, 12 (g) of the RTA can be invoked by the tenant.

Noo

Hi guys OP, glad my query stirred up a bit of a dicussion. I'll try clear things up further. Yes everything was brought to the landlords/EAs attention at the time with several emails reminding them when nothing further was done.

Eventually the landlord came round with a roofer for a quote but didnt like the quote so said she was going to shop around...was still months until anything was done.

As for the mould, it was the third time it happened, after the second time they brought it to the attention of the EA that while the mould was cleaned no one looked for the cause of it and that it'll come back, that comment was ignored, the same time the following year the mould came back. Took until then for them to actually go into the attic.

Yes they will be asking the EA to show them exactly where the owe rent.