Should I be owed a deposit back?

Biodegradable

Recently I stayed in a house with one other occupant who was the land lord. It was for nine days from the 19th to the 27th of August. There was no lease signed in this case.

He wasn't going to start charging me rent until the 1st of September, but I'd put down a €400 deposit (1 month's rent). I had to move out unexpectedly as I lost my job, and I didn't get any of the deposit money back

He lied to me and said that he paid €400 on the water well because I was coming. That was part of his argument for not returning the deposit.

Is there any point is making a claim to the small claims court if I hadn't stayed for as long as I intended?

The_Conductor

You should have given him/her fair notice and he/she should have returned your deposit in full, less any damage over and above normal wear and tear. The fact that he/she spent 400 quid on a well- is neither here nor there- and it is wholly unfair and untenable that it be used as some sort of an argument to purloin your deposit. Normal notice is generally taken to be the length of the periodic rent you pay- if you pay monthly, you get or give 1 months notice- where there isn't a formal tenancy- or if its weekly- then its weekly.

Its a tough one- I think its fair that you pay a week or 10 days rent for the lack of notice- however, the owner had to drill the well anyway- its nothing whatsoever to do with you- and they are going to enjoy the benefit of it after you're gone.

Biodegradable

The_Conductor wrote: »

You should have given him/her fair notice and he/she should have returned your deposit in full, less any damage over and above normal wear and tear. The fact that he/she spent 400 quid on a well- is neither here nor there- and it is wholly unfair and untenable that it be used as some sort of an argument to purloin your deposit. Normal notice is generally taken to be the length of the periodic rent you pay- if you pay monthly, you get or give 1 months notice- where there isn't a formal tenancy- or if its weekly- then its weekly.

Its a tough one- I think its fair that you pay a week or 10 days rent for the lack of notice- however, the owner had to drill the well anyway- its nothing whatsoever to do with you- and they are going to enjoy the benefit of it after you're gone.

Thanks for your response,

I was paying on a monthly basis by the way. I told him two days before I moved out. Regarding the well, I did ask him if he was on the town water supply or not the day of the viewing, but I was only making conversation.

As I said, I have no lease, so I don't know if you think that might come against me. I do have a text from his mother saying that it was €400 per month rent and the deposit value. It ended on good terms so he'd be surprised to get a court letter about it.

Purple Mountain

You have another thread about this too?

Biodegradable

Purple Mountain wrote: »

You have another thread about this too?

That thread was about a different aspect of it.

noel1980

As long as you didn't cause any damage you should get the deposit back, less any rent owed.
Whatever he said about the water well is totally irrelevant. Not your business as a tenant.
Send a letter to the guy asking that he pay you 400 minus whatever the rent cost was for the 8 or so days you stayed. Give him a time limit to pay up. ITell him that if he doesn't pay, then you'll peruse the amount in district court.

If he's a dodgy landlord (which he sounds like) he'll likely pay up.

jhegarty

noel1980 wrote: »

If he's a dodgy landlord (which he sounds like) he'll likely pay up.

Given he was letting the op stay free for 11 days , doesn't sound too dodgy.

Steve

Small claims court doesn't deal with this as the LL was not a business entity.

PTRB is best bet but without a signed lease, I wouldn't be holding any breath.

noel1980

jhegarty wrote: »

Given he was letting the op stay free for 11 days , doesn't sound too dodgy.

He should have got the lease signed before he moved in. The lease should have explained all the charges re: electricity, gas, etc. it also states the official date of the start of the tenancy, so then the renter has legal recourse if there's a dispute.

At the very least there was a verbal agreement. If the OP has text messages or emails pertaining to moving in/out they could be used in court though.

If I was the OP I would send a letter officially requesting payment. Up to the OP if he wants to pursue it further though.

Edit: OP, if you do this, ensure the letter is a registered letter, and don't put any indication on the envelope that it's from you.

Steve

People really need to read the opening post.

Steve wrote: »

Small claims court doesn't deal with this as the LL was not a business entity.

PTRB is best bet but without a signed lease, I wouldn't be holding any breath.

Incorrect on both counts.

The mall claims court specifically highlights that it deals with this exact type of scenario why the RTB has absolutely nothing to do with a situation where you live with your LL, they have no power whatsoever in this scenario.

noel1980 wrote: »

He should have got the lease signed before he moved in. The lease should have explained all the charges re: electricity, gas, etc. it also states the official date of the start of the tenancy, so then the renter has legal recourse if there's a dispute.
.

The op was living with the owner, there is no such thing as a lease nor is there a tenancy in this scenario the op would be a licensee with no rights.

Edit: just to add the op does appear to be a messer so I’m not agreeing that he deserves much or any of his deposit back just pointing out the facts of the situation.

charlietheminxx

Having looked at the OP's other thread, they seem like a bit of a messer. Ten days rent free and barely any notice? I wouldn't think any of that deposit is coming back.

C3PO

Two weeks accommodation and at least two weeks reasonable notice ... can’t see how the OP can expect his deposit back!

Biodegradable

C3PO wrote: »

Two weeks accommodation and at least two weeks reasonable notice

Where did you see that?

The_Conductor

Biodegradable wrote: »

Where did you see that?

Probably your thread over in After-Hours...….?

Biodegradable

The_Conductor wrote: »

Probably your thread over in After-Hours...….?

Sounds like some rule he's referring to. I only gave a day or so notice (not 2 wks) and I was there 9 days in total (not two weeks).

sweetie

It's a grey area. If I were your landlord I'd give back half and use the rest to cover the 9 days plus bills and having to re-advertise etc.

The_Conductor

Biodegradable wrote: »

Sounds liek some rule he's referring to. I only gave a day or so notice (not 2 wks) and I was there 9 days in total (not two weeks).

If you were to pay monthly- by rights you would have been expected to give 1 month's notice (and similarly, you'd have been entitled to 1 month's notice from the owner). In addition- you hadn't paid already upfront other than the deposit- so you owed for the first month.

Its easy to see how/why you'd not be getting your deposit back- particularly in light of the fact that you didn't pay your rent upfront like everyone does...…...

Biodegradable

noel1980 wrote: »

Edit: OP, if you do this, ensure the letter is a registered letter, and don't put any indication on the envelope that it's from you.

But who is he meant to think it's from?

noel1980

Biodegradable wrote: »

But who is he meant to think it's from?

When you send a registered letter, you get a tracking # and the recipient (your LL) will sign for it. You can track the letter and get a copy of the signer's name and signature from An Post.

However if you put your name on the envelope he might refuse to sign for it, or use a false name, therefore you won't have proof of delivery.

You should (in fact legally you must) definitely, state your name and home address on the letter itself though.

C3PO

Biodegradable wrote: »

Sounds like some rule he's referring to. I only gave a day or so notice (not 2 wks) and I was there 9 days in total (not two weeks).

No rule ... just don't see how you could reasonably expect any money back!

WrinklyNeck

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you were to pay monthly - by rights you would have been expected to give 1 month's notice (and similarly, you'd have been entitled to 1 month's notice from the owner). In addition- you hadn't paid already upfront other than the deposit- so you owed for the first month.

Does it state that somewhere? Because I'm actually thinking of moving out of where I am currently and would only have expected that 2 weeks notice would be enough.

Grumpypants

The deposit is for damages, rent is for accomadation. They can't mix up the two.

Since you are renting a room the notice period isn't set. They can kick you out, and you can move out with very short notice.

The landlord did a nice thing letting you move in rent free for two weeks and got bit on the arse for it. But in this renting world it's a cheap lesson. They need to ask for a deposit and a months rent up front.

But they should give you back the deposit and charge you for the rent. I'd do the transaction at the same time rather than withholding a deposit.

Biodegradable

The_Conductor wrote: »

In addition- you hadn't paid already upfront other than the deposit- so you owed for the first month.

Yeah but if I'd paid for a month's rent I'd be expected to get the deposit back, so it's the same difference.

Darc19

Imagine the outcry if the tables were turned and the landlord kicked the tenant out after 9 days with 2 days notice.

Some would be suggesting the electric chair for the landlord


I can't see how any deposit would be due back except as goodwill.

Even without a written lease, there's a verbal agreement which the OP broke. If anything the OP should forfeit the deposit AND pay for the 9 days.

The_Conductor

Biodegradable wrote: »

Yeah but if I'd paid for a month's rent I'd be expected to get the deposit back, so it's the same difference.

I hate that expression 'same difference' more than any other expression in the English language. You cannot equate one with the other- they are two entirely different things. You're not even disputing that you didn't pay rent and gave next to no notice. Honestly- while its not the purpose of the deposit- given the circumstances, I don't see how or why you imagine that you're due money back from the owner of the property.

davindub

Op your options are really limited to:

1. Negotiate a settlement you believe is fair with the landlord.

2. Take a case in the Small claims court.

Neither case will IMO return the whole deposit, you couldn't expect rent free accommodation (even if the initial period was "free" it was only free with the expectation you would pay rent on the 1st) and the absence of a written agreement wouldn't necessarily go your way in court.

I think this might be a case where you just move on, it is unfortunate your circumstances changed but I don't think the landlord is acting unreasonable, IMO, he is simply telling you why he can't afford to return the deposit but the reason he is keeping it is due to no notice, cover the period you lived there, etc.

Grumpypants

Darc19 wrote: »

Imagine the outcry if the tables were turned and the landlord kicked the tenant out after 9 days with 2 days notice.

Some would be suggesting the electric chair for the landlord


I can't see how any deposit would be due back except as goodwill.

Even without a written lease, there's a verbal agreement which the OP broke. If anything the OP should forfeit the deposit AND pay for the 9 days.

Because the deposit is to cover damage to the property or un paid bills. Not un paid rent.

Grumpypants

Grumpypants wrote: »

Because the deposit is to cover damage to the property or un paid bills. Not un paid rent.

Says who? It is to cover any reason the LL or in this case home owner are out of pocket.

One or the main reasons for a deposit is to cover unpaid rent particularly those who don’t pay the last months rent.

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you were to pay monthly- by rights you would have been expected to give 1 month's notice (and similarly, you'd have been entitled to 1 month's notice from the owner). In addition- you hadn't paid already upfront other than the deposit- so you owed for the first month.

Its easy to see how/why you'd not be getting your deposit back- particularly in light of the fact that you didn't pay your rent upfront like everyone does...…...

But the homeowner in this case could have asked them to leave in the morning if they wished such is the lack of rights that people have who rent rooms off homeowners. Obviously this would be a d1ck move and people should be reasonable but there is no compulsion on people to be so.

Biodegradable

davindub wrote: »

Neither case will IMO return the whole deposit.

I'd never have expected the whole thing back. That would also be unfair.

Grumpypants

Camryn Greasy Leakage wrote: »

Says who? It is to cover any reason the LL or in this case home owner are out of pocket.

One or the main reasons for a deposit is to cover unpaid rent particularly those who don’t pay the last months rent.

Doesn't even matter in this case as the landlord used the money to install/maintain a well. There is no rent owed or damage to property.

The_Conductor

Browney7 wrote: »

But the homeowner in this case could have asked them to leave in the morning if they wished such is the lack of rights that people have who rent rooms off homeowners. Obviously this would be a d1ck move and people should be reasonable but there is no compulsion on people to be so.

Nope- unless there are extenuating circumstances, even in the case of a licensee agreement- a homeowner is still expected to give 'reasonable' notice. Its not defined- but is expected to be 'reasonable'. Tossing someone out with 24 hours notice, unless there was a damn good reason- is not reasonable in anyone's books.

Biodegradable

The_Conductor wrote: »

Nope- unless there are extenuating circumstances, even in the case of a licensee agreement- a homeowner is still expected to give 'reasonable' notice. Its not defined- but is expected to be 'reasonable'. Tossing someone out with 24 hours notice, unless there was a damn good reason- is not reasonable in anyone's books.

Yeah, but reasonable wouldn't be an entire month in either case... just because the rent is per month. That's why I think he could have given €100 to €200 back.

The_Conductor

Biodegradable wrote: »

Yeah, but reasonable wouldn't be an entire month in either case... just because the rent is per month. That's why I think he could have given €100 to €200 back.

Its been argued in the small claims court and elsewhere that 'reasonable' equates with the agreed periodic nature in which rent is supposed to be paid. In a licensee situation this is weekly, as often as not. Either way- you were entirely disengenuous expecting to stay there rent free for a couple of weeks, not pay the rent when it came due, give an improbably short notice period- and then expect your money back.

Lodge a small claims court case by all means- however, I would suggest that it is as likely to go against you- as for you. There is no clear cut case that you are entitled to your deposit back, given the circumstances.

Biodegradable

sweetie wrote: »

It's a grey area. If I were your landlord I'd give back half and use the rest to cover the 9 days plus bills and having to re-advertise etc.

Well he never actually advertised. I was his first tenant. It was his mother who got onto the auctioneer for him.

Biodegradable

The_Conductor wrote: »

you were entirely disengenuous expecting to stay there rent free for a couple of weeks, not pay the rent when it came due, give an improbably short notice period- and then expect your money back.

I don't intend to go to the court. But if I were actually expecting to stay there "rent free", then given that I caused no damage to the property, that would mean that I'd be expecting to pay nothing at all! Which I clearly was not saying. I argued €100-€200 hundred back would be fair. That would mean €200-€300 rent would be paid.

Graham

Thread temporarily closed pending review.