Return of Deposit to Tenant

OolaOwl

Hi

I need some advice please. I have a house that i ended up have to rent out. I have been renting it out for the last number of years. At the end of last year we had a new tenant move in. He agreed to a 1 year lease and paid a deposit and 1 month rent upfront.

2 weeks ago he sent me a text to say he was leaving and was only giving us the 2 weeks notice.

When he left at the weekend i went to inspect the house. The house was dirty but no real damage but in the garden he had dumped all the contents of the fridge incl raw meat , leftover dinners , breakfast cereals etc
It was really disgusting, you can imagine the smell from the meat in this heat.
Apart from that it could draw in rats

Anyway the whole thing has been hugely stressful and we dont live near the house so i have had to travel up and down alot with 2 young kids in tow.

So my question is , is he entitled to the deposit back ?
He was there just 7 months

Its all above board and i registered him with PRTB and i was able to get a new tenant.

Thanks in advance

clintondaly

OolaOwl wrote: »

Hi

I need some advice please. I have a house that i ended up have to rent out. I have been renting it out for the last number of years. At the end of last year we had a new tenant move in. He agreed to a 1 year lease and paid a deposit and 1 month rent upfront.

2 weeks ago he sent me a text to say he was leaving and was only giving us the 2 weeks notice.

When he left at the weekend i went to inspect the house. The house was dirty but no real damage but in the garden he had dumped all the contents of the fridge incl raw meat , leftover dinners , breakfast cereals etc
It was really disgusting, you can imagine the smell from the meat in this heat.
Apart from that it could draw in rats

Anyway the whole thing has been hugely stressful and we dont live near the house so i have had to travel up and down alot with 2 young kids in tow.

So my question is , is he entitled to the deposit back ?
He was there just 7 months

Its all above board and i registered him with PRTB and i was able to get a new tenant.

Thanks in advance

Had you any conditions on the lease for an early termination ?

BarryD2

Take the rough with the smooth would be my advice. Give them their deposit back but make it clear that you weren't impressed and obviously reflect that in any reference sought. Nothing creates more distaste for part time landlords that the fighting over return of deposits. I say that as a renter in the past and having to deal with a right one who was a relative of the actual owner but who who seemed to think they could argue over tuppence.

catrionanic

I’m not a landlord, but if I was, I would look into deducting the remaining two weeks of his notice period and possibly the cost of having the house professionally cleaned.

He must have known he was risking not getting the deposit back from the disgusting mess in the garden alone.

OolaOwl

Well it was a fixed term lease as in 12 months and as per the PRTB he would be bond to give 35 days notice in writing

Pkiernan

The tenant has obligations to reassign the lease.
Keep the deposit until he does so and deduct any loss in rent.

Claw Hammer

Pkiernan wrote: »

The tenant has obligations to reassign the lease.
Keep the deposit until he does so and deduct any loss in rent.

It seems the tenant has gone, and been replaced. In theory, the tenant is only entitled to his deposit back if he does not breach the terms of the lease. In reality, the RTB make the landlord justify retaining deposit and do not take breaches of the lease by the tenant into account unless there is damage and/or unpaid rent. If to find that the puzzles are part of it has been wrongly withheld they make the landlord pay more than the sum which should have been paid back on the grounds that deposits should be returned promptly. More than likely, this is not worth a fight over.

dennyk

Legally, your ex-tenant owes you rent for the remainder of his lease (assuming there was no clause allowing him to break the lease) or until the property was re-let, whichever is shorter. If he didn't pay all rent owed, including this amount, then he is in arrears and you can take that rent owed out of the deposit. Just be very certain about your calculations and document, document, document everything (and definitely do not try to double-dip by charging your ex-tenant any rent from the point your new tenant started their tenancy).

Leaving waste in the garden and leaving the house dirty is beyond ordinary wear and tear, and you can deduct from the deposit the actual cost of disposing of the waste and cleaning the house. You should document and itemize all of the costs you are claiming and ensure that they are reasonable to avoid any issues should the ex-tenant decide to challenge it. You can't deduct extra money from the deposit just because it was extra-gross or because it was stressful for you to come out there to clean it up, though you should be able to deduct a reasonable charge for the time you spent actually cleaning up the mess if you did it yourself.

ted1

OolaOwl wrote: »

Hi

I need some advice please. I have a house that i ended up have to rent out. I have been renting it out for the last number of years. At the end of last year we had a new tenant move in. He agreed to a 1 year lease and paid a deposit and 1 month rent upfront.

2 weeks ago he sent me a text to say he was leaving and was only giving us the 2 weeks notice.

When he left at the weekend i went to inspect the house. The house was dirty but no real damage but in the garden he had dumped all the contents of the fridge incl raw meat , leftover dinners , breakfast cereals etc
It was really disgusting, you can imagine the smell from the meat in this heat.
Apart from that it could draw in rats

Anyway the whole thing has been hugely stressful and we dont live near the house so i have had to travel up and down alot with 2 young kids in tow.

So my question is , is he entitled to the deposit back ?
He was there just 7 months

Its all above board and i registered him with PRTB and i was able to get a new tenant.

Thanks in advance

Because of the rubbish No, but had you employed a cleaning company and got a receipt then he would not be yes

However if he didn’t leave with the correct notice he owes rent. You hold onto the deposit until he pays

The_Conductor

Any cleaning you, or immediate family, do- is not deductible in any manner- you have no entitlement to enumerate the time and effort you put into cleaning up after the tenant. If, on the other hand, you employ someone to do it- and that person is properly registered and accredited- their bill would normally be deductible from the deposit. Note- the remainder of their notice (up to the 35 days) would normally also be deductible- but good luck charging it.

Personally- I'd chalk it down to experience- and I'd suggest you inform the tenant that it would be to their benefit not to ask you for a future reference.

Samuel T. Cogley

If you are going to keep the deposit expect to waste hours if not days dealing with the RTB. Make sure you are 100% sure any deductions are legal.

OolaOwl

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to reply and for all your opinions and advice. I am taking it all onboard. I do feel i am a good landlord and have always been fair. This is the first tenant i have ever had any issues with. I do feel i my good nature has been abused by him. He originally said he wanted the house to made a settled home for him and his very young daughter and was more than happy to take the 1 year lease and longer if he could. I know know that hi daughter does not even live with him but he did have another chap move into one of the bedrooms without my knowledge. He also was late with rent every month and would pay it bit by bit as he would tell me he was waiting for money to come into his bank account. The short notice and garden mess was the tipping point for me really, so in one way i am not sorry he is gone. With all that said i know none of that warrants me keeping his deposit. He has been very abusive on the phone to me since i mentioned the mess and lack of notice and i do feel that tenants have better back up so to speak than landlords.Right rant over

Samuel T. Cogley

Sob story = immediately reject in future. Anyone who tries to play it as more than a business transaction is more than likely trouble IMO.

airy fairy

If the lease is for 12 months, he's left early with 2 weeks notice, so he owes you, the very least, is the remaining 2 weeks of the month.
In theory, you are entitled to ask for a percentage of loss of rent for the remainder of the 12 months of the lease. But because you have it rented again, you really haven't lost those months. If you had got a cleaning company, you could take it from him, but if you've done it yourself, then you get nothing.
The tenant always have more rights imo.
We had a tenant leave after the 12 month lease. Upon leaving, we discovered she had put a hole in the bath. We had to have bath replaced, so kept the amount of cost from her deposit. Did it with advice from our solicitor, so all above board.
Tenant brought us to prtb. She didn't think it was grounds to keep deposit.
Prtb granted us half the price of the bath, saying we were increasing the value of the property by putting a new bath. I swear you couldn't makeup up.
So I think quit while you're ahead and don't fight the small stuff, ie cleaning.

The_Conductor

airy fairy wrote: »

Upon leaving, we discovered she had put a hole in the bath. We had to have bath replaced, so kept the amount of cost from her deposit. Did it with advice from our solicitor, so all above board.
Tenant brought us to prtb. She didn't think it was grounds to keep deposit.
Prtb granted us half the price of the bath, saying we were increasing the value of the property by putting a new bath. I swear you couldn't makeup up.

FFS- that is just ridiculous.
I'd have fought that ruling- on a point of principle- all the way- and sought costs from the RTB for that little nugget of stupidity.

Who in their right mind puts a hole in a bath- seriously- and how on earth did the RTB reckon that replacing a bath that the tenant damaged- with an undamaged bath- had somehow increased the value of the property.

Honestly- I'd have fought this using every possible avenue at my disposal- stupidity does not deserve to be rewarded- and I'm not sure who was more stupid- the tenant- or the RTB arbitrator who came up with this little nugget.

airy fairy

The_Conductor wrote: »

FFS- that is just ridiculous.
I'd have fought that ruling- on a point of principle- all the way- and sought costs from the RTB for that little nugget of stupidity.

Who in their right mind puts a hole in a bath- seriously- and how on earth did the RTB reckon that replacing a bath that the tenant damaged- with an undamaged bath- had somehow increased the value of the property.

Honestly- I'd have fought this using every possible avenue at my disposal- stupidity does not deserve to be rewarded- and I'm not sure who was more stupid- the tenant- or the RTB arbitrator who came up with this little nugget.

We were going to, believe me. We had a management company looking after it also, so plenty on our side so to speak. After the prtb oral hearing it goes to circuit court. Between paying for legal fees and trying to justify ourselves, it would have cost us way more than the deposit.
We've been unfortunate with the property, next tenant overheld for a year, a year free accommodation while waiting for prtb and courts to get him out.
Is it any wonder why there's a lack of rental properties in the country?!!

Samuel T. Cogley

airy fairy wrote: »

We were going to, believe me. We had a management company looking after it also, so plenty on our side so to speak. After the prtb oral hearing it goes to circuit court. Between paying for legal fees and trying to justify ourselves, it would have cost us way more than the deposit.
We've been unfortunate with the property, next tenant overheld for a year, a year free accommodation while waiting for prtb and courts to get him out.
Is it any wonder why there's a lack of rental properties in the country?!!

Sorry to hi-jack. Airy I'd be very much obliged if you'd start a thread and share your story on how you finally managed to get shot. I realise it's a big ask but knowing the process, the length of time and the cost would be very informative for many including myself. I've never seen it done in this forum.

Fol20

BarryD2 wrote: »

Take the rough with the smooth would be my advice. Give them their deposit back but make it clear that you weren't impressed and obviously reflect that in any reference sought. Nothing creates more distaste for part time landlords that the fighting over return of deposits. I say that as a renter in the past and having to deal with a right one who was a relative of the actual owner but who who seemed to think they could argue over tuppence.

Why would you give his deposit back? it’s not your job to work for free to clean up someone’s filth.

At a minimum pay someone that can give a receipt to clean up this guys mess. Deduct that out of his deposit. Then depending on how long it takes you to find someone you also withhold that from the deposit.

The_Conductor

Fol20 wrote: »

Why would you give his deposit back? it’s not your job to work for free to clean up someone’s filth.

At a minimum pay someone that can give a receipt to clean up this guys mess. Deduct that out of his deposit. Then depending on how long it takes you to find someone you also withhold that from the deposit.

Unfortunately- if you're a landlord- you *do* work for free.
You are not allowed to enumerate your time spent cleaning up- regardless of time, effort or other family members you have to enlist and recompense for help- after someone like the OP's tenant.

A landlord is almost uniquely in the context of running a business, not entitled to any recompense for their time and effort- when things go skew-ways.

Fol20

The_Conductor wrote: »

FFS- that is just ridiculous.
I'd have fought that ruling- on a point of principle- all the way- and sought costs from the RTB for that little nugget of stupidity.

Who in their right mind puts a hole in a bath- seriously- and how on earth did the RTB reckon that replacing a bath that the tenant damaged- with an undamaged bath- had somehow increased the value of the property.

Honestly- I'd have fought this using every possible avenue at my disposal- stupidity does not deserve to be rewarded- and I'm not sure who was more stupid- the tenant- or the RTB arbitrator who came up with this little nugget.

I’m gob snacked at that. First of all unless your putting in a gold plated bath. Your not adding value. Your just replacing the damaged bath. Second of all how could you even put a hole in a bath. It’s a very strange thing to do. I know what you mean. If you could actually fight for your legal costs if you won. I would probably go for it but in this country they would be paying 5e for the next 100years to pay you back

dennyk

The_Conductor wrote: »

how on earth did the RTB reckon that replacing a bath that the tenant damaged- with an undamaged bath- had somehow increased the value of the property.

It's a strange way for them to word it, granted, but there generally is depreciation involved in calculating damages to property, based on the estimated useful life of the item(s) in question (and everything, even items like bathroom fixtures, generally has a useful life of some sort defined; it may be a long period, but nothing is assumed to last "forever" in this context).

For example, say the useful life of a carpet is estimated to be five years. If a tenant damages a three-year-old carpet and it must therefore be replaced, the landlord cannot withhold the full cost of putting in a brand new carpet, because the carpet being replaced is already 3/5ths through its useful life, so withholding the full replacement cost would be unjust enrichment. The way in which the correct amount should be calculated will vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it would likely come out to be less than half the full replacement cost of the carpet in that case. And if the tenant damages a carpet that is over five years old, the landlord would not usually be allowed to withhold anything for the cost of replacement, as the idea is that the carpet was beyond its useful lifespan and should have been replaced by the landlord anyway regardless of the damage.

In the parent poster's situation, if the bath in question was already halfway through its useful lifetime, then it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to shoulder half the cost of replacement, as the tenant's damage only deprived them of half the expected lifetime of the fixture. I've no idea exactly what data the PRTB uses for EUL of items, but I'm sure they have something.

There's also the question of whether the parent poster replaced the bath with a better fixture (e.g. taking the opportunity to upgrade to a porcelain unit instead of fibreglass, or putting in any more expensive unit than was originally in place). The tenant would only be responsible for the cost of replacing the damaged fixture with one of like quality, age, and cost; if the landlord chose to put in a more expensive unit instead, they'd naturally be responsible for the cost difference.

Fol20

The_Conductor wrote: »

Unfortunately- if you're a landlord- you *do* work for free.
You are not allowed to enumerate your time spent cleaning up- regardless of time, effort or other family members you have to enlist and recompense for help- after someone like the OP's tenant.

A landlord is almost uniquely in the context of running a business, not entitled to any recompense for their time and effort- when things go skew-ways.

Oh yea i get that completely, thats why i was telling him to get someone to do it for him as this can be withheld as a legitimate expense against his deposit. I guess it makes sense as to why we can bill ourself for our own work since im sure it would be open to abuse. The one aspect i dont agree with though is not being able to bill for petrol, phone expense etc which are used to run it.

Fol20

dennyk wrote: »

It's a strange way for them to word it, granted, but there generally is depreciation involved in calculating damages to property, based on the estimated useful life of the item(s) in question (and everything, even items like bathroom fixtures, generally has a useful life of some sort defined; it may be a long period, but nothing is assumed to last "forever" in this context).

For example, say the useful life of a carpet is estimated to be five years. If a tenant damages a three-year-old carpet and it must therefore be replaced, the landlord cannot withhold the full cost of putting in a brand new carpet, because the carpet being replaced is already 3/5ths through its useful life, so withholding the full replacement cost would be unjust enrichment. The way in which the correct amount should be calculated will vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it would likely come out to be less than half the full replacement cost of the carpet in that case. And if the tenant damages a carpet that is over five years old, the landlord would not usually be allowed to withhold anything for the cost of replacement, as the idea is that the carpet was beyond its useful lifespan and should have been replaced by the landlord anyway regardless of the damage.

In the parent poster's situation, if the bath in question was already halfway through its useful lifetime, then it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to shoulder half the cost of replacement, as the tenant's damage only deprived them of half the expected lifetime of the fixture. I've no idea exactly what data the PRTB uses for EUL of items, but I'm sure they have something.

There's also the question of whether the parent poster replaced the bath with a better fixture (e.g. taking the opportunity to upgrade to a porcelain unit instead of fibreglass, or putting in any more expensive unit than was originally in place). The tenant would only be responsible for the cost of replacing the damaged fixture with one of like quality, age, and cost; if the landlord chose to put in a more expensive unit instead, they'd naturally be responsible for the cost difference.

What your saying makes complete sense, however baths would usually last more than 8years and labour for a plumber to remove and install the new unit should be at the full expense of the tenant.

airy fairy

Just to clarify the bath issue, it was the least expensive bath it was replaced with, like for like, the surrounding was re-used so not charged for that.
It looked like a heel of a shoe went through the bath, as neat as you like, probably during packing while vacating and reaching for items around the bath is how I imagine it happened.