nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

False references

corelon

I had two people supply me with false work references and now suspect the reference for the previous landlord is also false. They claimed they lived in landlords house therefore there will be no rtb records.

They signed the tenancy agreement and supplied a deposit last week. I did not show the flat to anyone else since i received the deposit and now I am left with an empty flat. They were due to move in yesterday but after checking the references I am no longer going to rent to them.

I have talked to the police and RTB and both said I need to seek legal advise as to what to do with the deposit.

Does anyone know what I should do with the deposit as now i have an unrented flat due to these guys?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Graham

TheChizler wrote: »

Is it possible the references are completely genuine and the OP is making an assumption based on a typo and maybe the person he checked with making a mistake? If this is in any way likely the last thing they should do is refuse to rent to them after accepting the deposit and lease.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Tenancy hasn't started so RTB not involved.
References provided don't check out so cancelling the impending tenancy appears to be a fairly sensible course of action.

TheChizler

Graham wrote: »

Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Tenancy hasn't started so RTB not involved.
References provided don't check out so cancelling the impending tenancy appears to be a fairly sensible course of action.

Because the only thing that may invalidate the lease that has already been signed (and we don't even know that for sure) is a fraudulent reference. What if they're not fraudulent? One out of two is definitely genuine. If it turned out that the OP was mistaken in thinking it was fraudulent and had kept a deposit or prevented them from moving in after agreeing a lease they could be in serious trouble.

The tenancy began on Thursday according to the OP and contract was agreed the week before that.

Graham

TheChizler wrote: »

Because the only thing that may invalidate the lease that has already been signed (and we don't even know that for sure) is a fraudulent reference. What if they're not fraudulent? One out of two is definitely genuine. If it turned out that the OP was mistaken in thinking it was fraudulent and had kept a deposit or prevented them from moving in after agreeing a lease they could be in serious trouble.

So what do you think is the risk to the landlord if he cancels the lease before the tenancy commences?

TheChizler

Graham wrote: »

So what do you think is the risk to the landlord if he cancels the lease before the tenancy commences?

Assuming the reference was genuine, unless the lease contained a break clause stating that it could be cancelled before they move in I don't see how it would be any different to a standard illegal eviction. And even with that I'm not sure if they would still have to give the minimum notice period.

I'm not sure them having moved in or not makes a difference. Say if they had moved in a week and the LL discovered the references were fake. They couldn't just kick them out there and then, they have to abide by minimum notice periods even if they're at no fault themselves. I'd be worried if I was in their position, that by accepting the deposit and lease you've essentially agreed to provide them with a home for the minimum notice period, essentially.

martingriff

Treasure Thundering Loft wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry OP but you should give back the deposit the ONLY reason you are out of pocket is because you did not do your due diligence before you took there deposit and got them to sign the lease. Why did you decide after getting them to signing the lease and take the deposit did you then decide to check the references?????. Take some personal responsibility (I know to some its an alien concept for some people) here for your own mistake.

Absolute and utter nonsense from start to finish.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you're going to try and hold onto the deposit be sure of your customers in this case. I'm not saying it's at all right, but there's plenty out there who'll make sure to come and take it off you whether you like it or not.

You know damn well you should return their money in full.

Oh if I kept a deposit the ideal scenario is them showing up to "take it back" you can't beat a good fight, I'd look forward to it!!

As for knowing "damn well he should return it" no he shouldn't be should keep an amount to cover the rent he lost and the costs of looking for someone else. The bias against LL by some here is sickening, this person needs to be taught a lesson.

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Wait so you didn't even rent it to them but you still wanna keep the deposit? what a greedy little sh*t

What a stupid post!

Would you like to elaborate why it's absolute and utter nonsense from start to finish

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

Would you like to elaborate why it's absolute and utter nonsense from start to finish

Becuse the op is 100% entitled to deducted from the deposit to cover the rent lost by these scum with false reference who you are defending.

The_Conductor

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

If they go to the PRTB with a signed lease and proof that they gave you a deposit and you kept it and wouldn't let them move in, you'll be done for illegal eviction, which we'll carry a five figure fine, plus the deposit amount, and could affect your ability to continue renting.

Just return it.

While I agree the deposit should be returned to the 'tenant', I do not believe the tenant has a leg to stand on- if they are asked to vacate the premises, as they procured the tenancy under false pretences.

I believe they should be asked to vacate the premises forthwith- and have their deposit returned to them. I do not believe the landlord has any just cause to forfeit the deposit- and I do believe they would be opening themselves to trouble if they do so- however, your suggestion of a large fine etc- is far from the mark- if it ever went to Tribunal, and I don't believe the tenants have the right to take this option, the landlord would in all probability simply be told he/she has no right to forfeit the deposit.

OP- I understand your annoyance at the situation- however, you can't keep their deposit (similarly, they can't keep the property). Get proper advice- offline, on how to legally remove them from the property. Get proper advice though- you need to make sure all your 'i's are dotted and your 't's crossed.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

OP- I understand your annoyance at the situation- however, you can't keep their deposit (similarly, they can't keep the property). Get proper advice- offline, on how to legally remove them from the property. Get proper advice though- you need to make sure all your 'i's are dotted and your 't's crossed.

I thought the OP cancelled the lease before the commencement of the tenancy and before possession by the prospective tenants.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

I thought the OP cancelled the lease before the commencement of the tenancy and before possession by the prospective tenants.

Yes- just re-read the post.
OP- just give them the deposit back and move on.
Yes, you're down a week's rent- chalk it up to experience, and thank your lucky stars you copped their references were a work of fiction- before they got a foot in the door.

Its not worth the aggro of trying to argue the week's rent etc- seriously, its not.

[Deleted User]

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- just re-read the post.
OP- just give them the deposit back and move on.
Yes, you're down a week's rent- chalk it up to experience, and thank your lucky stars you copped their references were a work of fiction- before they got a foot in the door.

Its not worth the aggro of trying to argue the week's rent etc- seriously, its not.

Why should he be walked over and conned by these people? He should deduct costs from their deposit to cover the costs of reletting and the time he is without a tenant.

Maybe to you its not worth it but I'd argue over 1 euro, on principal if nothing else.

martingriff

Treasure Thundering Loft wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

Would you like to elaborate why it's absolute and utter nonsense from start to finish

Becuse the op is 100% entitled to deducted from the deposit to cover the rent lost by these scum with false reference who you are defending.

Really hope you have a link where he is 100% allowed

The_Conductor

Treasure Thundering Loft wrote: »

Why should he be walked over and conned by these people? He should deduct costs from their deposit to cover the costs of reletting and the time he is without a tenant.

Maybe to you its not worth it but I'd argue over 1 euro, on principal if nothing else.

He shouldn't- however, for the sake of being dragged into the district court on a spurious small claims case- on top of an RTB tribunal etc- its not worth the hassle. Life is too short. If you're sufficiently aggrieved- and willing to go the distance- by all means go for it- but its time, effort and expense, and you're unlikely to gain from it in the end.

It really isn't worth it.

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

Really hope you have a link where he is 100% allowed

I don't need a link, they got their lease through fraud. They don't have a leg to stand on and the op is out of pocket for the costs of finding these chancers, the cost of finding new tenants and the rent in-between.

The_Conductor wrote: »

He shouldn't- however, for the sake of being dragged into the district court on a spurious small claims case- on top of an RTB tribunal etc- its not worth the hassle. Life is too short. If you're sufficiently aggrieved- and willing to go the distance- by all means go for it- but its time, effort and expense, and you're unlikely to gain from it in the end.

It really isn't worth it.

Fair enough, for me I wouldn't let it lie even if it cost me money.

The_Conductor

Treasure Thundering Loft wrote: »

Fair enough, for me I wouldn't let it lie even if it cost me money.

Depends on the person- life is short though- I seriously don't think its worth the time and effort that chasing it would entail- and you can be certain they'd cause trouble- its simply not worth it.

I accept fully the OP is out of a week's rent- and possibly a few shekels for re-advertising etc- in the scale of things- I'd thank my lucky stars they didn't move in, and move on.........

gizmo81

The OP left leaving scant information and wild speculation of the epidemic of terrible tenants has ensued. We have no information regarding the 'fraud'. Was the reference fake, a fake company, a real company but a forged signature?

Lets be honest here, landlords requesting work references is just a way to circumvent the Equal Status Act.

Work references should be outlawed for tenancy agreements. If a person takes a property for €2000 a month and their income is €1800 no work reference is gonna forewarn that.

The only thing a work reference tells you is the person has employment, it does not tell you their ability to pay, their debts, their outgoings etc

The only thing gleamed from a work reference is a persons employment status, refusing to accept someone on the grounds of their employment status should be banned. If someone cannot afford to rent their is social assistance.

Cyrus

gizmo81 wrote: »

The OP left leaving scant information and wild speculation of the epidemic of terrible tenants has ensued. We have no information regarding the 'fraud'. Was the reference fake, a fake company, a real company but a forged signature?

Lets be honest here, landlords requesting work references is just a way to circumvent the Equal Status Act.

Work references should be outlawed for tenancy agreements. If a person takes a property for ?2000 a month and their income is ?1800 no work reference is gonna forewarn that.

The only thing a work reference tells you is the person has employment, it does not tell you their ability to pay, their debts, their outgoings etc

The only thing gleamed from a work reference is a persons employment status, refusing to accept someone on the grounds of their employment status should be banned. If someone cannot afford to rent their is social assistance.

so what are you left with the vet the people who want to use a very expensive asset of yours?

gizmo81

I don't know but a work reference gives you no information on the character of a person, or on their ability to pay.

An unemployed disabled person on HAP could keep the property in immaculate condition and pay on time.

An investment banker may pay on time but could be getting coked out of it every week and throwing parties, resulting in third party RTB cases, Gardai visits etc

A couple both employed could have huge debts, bailiffs calling at the door, rent paid in dribs and drabs.

If only one can provide a work reference who is going to get the property? What can you gleam from a piece of paper saying John Doe works here that can 'vet' a tenant?

Cyrus wrote: »

so what are you left with the vet the people who want to use a very expensive asset of yours?

pilly

gizmo81 wrote: »

The OP left leaving scant information and wild speculation of the epidemic of terrible tenants has ensued. We have no information regarding the 'fraud'. Was the reference fake, a fake company, a real company but a forged signature?

Lets be honest here, landlords requesting work references is just a way to circumvent the Equal Status Act.

Work references should be outlawed for tenancy agreements. If a person takes a property for €2000 a month and their income is €1800 no work reference is gonna forewarn that.

The only thing a work reference tells you is the person has employment, it does not tell you their ability to pay, their debts, their outgoings etc

The only thing gleamed from a work reference is a persons employment status, refusing to accept someone on the grounds of their employment status should be banned. If someone cannot afford to rent their is social assistance.

And there you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen agents and LL's ask for payslips.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

Graham

pilly wrote: »

And there you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen agents and LL's ask for payslips.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

The cheek of some landlords expecting to be able to verify a potential tenants ability to pay the rent.

See the opening post for one of the many reasons a landlord has to be wary.

Cyrus

Graham wrote: »

The cheek of some landlords expecting to be able to verify a potential tenants ability to pay the rent.

See the opening post for one of the many reasons a landlord has to be wary.

indeed

it seems as if people want landlords to have no information and let anyone who wants rent their property

the mind boggles

Graham

Cyrus wrote: »

indeed

it seems as if people want landlords to have no information and let anyone who wants rent their property

the mind boggles

It's the suggestion the social will pick up the tab anyway that caused me to double take.

Bredabe

Cause of the nature of my work, im forbidden from showing my pay slips to anyone outside the organisation who isn't a bank manager.
My boss will happily write a ref and a follow up letter telling potential landlords this. Most of my LL ref's cant be followed up not due to death/transfer/house sales. Tho all but one of my LL's asked me to stay when I give notice. In my job I have to be careful of keeping my credit record spotless, even if I hadn't been brought up to do so.
So what can I do to show the LL that I can and will pay rent on time and in full?

Graham

Bredabe wrote: »

Cause of the nature of my work, im forbidden from showing my pay slips to anyone outside the organisation who isn't a bank manager.
My boss will happily write a ref and a follow up letter telling potential landlords this. Most of my LL ref's cant be followed up not due to death/transfer/house sales. Tho all but one of my LL's asked me to stay when I give notice. In my job I have to be careful of keeping my credit record spotless, even if I hadn't been brought up to do so.
So what can I do to show the LL that I can and will pay rent on time and in full?

Letter from your boss, bank reference/statement and I'd assume you have a current landlord who can provide a reference.

The_Conductor

Bredabe wrote: »

Cause of the nature of my work, im forbidden from showing my pay slips to anyone outside the organisation who isn't a bank manager.
My boss will happily write a ref and a follow up letter telling potential landlords this. Most of my LL ref's cant be followed up not due to death/transfer/house sales. Tho all but one of my LL's asked me to stay when I give notice. In my job I have to be careful of keeping my credit record spotless, even if I hadn't been brought up to do so.
So what can I do to show the LL that I can and will pay rent on time and in full?

Letter from your boss stating you're employed by the company, you're not a temporary/casual employee and you've been employed by them for X amount of time? I.e. stating a few facts- without going into any detail.

I don't see how a payslip is fair or reasonable- nor do I think demanding to see a bank statement is right or proper either.

Ireland has no credit checking facilities- that the UK or most other countries have- and a residence is a valuable asset- its not fair that a landlord hand over a house/apartment- to a random stranger- but there has to be a line drawn in the sand as to what is right and reasonable, and what is unacceptable. Unfortunately landlords and tenants will seldom agree on what this middle ground is- though most tenants and most landlords are actually quite reasonable.

A little bit of horse trading and negotiating on the part of tenants and landlords- will normally resolve this issue.

John_Rambo

testaccount123 wrote: »

Hes not a landlord, hes a fantasist who lives in the middle of nowhere and doesnt even have a proper lease but who likes to come on the internet and lecture people who deal with renting in one of the most difficult markets in the world about how he'll do things when he grows up and realises his fantasy of becoming a landlord.

He'd be an appalling landlord, he has no understanding or regard for the either the spirit or the letter of Irish tenancy law and lacks the basic intelligence or empathy required to maintain a simple business relationship.

I'd imagine he is actually a landlord by now. He's been on here for a few years defending landlords and giving massive amounts of advice on every single situation posted here. He seems to have lots of experience in dealing with tenants.

Grolschevik

John_Rambo wrote:

I'd imagine he is actually a landlord by now. He's been on here for a few years defending landlords and giving massive amounts of advice on every single situation posted here. He seems to have lots of experience in dealing with tenants.

Don't think so. And much of the advice given is dismissive or wilfully ignorant as regards the applicable law.

Last I noticed was a recent mention of potential mortgage approval after, as you say, years of 'this is what I would/will do when the time comes' amid repeated descriptions of his own experience as a licensee in a house share.

But I don't think discussing other posters in these speculative terms is allowed?

John_Rambo

I'd be surprised if he isn't a landlord. And I'd say you're right about speculating about other posters. We'll leave it at that so!

ZENER

I haven't read this entire thread but from the first few pages I get that there's mixed opinions on references and their use ? We use a local company to find tenants for the properties we let out. We insist on seeing the documents they are given before a final decision is made.

The company draws up a shortlist of about 3 or 4 prospects and shows us the documents they have provided. Some are laughable !! Photocopies of payslips with typed names covering the real name and then copied again, Letters from solicitors (supposedly) where the typeface of the body text doesn't match the "Yours sincerely" at the end and the solicitors heading obviously cut from a real letter and stuck to the top and re-copied.

As for references from real previous landlords, think about it. If you had a tenant who you wanted rid of you would want to be sure they can get somewhere else so they can move from your property. Naturally you will give them a glowing reference ? We learned the hard way to treat glowing references with suspicion.

To the OP I'd say get out while you can, give the deposit back and count your lucky stars !

Ken

lifeandtimes

The op has a duty to check references and everything else before taking a deposit and signing a lease, this is to avoid situations such as this with fake references, people will chance their arm and the op must protect himself by being diligent and doesn't seem to have happened so I'm on the side of return the deposit in full.

Also op said that one reference checked out and the other didn't, may very well be a mistake and both are valid at which point he would be of the root of illegal eviction by not allowing them to move in.

Take the easy root return the money and get someone else in

4ensic15

lifeandtimes wrote: »

The op has a duty to check references and everything else before taking a deposit and signing a lease,

This is not correct. Can you cite any source of law for this? there is no duty to ensure that the person you are dealing with is not trying to hoodwink you. The tenants are under a duty to be honest and not profer forged documents.