Landlord refusing to return deposit

tyres

Quick one for you here if anybody is of any assistance..

Moved in January 16
Paid €300 deposit along with months rent on the 25th Jan
Live in landlord
No rental agreement signed and no receipt given of deposit paid
Paid rent up until 25th April
Tonight told landlord that I am moving out this Sunday 10th, 2 weeks paid rent being left
Landlord refusing to give deposit back

What options, if any, have I available to me?
As far as I know ptrb is a non runner due to landlord being a live in landlord.
Any advice appreciated.

tyres

athtrasna

tyres wrote: »

Quick one for you here if anybody is of any assistance..

Moved in January 16
Paid €300 deposit along with months rent on the 25th Jan
Live in landlord
No rental agreement signed and no receipt given of deposit paid
Paid rent up until 25th April
Tonight told landlord that I am moving out this Sunday 10th, 2 weeks paid rent being left
Landlord refusing to give deposit back

What options, if any, have I available to me?
As far as I know ptrb is a non runner due to landlord being a live in landlord.
Any advice appreciated.

tyres

As a licensee there is no predefined notice period just "reasonable notice". You don't mention bills, are they included in your rent? If so the landlord has no right to withold your deposit if the room is returned in good condition. If not the landlord may be holding the deposit until the bills come in.

Michael D Not Higgins

The only other option is the small claims court. They deal with deposits that don't fall under the remit of the PRTB.

Taylor365

Did he mention why?

tyres

So am I right in thinking that this does not fall under the prtb remit??

Reason given for moving out was to live with g/friend and child so pretty valid reason. All bills were paid for fortnightly so no bills remain.

FishOnABike

Did the landlord give any reason why he is not returning your deposit?

Gator88

As above, what reason did he give?

Did he say that it was a non refundable deposit when you gave it to him?

It is very possible that he doesn't know that its supposed to be returned to you

tyres

No reason given, just said that deposits were not being returned. No mention of a non refundable deposit either on receipt of deposit.
It was just presumed that it was going to be returned on departing house once room was in order and bills paid to date, which is the case in relation to both of these...

Taylor365

Taken from an Irish Time article:

You should note that the deposit remains the lawful property of the tenant unless the landlord establishes a right to it, and the onus is on the landlord to prove why part or all of the deposit should not be returned.

BUT, without any signed agreement who is to say any deposit was paid.

Best bet is small claims court i reckon. Even just mentioning it might make him do a 180. Either way, it'll only cost you €25.

FishOnABike

I would put it in writing to the landlord requesting return of the deposit in full. If you want to pursue it further it is best to have a papertrail.

tyres

Nice one, thanks for your responses..much appreciated

Pawwed Rig

Taylor365 wrote: »

Taken from an Irish Time article:

You should note that the deposit remains the lawful property of the tenant unless the landlord establishes a right to it, and the onus is on the landlord to prove why part or all of the deposit should not be returned.[/I.

This is not relevant as a landlord tenant relationship doea not exist.

MarkAnthony

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is not relevant as a landlord tenant relationship doea not exist.

It does, it's just not one regulated by the PRTB. The article might be refering to a regulated relationship however the legal standpoint is still correct in this scenario.

theteal

Small Claims Court is for consumer issues. I'm really not sure it applies here.

Claw Hammer

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It does, it's just not one regulated by the PRTB. The article might be refering to a regulated relationship however the legal standpoint is still correct in this scenario.

It is a licence arrangement, not a landlord tenant arrangement. It is more akin to
a hotel guest arrangement that a landlord tenant arrangeent.

baldbear

So there was zero reason given for not returning the deposit?

Michael D Not Higgins

theteal wrote: »

Small Claims Court is for consumer issues. I'm really not sure it applies here.

Actually it does
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html
Claims for the non-return of a rent deposit for certain kinds of rented properties, such as, a holiday home or a flat in a premises where the landlord also lives. The Private Residential Tenancies Board handles such claims for the mainstream private rented housing sector.

MarkAnthony

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is a licence arrangement, not a landlord tenant arrangement. It is more akin to
a hotel guest arrangement that a landlord tenant arrangeent.

It's not and people would be wise to stop thinking it is.

It's not regulated and it's a much looser arrnagement, however there are reasonable notice requirements and the relationship is a Landlord - client (what ever you want to call the person staying be it licencee, tenant etc.). The onus is on the LL to show why they are holding onto a deposit.

The hotel relationship is tottally different and stricter in some regards.

dancingqueen

I was once in this situation, landlord thought he'd be clever and try dupe me. I got onto Threshold and they called him and I had it back the next day.

I don't know if they still deal with these issues, this is going back nearly 10 years ago. It's worth a shot though.

MarkAnthony

I distinctly remember going around to a guy's gaffe with a few friends and sitting there in his livingroom while a guy we worked with asked politely for the deposit back again. No threats or anything like that, just 4 hairy arsed blokes sat in his livingroom drinking tea looking like we weren't going to move for a while.

Of course I don't suggest you do anything like that.

Claw Hammer

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's not and people would be wise to stop thinking it is.

It's not regulated and it's a much looser arrnagement, however there are reasonable notice requirements and the relationship is a Landlord - client (what ever you want to call the person staying be it licencee, tenant etc.). The onus is on the LL to show why they are holding onto a deposit.

The hotel relationship is tottally different and stricter in some regards.

There is no onus on a landlord in situations not regulated by the PRTB. There are no reasonable notice requirements other than might be implied in the contract. The lodger only has a personal licence to reside in the house which can be revoked at any time. There migh be an entitlement to damages for breach of contract at some point but it is certainly not a landlord and tenant relationship of any kind.

MarkAnthony

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is no onus on a landlord in situations not regulated by the PRTB. There are no reasonable notice requirements other than might be implied in the contract. The lodger only has a personal licence to reside in the house which can be revoked at any time. There migh be an entitlement to damages for breach of contract at some point but it is certainly not a landlord and tenant relationship of any kind.

What makes you think any of that?

The onus comes from the standard contractural obligations.

The notice requirements is the common law requirement of reasonable notice to licencees which ranges from this type of realtionship all the way through to the amount of time it reasonably takes to get out of a shop when asked.

Look at any legal article on this subject and you'll see the terms Landlord and tenant used. If you want so show me the legal definitions of those in a legal dictonary I'm always happy to be corrected.

While a poor source for law, practical advice from Citizens advice for any tenant sharing with someone unaware of their obligations here.

Claw Hammer

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What makes you think any of that?

The onus comes from the standard contractural obligations.

The notice requirements is the common law requirement of reasonable notice to licencees which ranges from this type of realtionship all the way through to the amount of time it reasonably takes to get out of a shop when asked.

Look at any legal article on this subject and you'll see the terms Landlord and tenant used. If you want so show me the legal definitions of those in a legal dictonary I'm always happy to be corrected.

I'm not going to continue this back and forth with various posters who don't know they're bum from their elbow in relation to this relationship. If you want further clarification and additional sources from better posters than I, feel free to test your assertions in the legal discussions forum.

While a poor source for law, practical advice from Citizens advice for any tenant sharing with someone unaware of their obligations here.

Thdere are numerous cases defining a tenant. Exclusive possession, at a rent is the standard definition. A licencee does not have exclusive possession. There is usually no written contract so the principles applicable to any contract apply. The PRTB has no jurisdiction and the District Court will have to be satisfied there was a contract and a breach if they are to award damages. The notice requirement is only reasonable notice which will depend on the circumstances in each case. It is positively dangerous to rely on Citizens Advice FAQs or the like in such a case.

MarkAnthony

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Thdere are numerous cases defining a tenant. Exclusive possession, at a rent is the standard definition. A licencee does not have exclusive possession. There is usually no written contract so the principles applicable to any contract apply. The PRTB has no jurisdiction and the District Court will have to be satisfied there was a contract and a breach if they are to award damages. The notice requirement is only reasonable notice which will depend on the circumstances in each case. It is positively dangerous to rely on Citizens Advice FAQs or the like in such a case.

So you're now ackowledging that reasonable notice is required and that generally the onus is on the party in possession of a deposit to prove breach?

I'll concede the use of terms such as landlord and tenant is semantic.

Claw Hammer

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So you're now ackowledging that reasonable notice is required and that generally the onus is on the party in possession of a deposit to prove breach?

I'll concede the use of terms such as landlord and tenant is semantic.

There is no onus on a party in possession of a deposit to prove anything other than at the PRTB. In court the normal evidential rules apply, he who alleges must prove.
What is reasonable depends on the circumstances and is for a court to determine.
The use of terms such as landlord and tenant is not semantic. This is a legal discussion and using colloquilisms is confusing the real issue.

MarkAnthony

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is no onus on a party in possession of a deposit to prove anything other than at the PRTB. In court the normal evidential rules apply, he who alleges must prove.

Perfect, good to see we're in full agreement and have been since the start. Not sure whwy we needed half a dozen posts back and forth but there we go.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What is reasonable depends on the circumstances and is for a court to determine.

Absolutely, but it does have to be reasonable

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The use of terms such as landlord and tenant is not semantic. This is a legal discussion and using colloquilisms is confusing the real issue.

It's actually not a legal discussion but that aside - as I've said numerous legal articles would refer to landlords and tenants in these situations. Happy to agree to disagree here given we've agreed the licensor must prove damage/breach and give reasonable notice. Thats enough to be helpful to others reading the thread.

Claw Hammer

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Perfect, good to see we're in full agreement and have been since the start. Not sure whwy we needed half a dozen posts back and forth but there we go.




Absolutely, but it does have to be reasonable



It's actually not a legal discussion but that aside - as I've said numerous legal articles would refer to landlords and tenants in these situations. Happy to agree to disagree here given we've agreed the licensor must prove damage/breach and give reasonable notice. Thats enough to be helpful to others reading the thread.

I have yet to see a legal article refer to landlord and tenant in these situations. If the deposit is witheld it is for the person seeking it back to prove it was wrongly witheld. At the PRTB the landlord has to justify retaining it. The burden of proof is on the licencee since he is going to be the complainant in court.

MarkAnthony

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I have yet to see a legal article refer to landlord and tenant in these situations. If the deposit is witheld it is for the person seeking it back to prove it was wrongly witheld. At the PRTB the landlord has to justify retaining it. The burden of proof is on the licencee since he is going to be the complainant in court.

It wont be though. All the complainant has to do is show that it was witheld. The SmCCP will then do the rest if the LL does not show why it was withheld.

Edit 2: Sorry for being rude above (previous edited post) you were nothing but polite to me in expressing your view of the situation.

athtrasna

Mod note

Claw hammer and MarkAnthony if you want to continue to with this to and fro please take it to pm, it has taken over the OP's thread. Thanks