Landlord refuses to give back deposit

CorkBoi82

I have been renting a room for a few months now, but I will have to be moving out soon. The landlord does not want to give back the deposit unless I stay for a full year.

At the start in the email correspondence I mentioned that I 'planned' to stay for 12 months. The landlord did not say anything about refusing to give back the deposit if I move out earlier than planned. There was no written contract, the house is not owner occupied, also I am a student.

Is there anything I can do in this situation to get my deposit back?

davo10

How soon is "soon"? You have to give correct notice depending on whether you are there less or more than six months.

You agreed to a term of 12 months in your correspondence, you can reassign the lease by getting someone to take over the room, or the LL is allowed to mitigate losses incurred by having to re-let the room.

Renting is a two way agreement, the LL could not have kicked you out sooner than the agreed 12 months term, but you are also bound by this period.

Fian

davo10 wrote: »

You agreed to a term of 12 months in your correspondence, you can reassign the lease by getting someone to take over the room, or the LL is allowed to mitigate losses incurred by having to re-let the room.
.

Not certain. You may have. Even if we saw all the correspondence this would probably be less than unambiguous.

Give as much notice as you can. Inform the landlord that you intend to raise a complaint with the RTB if they refuse to return the deposit and ask them to explain the basis on which they assert an entitlement to retain it.

Ms Doubtfire1

do you rent a room or the whole house?

CorkBoi82

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

do you rent a room or the whole house?

Just a room. I have been there for 4 months now.

Ms Doubtfire1

are there other tenants?

davo10

Fian wrote: »

Not certain. You may have. Even if we saw all the correspondence this would probably be less than unambiguous.

Give as much notice as you can. Inform the landlord that you intend to raise a complaint with the RTB if they refuse to return the deposit and ask them to explain the basis on which they assert an entitlement to retain it.

The tenancy agreement confirms the terms agreed, there is an electronic copy (email) of the fact that the op stated he/she planned to stay for 12 months. That's not ambiguous in any way.

You give as much notice as required.

CorkBoi82

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

are there other tenants?

Yes there are a few more students.

Ms Doubtfire1

aha. Does anyone have a lease with the LL? You would be a licensee anyways - he can't keep your deposit unless you are head tenant and have a 12 month lease agreement.everything else by pm

davo10

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

aha. Does anyone have a lease with the LL? You would be a licensee anyways - he can't keep your deposit unless you are head tenant and have a 12 month lease agreement.everything else by pm

How did you come to that conclusion? Why would the op be a licensee instead of a tenant? He/she dealt directly with the LL rather than another tenant, the LL has the deposit, not the other tenant and the lease was agreed with the LL, not the other tenant, and the LL does not live there.

Also, if the op is a licensee, why wouldn't the LL still be entitled to keep part of the deposit for the very same reasons as a tenancy? If anything, a licensee agreement would give the op less rights and make it more difficult to retrieve the deposit.

Claw Hammer

CorkBoi82 wrote: »

I have been renting a room for a few months now, but I will have to be moving out soon. The landlord does not want to give back the deposit unless I stay for a full year.

At the start in the email correspondence I mentioned that I 'planned' to stay for 12 months. The landlord did not say anything about refusing to give back the deposit if I move out earlier than planned. There was no written contract, the house is not owner occupied, also I am a student.

Is there anything I can do in this situation to get my deposit back?

Start an RTB dispute. It will cost €25 but you will likely get some damages for the failure to return the deposit promptly. Tell the LL in advance you plan on going to the RTB. He might see sense.

Ms Doubtfire1

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Start an RTB dispute. It will cost €25 but you will likely get some damages for the failure to return the deposit promptly. Tell the LL in advance you plan on going to the RTB. He might see sense.

he's got no lease. Afaik no one has a lease and he is NOT the first tenant in the house.He's a licensee. RTB not applicable.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Start an RTB dispute. It will cost €25 but you will likely get some damages for the failure to return the deposit promptly. Tell the LL in advance you plan on going to the RTB. He might see sense.

Dear God you are unrelenting, the op just posted that he/she agreed a 12 month term and is moving out shy of that. It is clearly stated that the LL can mitigate loses incurred in finding a new tenant, and as the op's deposit is only part of the total rent/deposit for the property, it isn't that much. You really have to take your finger off the trigger every now and again.

Ms Doubtfire1

davo10 wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion? Why would the op be a licensee instead of a tenant? He/she dealt directly with the LL rather than another tenant, the LL has the deposit, not the other tenant and the lease was agreed with the LL, not the other tenant, and the LL does not live there.

Also, if the op is a licensee, why wouldn't the LL still be entitled to keep part of the deposit for the very same reasons as a tenancy? If anything, a licensee agreement would give the op less rights and make it more difficult to retrieve the deposit.

Cause there is no lease, he's there 4 month (even if there was a lease unless it's fixed) he could leave in the 4 month, and he's not the only person in the house, neither is he the first renter. LL chancing his arm

Claw Hammer

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Start an RTB dispute. It will cost €25 but you will likely get some damages for the failure to return the deposit promptly. Tell the LL in advance you plan on going to the RTB. He might see sense.

he's got no lease. Afaik no one has a lease and he is NOT the first tenant in the house.He's a licensee. RTB not applicable.

He doesn't need a written lease. The LL does not reside there so he is a tenant.

Ms Doubtfire1

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He doesn't need a written lease. The LL does not reside there so he is a tenant.

Thats fine too. without a written lease the tenancy act applies would he be a tenant and he can leave at any point within the first 6 month of the tenancy WITHOUT giving a reason. Happy now?

davo10

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

he's got no lease. Afaik no one has a lease and he is NOT the first tenant in the house.He's a licensee. RTB not applicable.

Tenancy leases do not have to be written, they can be verbal, they can be fixed term or periodic. The op and LL agreed on a 12 month lease, this is the term the op informed the LL he/she planned to stay.

Just because there is no written lease does not constitute a lisencee agreement. Op is sharing a house with other tenants, not subletting or there under lincense of another tenant. If he/she was, the op would be posting that one of the other tenants won't give back the deposit or that LL is living in property.

Claw Hammer

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Thats fine too. without a written lease the tenancy act applies would he be a tenant and he can leave at any point within the first 6 month of the tenancy WITHOUT giving a reason. Happy now?

There is no fixed term as it was never expressly agreed in writing. He never has to give a reason. The first 6 months is only relevant in that Part 4 rights accrue and the landlord can't remove a tenant without reason after 6 months. The tenant can go at any time.

Ms Doubtfire1

davo10 wrote: »

Just because there is no written lease does not constitute a lisencee agreement. Op is sharing a house with other tenants, not subletting or there under lincense of another tenant. If he/she was, the op would be posting that one of the other tenants won't give back the deposit or that LL is living in property.

And thats not what I'm saying. There is however no written lease - as such it can't be proven that the tenant has a 12 month fixed term lease. And, as such, Tenant can leave within the first 6 month without any problem. . And, given the fact that it can't even be proven that he is a tenant (as there are others) rather than a licensee (question has anyone else a lease agreement has been unanswered) occupier is allowed to leave without any penalty unless otherwise proven.:-)

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is no fixed term as it was never expressly agreed in writing. He never has to give a reason. The first 6 months is only relevant in that Part 4 rights accrue and the landlord can't remove a tenant without reason after 6 months. The tenant can go at any time.

You do not need to agree a fixed term in writing, it can be verbal. Fixed term or periodic tenancies do not have to be written, but it does clarify matters for both parties.

In this case, from the opening post, the op informed the LL by email that he/she planned to stay for a fixed term, twelve months. That is a fixed term agreement, it does not have to be written, just agreed and the emails show the agreement.

davo10

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

And thats not what I'm saying. There is however no written lease - as such it can't be proven that the tenant has a 12 month fixed term lease. And, as such, Tenant can leave within the first 6 month without any problem. . And, given the fact that it can't even be proven that he is a tenant (as there are others) rather than a licensee (question has anyone else a lease agreement has been unanswered) occupier is allowed to leave without any penalty unless otherwise proven.:-)

Have you missed the fact that the op posted that the 12 months is in an email between op and LL?

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

You do not need to agree a fixed term in writing, it can be verbal. Fixed term or periodic tenancies do not have to be written, but it does clarify matters for both parties.

In this case, from the opening post, the op informed the LL by email that he/she planned to stay for a fixed term, twelve months. That is a fixed term agreement, it does not have to be written, just agreed and the emails show the agreement.

Leases for longer than 12 months have to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The O/p only said he planned to stay. The LL did not reply. That is insufficient to hold the o/p to 12 months.

Claw Hammer

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

And thats not what I'm saying. There is however no written lease - as such it can't be proven that the tenant has a 12 month fixed term lease. And, as such, Tenant can leave within the first 6 month without any problem. . And, given the fact that it can't even be proven that he is a tenant (as there are others) rather than a licensee (question has anyone else a lease agreement has been unanswered) occupier is allowed to leave without any penalty unless otherwise proven.:-)

He is obviously a tenant. He entered his agreement directly with the LL. The status of anyone else in the dwelling is irrelevant. The occupier has to give the statutory notice period. The 6 months is irrelevant.

Browney7

I'd say if you mention an RTB dispute to him he'll probably desist.

If OP is a licensee how can there be a lease? People on this board say that licensees have no rights and some take a sense of glee and often spout stuff along the lines of "he could change the locks and put your stuff in black bags in the morning and you could do nothing".

If he's a tenant it's debatable there is even a lease agreement in place. Do people really think an email with the phrase "Planning to stay 12 months" really carries weight and forms a binding commitment? Thought the RTB was a pro tenant anti landlord organisation that will always find in a tenant's favour?

Op could have been using the phrase in the context that the LL was using no lease term at all to differentiate him from someone that may have wanted it for two months.

LL is probably pissed he has to fill the room in summer - it's probably student level accommodation - and he probably will find it hard to get someone before September and is trying to coerce OP into staying.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Leases for longer than 12 months have to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The O/p only said he planned to stay. The LL did not reply. That is insufficient to hold the o/p to 12 months.

I give up, the op said 12months, not longer than 12 months. You really are stretching things to suit yourself.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

I give up, the op said 12months, not longer than 12 months. You really are stretching things to suit yourself.

There was never a concluded agreement about the 12 months. The LL never replied. If the LL wanted to hold the O/P he should have replied making it a condition that the agreement was to be from x date to y date.

nikkisclearout

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There was never a concluded agreement about the 12 months. The LL never replied. If the LL wanted to hold the O/P he should have replied making it a condition that the agreement was to be from x date to y date.

where are you seeing that the landlord never replied?

"At the start in the email correspondence I mentioned that I 'planned' to stay for 12 months. The landlord did not say anything about refusing to give back the deposit if I move out earlier than planned."

CorkBoi82

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Does anyone have a lease with the LL?

Noone in the house has a lease with the landlord.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

You haven't a leg to stand on OP, mark it down to experience and move on.

Claw Hammer

nikkisclearout wrote: »

where are you seeing that the landlord never replied?

"At the start in the email correspondence I mentioned that I 'planned' to stay for 12 months. The landlord did not say anything about refusing to give back the deposit if I move out earlier than planned."

He didn't reply as regards the 12 months. You will find that if he wanted to sell within the 12 months, he would deny having ever agreed 12 month lease. He can't have his cake and eat it. He is probably not registered with the RTB either. The threat of a case will have him running for cover.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He didn't reply as regards the 12 months. You will find that if he wanted to sell within the 12 months, he would deny having ever agreed 12 month lease. He can't have his cake and eat it. He is probably not registered with the RTB either. The threat of a case will have him running for cover.

Is the LL selling? You are making this stuff up as you go along. The op clearly stated in his first post that in email correspondence he informed the LL that he planned to stay for 12 months. Can there be any simpler way to put that?

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Leases for longer than 12 months have to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The O/p only said he planned to stay. The LL did not reply. That is insufficient to hold the o/p to 12 months.

Could you please provide some link to back up your statement that a tenancy of more than 12 months "have to be in writing". I cannot find any reference to this in the RTA, maybe it is there but I can't find it.

What I did find though is lots of sites which state clearly that a written lease, though preferable, is not required. Among those sites is CA and Threshold, now I know neither is infallible, but as you have posted such an unequivocal statement, please back it up.

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/do-i-have-to-sign-a-lease/

Lead

Can you all sort out your quotes please? It looks like you're talking to yourself.

nikkisclearout

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He didn't reply as regards the 12 months. You will find that if he wanted to sell within the 12 months, he would deny having ever agreed 12 month lease. He can't have his cake and eat it. He is probably not registered with the RTB either. The threat of a case will have him running for cover.

The OP didn't say the landlord didn't reply re the 12 months he said the landlord never said anything about keeping the deposit if he moved out before the 12 months were up.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lead wrote: »

Can you all sort out your quotes please? It looks like you're talking to yourself.

All fixed now :cool:

Michael D Not Higgins

OP, you appear to have agreed a 12 month lease with the landlord in your emails. In that case, you have two options.

1. Assign the lease
You may get a replacement tenant to take up the rest of your lease. In proposing this tenant, the landlord can agree and the remainder of your lease is discharged to the new tenant, or disagree and you are free to break your lease with the correct notice (4 weeks for <6 months) and without penalty.

2. Walk away
By just breaking the lease you are liable for costs for re-advertising, re-letting and lost rent. The landlord should show costs to you to justify any deductions from your deposit.

Browney7

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

OP, you appear to have agreed a 12 month lease with the landlord in your emails. In that case, you have two options.

1. Assign the lease
You may get a replacement tenant to take up the rest of your lease. In proposing this tenant, the landlord can agree and the remainder of your lease is discharged to the new tenant, or disagree and you are free to break your lease with the correct notice (4 weeks for <6 months) and without penalty.

2. Walk away
By just breaking the lease you are liable for costs for re-advertising, re-letting and lost rent. The landlord should show costs to you to justify any deductions from your deposit.

Would the RTB realistically conclude he has a 12 months lease on the basis of the phrase "plan on staying 12 months?" being contained in an email?

Michael D Not Higgins

Browney7 wrote: »

Would the RTB realistically conclude he has a 12 months lease on the basis of the phrase "plan on staying 12 months?" being contained in an email?

I don't know, but if the tables were turned and the OP was being evicted after 4 months having already told the landlord they planned to stay for 12 months, most people would advise taking a dispute with the RTB.

BnB

Alternative idea - Why don't you talk to the landlord and offer to find someone to take the room. If you have someone ready to move in the day that you move out then a) He won't lose any rent and b) he won't have the hassle of finding someone.

CorkBoi82

I talked again with landlord over the phone, he will try to get someone new in my place and deduct rent from my deposit until he gets someone new.

Sounds fair to me.

Thank you all for advice.

Claw Hammer

davo10 wrote: »

Could you please provide some link to back up your statement that a tenancy of more than 12 months "have to be in writing".
https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/do-i-have-to-sign-a-lease/

Section 4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1860/act/154/enacted/en/print.html

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Section 4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1860/act/154/enacted/en/print.html

Doesn't section 5 go on to state what happens after the expiration of the term agreed in writing? ADDED: just spotted OP hasn't been there that long and there was no initial agreement in writing.

Have those particular acts been amended since 1860 :eek:

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

Doesn't section 5 go on to state what happens after the expiration of the term agreed in writing? ADDED: just spotted OP hasn't been there that long and there was no initial agreement in writing.

Have those particular acts been amended since 1860 :eek:

That Act has been amended and there have been some repeals but it is still the basis of L & T law in this jurisdiction. The RTA 2004 left that section in place although it referred to other parts of the 1860 Act.

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Section 4.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1860/act/154/enacted/en/print.html

How is this relevant to the OP though? The fixed term wasn't for more than 12 months so section 4 of Deasy's Act shouldn't come into play, right? (I'm not a lawyer so this is entirely a layman's view)

Claw Hammer

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

How is this relevant to the OP though? The fixed term wasn't for more than 12 months so section 4 of Deasy's Act shouldn't come into play, right? (I'm not a lawyer so this is entirely a layman's view)

If the landlord wants to claim a 1 year lease he will have to show a written lease.

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the landlord wants to claim a 1 year lease he will have to show a written lease.

Does he? I read it as more than 12 months. You even said it yourself

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Leases for longer than 12 months have to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.

and the relevant part of Section 4
"any definite period of time not being from year to year or any lesser period"

None of this is relevant to the OP as they have already resolved their issue with the landlord but I'm interested in your interpretation for future advice.

Claw Hammer

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Does he? I read it as more than 12 months. You even said it yourself



and the relevant part of Section 4
"any definite period of time not being from year to year or any lesser period"

None of this is relevant to the OP as they have already resolved their issue with the landlord but I'm interested in your interpretation for future advice.

Lesser period means week to week, month to month etc. Year to year means an annualised rent paid quarterly. The o/p is paying monthly. The landlord can't infer a years lease without written evidence.

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Lesser period means week to week, month to month etc. Year to year means an annualised rent paid quarterly. The o/p is paying monthly. The landlord can't infer a years lease without written evidence.

You're either skipping over the explanation or I'm not getting it. It says year to year or lesser. Therefore a year lease needn't be in writing, you even said so yourself. I don't get where the paid quarterly comes from either.

Claw Hammer

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You're either skipping over the explanation or I'm not getting it. It says year to year or lesser. Therefore a year lease needn't be in writing, you even said so yourself. I don't get where the paid quarterly comes from either.

A lease from year to year is inferred from the payment frequency. Pay monthly, it is a lease from month to month. If the landlord claims a years lease and he is not being paid quarterly it must be in writing.

Michael D Not Higgins

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A lease from year to year is inferred from the payment frequency. Pay monthly, it is a lease from month to month. If the landlord claims a years lease and he is not being paid quarterly it must be in writing.

But it's not inferred from the payment frequency in this instance. It's agreed as 12 months from the initial discussions between the OP and the landlord.

Claw Hammer

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But it's not inferred from the payment frequency in this instance. It's agreed as 12 months from the initial discussions between the OP and the landlord.

That is the very issue in dispute. Was 12 months agreed from the outset. The o/p only made a declaration of intent. I am planning to stay 12 months. He did not say I undertake to stay 12 months. The essence of a legally binding agreement is offer and acceptance. There must be an unconditional offer and an unqualified acceptance. What we are told here is that there was a statement of intent which is a conditional offer. The landlord did not signify any assent at all. If it is for 12 months it must be in writing in order to be enforceable.