PRTB advice please

gramo

Hi everyone,

Thank you for taking the time to read this and giving your advice.

Let me give you a quick rundown and see what everyone thinks.
Myself and my wife and our children had been renting a property in Wicklow. We signed up for a five year lease with no break clause all was good and we loved the house. 10 months into it my wife lost her job and there was no way I could cover everything in my wage. We wrote to the landlord giving him about 40 days notice, I rang him and he was happy we told him instead of struggling and possibly falling behind on the rent. When I met him to give the keys back he said he was not happy and was keeping out deposit, a substantial amount. I opened a case with the PRTB and will have our meeting sometime next week.

I was told yesterday that I was apparently suppose to offer our landlord someone to take over the lease and if he declined then I could give him my notice and this might go against us.

Has anyone had a similar issue? What are my chances of getting our deposit back? We are in a bad situation as it is. Living with my father, money is tight and the deposit is a lot of money to us.

The landlord has since rented the property at an increase to what we had been paying. I feel he let me think I was getting our deposit back so we would leave without issue and now he is in a better position.

We had a lot on out plate and this mixup could cost us our deposit.

Any advice is appreciated

Michael D Not Higgins

The deposit can only be retained for the amount of financial loss incurred by the landlord. His loss in this instance is the rent due for any vacant period (mitigated by the obligation of the landlord to re-let quickly), any advertising and agency costs to get a new tenant, any repairs above wear and tear, etc. What he should have done was give you a breakdown of all these, with receipts where relevant to support any retained amount.

What's likely to happen is the RTB will come up with some figure that covers these costs and refund you the difference (if any).

gramo

We left his house spotless with no damage to anything. I just find this whole issue stresfull on myself and my wife. So the fact that in this whole mess we didn't offer him a replacement tennant before giving him notice won't go against us?

Michael D Not Higgins

gramo wrote: »

We left his house spotless with no damage to anything. I just find this whole issue stresfull on myself and my wife. So the fact that in this whole mess we didn't offer him a replacement tennant before giving him notice won't go against us?

It will insofar as you won't get your deposit back. You may get some of it back depending on the costs to the landlord.

subrosa

While it is always difficult to say for sure what an RTB adjudicator will rule, it's likely that you will have the deposit returned minus any costs the landlord incurred in replacing you as tenants.

The adjudication process is pretty informal - make sure you bring any documents you want to talk about any just explain the situation to the adjudicator. Make sure the landlord produces any documents she/he wishes to rely on, and object if they don't.

It will most likely revolve around how much it cost the landlord for you to break the lease - so make sure you know (or find out if possible) how soon after you moved out it was re-rented and by what method ad (on daft etc.)

By aware if you were in a RPZ or not. Greystones was added very recently but much of the rest of Wicklow was already there. If the landlord has raised the rent above the permitted amount, while it is not strictly relevant, it won't impress the adjudicator.

gramo

Where we are came into the RPZ a week after we moved out. Like I said earlier it appears that possibly he knew what was coming ahead and made me think there was no issue with moving out so we would move without any issues for him. It's a win win for him.

Thanks for everyone's feesback

davindub

gramo wrote: »

We left his house spotless with no damage to anything. I just find this whole issue stresfull on myself and my wife. So the fact that in this whole mess we didn't offer him a replacement tennant before giving him notice won't go against us?

Just to be aware, you need to make your own case, even in mediation, so you allege the LL retained your deposit unfairly, why? You need to be able to explain this as per the RTB act, without just saying I can't afford it.

You can get help with this from Threshold, but you need to look at the RTB act, the notice periods provided for in the act, and your lease with the LL, 5 years is probably a bit onerous, unless rent was lower than market rate to allow for this, something maybe to look into. Also if you have proof that the house was rented quickly, etc, make sure you have it on the day.

FLAC have a guide that goes through some examples of issues, you will need to google it.

Mrs Shuttleworth

gramo wrote: »

Where we are came into the RPZ a week after we moved out. Like I said earlier it appears that possibly he knew what was coming ahead and made me think there was no issue with moving out so we would move without any issues for him. It's a win win for him.

Thanks for everyone's feesback

The fact remains that you broke the terms of the lease you signed up to. Furthermore you didn't get a replacement tenant for the landlord in accordance with the lease's early termination provisions. It's not a "win win" for him, he is mitigating his loss and protecting his position in the face of your breach.

This was done to me by tenants eight months into a lease last year. I too forfeit the deposit to cover the costs of reletting but paid them for shelving that they installed without my consent. I also gave them a reference that ignored the breach.

If I had broken a five year lease and the landlord had merely docked my deposit I would consider myself very lucky indeed. I certainly would not be pursuing him at the RTB. Is he now going to give you a reference to enable you to find somewhere else? Highly unlikely given your decision to pursue him.

Graham

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The fact remains that you broke the terms of the lease you signed up to. Furthermore you didn't get a replacement tenant for the landlord in accordance with the lease's early termination provisions. It's not a "win win" for him, he is mitigating his loss and protecting his position in the face of your breach.

I assume you're not privy to any additional information in the OPs circumstances and as such have no idea what loss (if any) the landlord may have suffered. On the same basis you have no idea what part of the deposit the landlord can legitimately retain.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Graham wrote: »

I assume you're not privy to any additional information in the OPs circumstances and as such have no idea what loss (if any) the landlord may have suffered. On the same basis you have no idea what part of the deposit the landlord can legitimately retain.

It is standard in a lease and the common residential tenancy act leases in circulation that if broken by a tenant prior to the expiry of its fixed term that de facto the tenant becomes liable for the remainder of rent payable under that lease unless the tenant themselves procures a replacement tenant that the landlord approves. There is nothing in the OP's post to indicate otherwise.

The landlord on the face of it from the information given is being generous in not pursuing this cause of action but deducting the costs of re-letting earlier than warranted by the tenants from the deposit.

If it were me in the same situation, I'd be happy to let the deposit go to the landlord on moral and ethical grounds just as much as financial.

Michael D Not Higgins

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It is standard in a lease and the common residential tenancy act leases in circulation that if broken by a tenant prior to the expiry of its fixed term that de facto the tenant becomes liable for the remainder of rent payable under that lease unless the tenant themselves procures a replacement tenant that the landlord approves. There is nothing in the OP's post to indicate otherwise.

The landlord on the face of it from the information given is being generous in not pursuing this cause of action but deducting the costs of re-letting earlier than warranted by the tenants from the deposit.

If it were me in the same situation, I'd be happy to let the deposit go to the landlord on moral and ethical grounds just as much as financial.

The landlord is obliged to mitigate the loss as per contract law by reletting the property as quickly as possible, they are not just entitled to the rent for the remainder of the lease term.

antoinolachtnai

I am sorry to hear about your situation and I hope your wife gets into employment again soon.

I have been in this situation (as a landlord). I too retained a large part of the deposit.

This was supposed to go to adjudication but the tenant folded ahead of the adjudication, basically because she didn't need the money that much and she realised her case was very weak. It depends on the adjudicator, but I think the landlord is entitled to some expenses here to replace the tenant (you would have incurred these too, if you had replaced the tenant). The typical cost of getting a new tenant if you get an estate agent is about 8 percent or so, which is one one month's rent. There is also the cost of the void.

This is the landlord's loss as a result of your decisions, regardless of whether he gets the place rented after one day or after one month. That is why he wants to be compensated for it.

Maybe you could argue that the increased rent will make up the value of the costs of renting again?

It is worth a try but the problem with this argument is that you were probably benefiting from a rent that was lower than the norm because you had agreed to take the place for a very long lease. He could come back and say that in fact, you should now pay him back the value of the discount.

gramo

The only mistake we made was not offering someone to take over the remainder of the lease. We offered that after we gave the notice, this should of been done first. If they decided to not accept it then we are entitled to give 35 days notice and no deposit can be retained. That is according to the PRTB website.

This will obviously go against us but our main concern at the time was not been able to afford to pay the rent. The last thing we wanted was to fall behind and have the landlord chasing for his rent. We thought we where been considerate and going about things the right way.

All we can do is see what happens.