Landlord refusing to repay a penny of deposit

Jaysis someone’s been at the sherry a little early

Laminate worktop costs no more that €200 a length, and a swap out, even with cutouts is no more than two hours work at the very most. It's not highly skilled work either, a relatively competent DIYer could do it.

Anyone handing out a grand for this kind of work deserves to have it taken from them.

wow, hilarious, some people show they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo where petty crooks can steal someones hard earned money. So you support illegal activity, like tax evasion? OP, get your sister to look at the thread, demand the money back the following day, if it isnt presented with an apology and a bow, report to revenue and the RTB. At no loss to do so, and then maintain contact with RTB and persist in getting back the money, I would treat a crook no differently if they tried to take my money out of my wallet.

The RTB may be a joke, but it could be overhauled, good landlords should be treated fairly, but bad landlords like this crook (and likewise crooked tenants) should be dealt with appropriately.

Well, then let the landlord make their case in the correct forum, an RTB hearing, whats that you say? they cant attend because they didnt comply with the legal requirements! Some wear and tear is going to occur, especially when someone cant even claim tax relief on certain costs, because they are NOT paying tax.

Integrated shelving is a bit different because that's custom joinery and that requires a lot of cutting and finishing. That said people are paying silly money for trades and some are taking full advantage. For some recent simple electrical work I was quoted between €150 and €1500 for the same job.

A new worktop is at most 3 cuts, sink hob and length. No one should be paying more than €250 to have that fitted and even that's expensive.

I see, so taking an unregistered landlord to task in the correct forum is incoherent? let me spell it out for you.

IT IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO BE REGISTERRRRED

Now, which part do you not understand?

Are you saying you support illegally unregistered landlords, I thought forum rules would be against supporting illegal activity?

The only reason to not be RTB registered is to hide the fact that the property is being rented, I was a landlord, back then the tenant got some communication of the registration details. If the tenant does not have that (and they are a tenant if the landlord doesn't live with them) then it's a good bargaining point to get the landlord to return the deposit, because a clued in tenant could get a lot more. If a person wants to not be registered (not that I support that) then at the least they have to be fair and not greedy, because they will be saving a fortune by not paying tax. To actually claim certain reliefs, you have to be registered with the RTB. To deal with disputes, you have to be registered. You have a vested interest, you know this, why skirt around it. There is only one legal way to be (which the forum rules highlight), and that is being compliant. This is the reason why the RTB needs to be overhauled, not just to deal with bad tenants, but also bad landlords (even if they think they aren't landlords or claim not to be). Escrow accounts for holding deposits and payments during disputes. If I was still a landlord, I'd be very careful about making deductions, and while it should be simple when a tenant causes damage to refund that out of their deposit, it cannot be at the arbitrary decision of a landlord who cant even be bothered to be legitimate, because it suits them.

Others have stated the RTB site is nota completely trustworthy source of information about registrations. And even if the tenancy isn’t registered, the LL can, or certainly used to be able to pay a late registration fee to regularise the registration. I think it used to be around €180.

I’m not sure why you automatically assume non registration indicates tax evasion. Maybe if the op’s sister was paying cash in hand, that might point to tax evasion (I might have missed the op saying that, I’m not going back to read this thread again). If it is being paid through a bank, the chances of the LL trying to evade tax seems far fetched. Either way, again, unless you have seen the LLs tax return, you are just speculating.

Are you sure a LL can’t engage with the RTB over a tenancy dispute brought by the tenant if they aren’t registered? Where did you get that from? And even if that were the case, the LL could simply pay the late registration fee.

You are now adding another layer of absurdity to an already absurd thread.

Edit: My mistake, late registration fee is actually €90.

A tenant is in a manner, privy to the landlords tax returns, if the property isn't registered, then the landlord cannot be filing a tax return legitimately. It is not an assumption, and while the RTB is broken and can be poor/is the last I heard poor at communicating details, but it sounds highly likely the landlord isn't, the OP is asking for advice for a substantial sum of money being withheld solely at the decision of one person, who has a vested interest to withhold that money. The tenant has nothing to lose by challenging this. In my experience, collective wear and tear, if it can be repaired or mitigated so that it doesnt affect future use by another tenant safely, should be simply repaired, because a new counter could be purchased and fitted and burned the next day/week/month. If this was definitely a good or high quality, good or top condition property, I would support the deposit being garnished. It doesn't sound like that. I would even support deposits multiples of the monthly rent as any real damage will never be paid for by one months rent, but that is now not legal for some time. It should not be something that is administered by someone who doesn't appear registered and legit.

I stopped after reading the first line, there is no point in engaging with you if you think a tenant is privy to a LLs tax returns by virtue of RTB registration. I actually feel stupider for having read your posts.

Ahh typical, insulting comments, you still have the same attitude. It is a requirement to make a correct return AND to be registered, a legal requirement to be registered! what part do you dispute? If the tenant hasn't received confirmation then it's a good bet the property isn't registered, and if so, the landlord doesn't have a leg to stand on, and the tenant, ultimately gets their deposit back. A dispute in the RTB will require proof that the counter top was not burned prior to this, it can't be on the say so of a landlord. Tenants and landlords have rights, but the RTB won't enforce the limited rights of landlords if the prevailing view is to not bother registering.

OP, don't listen to the detractors, if this guy isn't operating illegally, he is doing a good job of making it seem like he is. Get your sister to have a read of the thread, for a possible speedy result, encourage her to challenge the landlord to repay her deposit OR she will open a dispute and report to revenue, and if he is legit, he wont have any problem with a dispute being opened, it will take a while so she could be away and back before it comes to pass, I know I wouldn't walk away from a large sum of money easily on one persons say so.

OP said his sister was sharing with another person who also gave notice to leave. Did the sister pay the deposit directly to the landlord? Is the €1200 just the sister's part of the deposit? Would a new worktop cost over two grand?

No reason to think the landlord is not paying tax. Surely Revenue would spot it if tenants in any of his multiple properties claimed the rental refund.

Silly landlord if he has multiple properties and none are RTB registered and he's leaving himself open to a whole heap of trouble, fines etc. by acting the maggot with the OP's sister. Sounds odd.

And they will advise you that the RTB is the correct place to dispute the non return of a tenancy deposit. The SCC is where non tenancy related disputes, like licensee rentals are dealt with because they are outside the remit of the RTB.