On hook for security deposit - solicitor at fault?

The €1,900 tenant deposit is likely your biggest issue because, as the current landlord, you will generally be responsible for returning it when the tenancy ends. The key question is whether that deposit was transferred to you on closing or accounted for in the conveyancing documents.

If the tenancy agreement provided to your solicitor showed a €1,900 deposit, it is reasonable to ask why enquiries were not raised about its transfer. However, this does not automatically mean your solicitor was negligent; the answer depends on the contract, replies to enquiries, and closing documents.

The April HAP overpayment (about €900) may be recoverable if the seller received rent for a period after completion. Check whether rent/HAP was apportioned on the completion statement.

The shed and appliances issue is more difficult because, if the tenants bought them, the sellers may never have owned them. Without an inventory or fixtures-and-fittings list, proving what was included in the sale may be challenging.

I suggest discussing these matters with your solicitor in the first instance. Your could also ask your solicitor for the contract, completion statement, and confirmation of what enquiries were made regarding the deposit, rent, and tenancy.

Also, I would treat representations by the current tenants around ownership of sheds, applicances etc and indeed the security deposit as unconfirmed for the time being. Sometimes a tenant can take advantage of certain situations to create a narrative that is to their benefit. This is one of the challenges associated with tenant in situ purchases.

With respect, the purchaser should be making these extremely basic enquiries and its not for a solicitor to 2nd guess what the purchaser has asked.

If I'm buying a tenant in situ property, (have looked, but didn't purchase) the first thing I want to see is the lease and I will then read it. I'd assume there was a deposit and likewise, I'd assume the deposit is something I'd be responsible for as there would be no changes in the tenant's terms. I would not expect that this is the job of a conveyancing solicitor who'd probably assume the purchaser knows this.

Similarly on the shed. The solicitor does not go out to the property to double check everything. If the shed was detailed in the contents, then the buyer owns the shed. If there's a dispute, then tenants show proof of purchase and you argue with the seller. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your conveyancing solicitor

As I said, the fault lies with the person in the mirror

This is a crazy take.

The whole point of appointing and paying a solicitor is because they have knowledge and experience of this kinda thing. They know what to look out for, what to expect, the minor minutiae that goes with property transfer and conveyancing. This is their role. That's why you hire them and is what you pay them considerably to do.

its not for a solicitor to 2nd guess what the purchaser has asked.

This line in particular is madness. That's EXACTLY their job, to make sure that the client is covered financially and legally, in so much as can be reasonably expected, by second guessing everything. Otherwise you'd just be dealing with someone who is maliciously complying with every instruction and deliberately leaving out the small stuff.

"You asked me to help you buy this house, and I did. I closed the sale. You never mentioned anything about transferring the deeds, or drafting contracts or surveying or conveyancing etc…..that's on you bud, thanks for the cheque."

For someone who is advocating that the purchaser should be aware of absolutely everything, you're making a lot of assumptions in this post.

If you are buying a house with tenant in situ, the NORM is you accept responsibility for any deposit as the tenant's lease has no change except the name of the LL.

Not for a solicitor to tell you a very basic understanding.

Utterly amazing that someone would be so naïve when buying a tenant in situ property and not think that there's a deposit in the mix.

As for the shed. Unless it was detailed on the contents list, the solicitor would not know about it. Similarly for all the other contents - unless there's a list, there's little you can do except ask tenants to prove they purchased them. When tenants leave, let them go to the expense of taking the shed if they insist they own it. (easy enough to work out how old a shed is and then work out how long the tenants have been there for)

At the end of the day, the OP is arguing over about €1500 and trying to blame someone else for their own error

Because they are a consumer it depends on the Law Society rules in dealing with a non-professional client, not what the contract says.

@lightspeed if you are unhappy with the solicitor, why not make a complaint to the LSRA? At least then they will judge if your complaint has merit or not. If it is with merit then maybe you will get your €1,500 for the deposit. But before the complaint get the completion statement and ask for any copy of other documents you require, make your request in writing.

What you (or I) might have done in a similar circumstance is not the issue, it’s a question of how a reasonable solicitor would be expected to handle this matter for a non expert retail client.

The law society doesn't expect a bare ‘execution only’ service in these circumstances, and in most cases that’s not what is reflected in the fees either.

Depending on the details, the LSRA could well adjudicate that there were shortcomings on the solicitors side.

I'll repeat, if the purchaser did not check the details of the lease before making a bid, they are to blame.

It really is as simple as that.

Op is entirely to blame for the rather small issue of a deposit that is likely about €1500.

Jumping on public forum hoping someone will come along and tell them otherwise is futile. - unless they think your erroneous response is correct

WTF are you talking about? It's not the details of the lease that is the issue here. It's the repayment of the security deposit paid by the tenant that we are talking about.

This entire situation would not have arisen had the solicitor, who I guarantee you is charging a damn sight more than €1500 for their services, done the job they were paid to do. The OP isn't to blame for that, the firm is.

What do you think the OP should have done? Chased the original owner themselves for the deposit? Instructed their solicitor to chase them for it? What about everything else they did for the OP? should OP be double-checking every single line item that the solicitor is charging for? Don't be ridiculous.

FFS………….I will not be replying any further to this fcukin' nonsense.

You're like a dog with a ball in its mouth that won't give it back, ignoring anything and everything except for the tiny little factoid that you think proves you right, but only serves to show that you do not, in fact, have more common sense than most because you cannot grasp the meaning of the words being put to you.

I would not ever think I need a solicitor to point out to me that I'm responsible for the security deposit when buying a tenant in situ investment.

Neither did OP.

For the 5th time, the OP is well aware that they are responsible for the security deposit. They didn't walk into this situation assuming that responsibility for the deposit just vanished into thin air. They even mention it in the OP: "However, I understand when the time comes that tenants leave, im on the hook for this". Everybody already knew about the security deposit. Especially the solicitor. It's not the existence of the deposit that is in question here, it is whether or not the solicitor should have made arrangements about how to recoup it from the original landlord that the OP is enquiring about. How are you not getting this?

The solicitor should have noted all of this and either a) included a clause where the old landlord repays the deposit when the tenants leave (highly unlikely) or b) the purchase price of the house is reduced by €1900 to account for the deposit (much more common in this business). That's it. That's all OP is asking, should they have accounted for it. The answer, of course, is yes.

But you go ahead there chief, keep pretending you're smarter than the average bear, after you spent a full week trying to come up with a response only to miss the entire fcukin point of the thread, again, for the umpteenth time……..there's a good lad.

I'm done.