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; } } }

Should I Give Tenant Back Deposit if They Leave Early?

Shades799

Hi Folks,

We leased our house last June to a couple and their 15 yo daughter in June of last year on a one year lease. SKIP TO NEXT CAPITALS IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BACK STORY

The lady in the house has been a little bit annoying in the type of requests that she had (asked me to remove moths from the house and install a door bell because they didn't like the noise of the door knocker for example) but otherwise has been an IMPECCABLE tenant, bang on with rent and the house is looked after better than we would have (i.e. asking me to wear blue shoe covers one time when I came to the house as she had just cleaned).

However, she had a couple of problems with the house, for one, she says it's very cold and that her bills are very high. It's a D1 rated house but I've lived there for 3 years and a previous tenant for a year and never had a problem with it. She also mentioned a couple of other things but they were all resolved no problem. I offered to try and improve the energy rating by putting in a new patio door and making some other changes around the house but she still maintained she wanted to leave.

HOWEVER SHE IS LEAVING THE HOUSE TWO MONTHS EARLY and only gave me 18 days notice, (although she had been hinting for a while), luckily enough we have a nice property and currently have 3 prospective tenants that we're trying to pick from.

I know I'm legally entitled to keep the deposit, but my question is, should I give her some, all or none of it back. It's a loss making property for me, I'm not a professional landlord, it's just a house we bought to live in and then moved for work but we can't sell, we're renting ourselves and are getting married at the end of the year. However, apart from the idiosyncrasies she has been a great tenant and I don't want be a pr*ck.

So, what do you think we should do?!

Find more posts tagged with

deposit

rent

tenant

landlord

Comments

djimi

She expects to leave a fixed term lease early with only 18 days notice? She deserves to lose her deposit to be fair for being so naive.

Its really up to you how much you want to give back. You say you have 3 potential tenants so chances are you are not going to be out of pocket by her leaving. Its your call at the end of the day as to whether or not you want to agree to terminate her lease early. Would the 18 days bring her to the end of a rental month?

Joe Hart

djimi wrote: »

She expects to leave a fixed term lease early with only 18 days notice? She deserves to lose her deposit to be fair for being so naive.

Its really up to you how much you want to give back. You say you have 3 potential tenants so chances are you are not going to be out of pocket by her leaving. Its your call at the end of the day as to whether or not you want to agree to terminate her lease early. Would the 18 days bring her to the end of a rental month?

You have no legal right to withhold thee deposit unless you have suffered a loss.The tenancy is terminated when she leaves and the landlord is obliged to let the property without delay. They can sue the tenant for any costs or lost rent.

What they can't do is get into a huff and leave the property empty till the end of the lease term and take the deposit and look for the remaining rent.
They also can't relet the property and then refuse to give back the deposit.

fasttalkerchat

I would take some money towards you going to the bother of advertising and showing around tenants. If everything is in good order, take €50... assuming that there is no loss of income to you.

knotknowbody

Joe Hart wrote: »

You have no legal right to withhold thee deposit unless you have suffered a loss.The tenancy is terminated when she leaves and the landlord is obliged to let the property without delay. They can sue the tenant for any costs or lost rent.

What they can't do is get into a huff and leave the property empty till the end of the lease term and take the deposit and look for the remaining rent.
They also can't relet the property and then refuse to give back the deposit.

+1

You are legally entitled to withhold legitimate expenses above normal wear and tear only, you should return her full deposit, you have no reason to keep it, you said yourself the house is in good condition, you also say you have a choice of three tenants ready to move in. I presume this means you will not have to advertise and will have a short empty period, all in all a quite hassle free changeover.

odds_on

You are not entitled to receive rent from to tenants for the same property, either one has the lease or the other but the two cannot (unless there are multiple tenants. Furthermore, you are not entitled to any rent while you are decorating between tenancies.

However, you are entitled to any loss of rent and any expenses incurred due to a tenant breaking a fixed term lease early which would include the cost of finding a new tenant. In claims with the PRTB, landlords have also been awarded "damages" for breach of obligations by a tenant thus, in the case of a tenant breaking a fixed term lease, a landlord could also be entitled to an amount for "damages", although there is no actual financial loss.

If a tenant leaves without notice, this is considered as a loss of the entire deposit - breach of obligations by breaking the contract, loss of rent and costs involved in finding a new tenant.

However, where a tenant does give some notice, although a breach of contract, IMHO, you should be able to return a portion of the deposit once a new tenant has commenced to pay the rent, provided that the time taken to find the new tenant is less than one month.

I do not vote in your poll as there are too many variables to be considered as outlined above.

Joe Hart

odds_on wrote: »

You are not entitled to receive rent from to tenants for the same property, either one has the lease or the other but the two cannot (unless there are multiple tenants. Furthermore, you are not entitled to any rent while you are decorating between tenancies.

However, you are entitled to any loss of rent and any expenses incurred due to a tenant breaking a fixed term lease early which would include the cost of finding a new tenant.

If a tenant leaves without notice, this is considered as a loss of the entire deposit - breach of contract, loss of rent and costs involved in finding a new tenant.

However, where a tenant does give some notice, although a breach of contract, IMHO, you should be able to return a portion of the deposit once a new tenant has commenced to pay the rent, provided that the time taken to find the new tenant is less than one month.

I do not vote in your poll as there are too many variables to be considered as outlined above.

No it is not. You can only withold a deposit if you incurred a loss. It doesn't get much simpler than that. A deposit is not there to be used as punishment.

Shades799

I was confused by the language on the PRTB site so I CALLED them, explained the situation and they said I was entitled to to keep the deposit! But I've been looking around now and I agree that the documents don't suggest that.

I did have to re-advertise the place and had to drive up and down a few times spending about 20e on Diesel to show it but all in all I suppose you're right. It made me uneasy to think of keeping it but I definitely could do with the money so when I thought I was legally entitled to it I was having a battle with my wallet and my conscience!

Begs 2 questions though:
1: Why would I even bother having a term on the lease if they can just walk out pretty much when ever they want to!
2: Why the hell are the PRTB telling me I can keep the deposit!!

granpa

hi give her back deposit youll feel better for it ,and move on
lifes just too short

granpa

Joe Hart

A heads up. Some people in Threshold and the PRTB are not that familiar with the law around lettings.

On question num 1.

The lease guarantees you a right to a full year of rent money at that price. If you can't relet or have to let at a lower price the original tenant is liable.

mattser

Shades799 wrote: »

I was confused by the language on the PRTB site so I CALLED them, explained the situation and they said I was entitled to to keep the deposit! But I've been looking around now and I agree that the documents don't suggest that.

I did have to re-advertise the place and had to drive up and down a few times spending about 20e on Diesel to show it but all in all I suppose you're right. It made me uneasy to think of keeping it but I definitely could do with the money so when I thought I was legally entitled to it I was having a battle with my wallet and my conscience!

Begs 2 questions though:
1: Why would I even bother having a term on the lease if they can just walk out pretty much when ever they want to!
2: Why the hell are the PRTB telling me I can keep the deposit!!

1/ Has the tenant even asked you, or shown any interest in you finding replacements ? I would make my decision based on how well they looked after the place, and their reason for moving. I would expect at least an apology and an offer that they'd keep an eye out for someone ( presuming they don't know you've 3 waiting ).

2/

odds_on

Joe Hart wrote: »

No it is not. You can only withold a deposit if you incurred a loss. It doesn't get much simpler than that. A deposit is not there to be used as punishment.

If a tenant leaves without any or little advance warning, the landlord is entitled to retain the deposit - this is to cover loss of rent, breach of tenant obligations, and expenses involved in finding a new tenant.

The tenant has the option, in order to retain his deposit, - by way of assigning the remainder of his lease to a suitable person (as deemed by a landlord's terms of referencing tenants).

Furthermore, if the tenancy is not assigned and a new tenant enters with a new lease, then a new registration fee is required thus there is another expense (which does nor occur with a assignment).

Henry Ford III

I agree. The tenant is obliged pay rent to the end of the term. Leaving early doesn't exonerate them from that.

Joe Hart

odds_on wrote: »

If a tenant leaves without any or little advance warning, the landlord is entitled to retain the deposit - this is to cover loss of rent, breach of tenant obligations, and expenses involved in finding a new tenant.

The tenant has the option, in order to retain his deposit, - by way of assigning the remainder of his lease to a suitable person (as deemed by a landlord's terms of referencing tenants).

Furthermore, if the tenancy is not assigned and a new tenant enters with a new lease, then a new registration fee is required thus there is another expense (which does nor occur with a assignment).

Is there a loss of rent? No
What expenses were there in finding a new tenant?
Breach of tenant obligations? You are making stuff up.
They are due a refund of deposit minus legitimate costs. The landlord cannot bill them for their time expenses either.

Case closed, shut the thread.

Rasmus

Personally, I'd be delighted if a tenant kept a place in good order. It lessens the workload between tendencies. Did you let her know it was a D1 before she moved in? Also, if you can flip the place within those 18 days, what loss is it to you? You would have to show the place regardless.

discodavie

odds_on wrote: »

.

If a tenant leaves without notice, this is considered as a loss of the entire deposit - breach of obligations by breaking the contract, loss of rent and costs involved in finding a new tenant.

Not true if house was relet within 2 weeks with no other billable than advertising then tenant would be entitled to some of the deposit

Joe Hart wrote: »

You have no legal right to withhold thee deposit unless you have suffered a loss.The tenancy is terminated when she leaves and the landlord is obliged to let the property without delay. They can sue the tenant for any costs or lost rent.
.

At least someone else knows what they're talking about

What you should do is providing you get the same rate, if house empty for 4 days devide monthly rent by 30 then multiply by 4, add on your advertising rate and any other direct expenses ie cleaning (by company)etc. you cannot claim your fuel

So say rent 1000 and deposit same.
4 days downtime 133.33
daft 36.40
No other billable expenses you must return 830.27 as per the rta

And they're right about the prtb not knowing they're stuff threshold not so much but they're tenant advocates and see all landlords as meanies.

D3PO

Joe Hart wrote: »

No it is not. You can only withold a deposit if you incurred a loss. It doesn't get much simpler than that. A deposit is not there to be used as punishment.

and the OP is also entitled to rent for the next two months. Any loss in that regard is a legitimite reason to deduct from the deposit.

so first off the OP is entitled to deduct the advertising costs as they occur early, they are then entititled to deduct any rent owed between the time the tenant leaves and the time they get a new tenant in.

and they rightly should do so. Any tenant that thinks they can just piss off early out of a fixed term lease without suffering any loss has another thing coming

Zamboni

D3PO wrote: »

and the OP is also entitled to rent for the next two months. Any loss in that regard is a legitimite reason to deduct from the deposit.

so first off the OP is entitled to deduct the advertising costs as they occur early, they are then entititled to deduct any rent owed between the time the tenant leaves and the time they get a new tenant in.

and they rightly should do so. Any tenant that thinks they can just piss off early out of a fixed term lease without suffering any loss has another thing coming

As a tenant, I have to agree.
A landlord cannot finish a fixed term contract early without consequences - neither should a tenant.

Joe Hart

Zamboni wrote: »

As a tenant, I have to agree.
A landlord cannot finish a fixed term contract early without consequences - neither should a tenant.

Come on, the roles are completely different. A tenant can reassign a lease without much difficulty as ultimately its doesn't out out a landlord very much. On the other hand a landlord with the ability to end tenancies without reason would be a violation of a persons right to some sort of stabliity in their accommodation. You are talking about someones home.

The law is there and landlords know the rules. If they don't like them then they can leave the business.

RATM

Zamboni wrote: »

As a tenant, I have to agree.
A landlord cannot finish a fixed term contract early without consequences - neither should a tenant.

But what about the old 'my family member is moving in' rule ? I had this one pulled on me after 3.5 years of living in a place which I very much had made my own home. Rent was paid in full and on time for 41 months straight. I'd still be there to this day if he hadn't of pulled that excuse. I say excuse as I later found out the landlord rented it to a friend of his son, and not a family member. But I was the one who had to move out of what I had made my home all to convenience their little love-in.

That's the big problem with landlord-tenant law right there in my opinion. Because tenants never feel secure in what they intend to be their home then the relationship is not on an even keel from day one. It is bad business right from the start.

As a result the tenant is paranoid about the ability of the landlord to get them to leave on a whim by saying they're letting it to a family member. Which only serves to cultivate a culture of amateur landlords of which we know there is no lack of in Ireland- these forums here are ample proof of that. The product of that is tenants who always view the landlord with suspicion and paranoia. That is not the way to carry on what is essentially a business relationship - I know in running my own business and making deals with other business owners that the key to success is making sure both parties stand to gain, if one party feels aggrieved in any way from day one then it'll likely end badly.

Joe Hart

If I ever had that line pulled on me I'd always do a follow up myself. I'm sure hte PRTB would come down hard on a landlord for such a move. It would require some decent detective work which might not suit everyone.

djimi

Its not unheard of for a landlord to be investigated to see if their reason for terminating a lease is genuine, is it?

odds_on

RATM wrote: »

But what about the old 'my family member is moving in' rule ? I had this one pulled on me after 3.5 years of living in a place which I very much had made my own home. Rent was paid in full and on time for 41 months straight. I'd still be there to this day if he hadn't of pulled that excuse. I say excuse as I later found out the landlord rented it to a friend of his son, and not a family member. But I was the one who had to move out of what I had made my home all to convenience their little love-in.

That's the big problem with landlord-tenant law right there in my opinion. Because tenants never feel secure in what they intend to be their home then the relationship is not on an even keel from day one. It is bad business right from the start.

As a result the tenant is paranoid about the ability of the landlord to get them to leave on a whim by saying they're letting it to a family member. Which only serves to cultivate a culture of amateur landlords of which we know there is no lack of in Ireland- these forums here are ample proof of that. The product of that is tenants who always view the landlord with suspicion and paranoia. That is not the way to carry on what is essentially a business relationship - I know in running my own business and making deals with other business owners that the key to success is making sure both parties stand to gain, if one party feels aggrieved in any way from day one then it'll likely end badly.

That is why there is such a lease as a Fixed Term lease - in which a tenant can get out of with no penalty by assignment (and seemingly very little penalty if he just leaves) while the landlord has to ride it out until the expiry of the fixed term.
Apart from an initial lease, it is the tenant who has the choice as to which type of lease he wants Fixed Term for best security of tenure or Part 4 for minimum security which you seem to have opted for.

Joe Hart

I chose Part 4 and overhold. Penalties for overholding? You have to pay the rent.

cookie1977

Joe Hart wrote: »

I chose Part 4 and overhold. Penalties for overholding? You have to pay the rent.

Yes but it only can become a part 4 after a period of time and there are still notice requirements for part 4 tenancies.

RATM

odds_on wrote: »

That is why there is such a lease as a Fixed Term lease - in which a tenant can get out of with no penalty by assignment (and seemingly very little penalty if he just leaves) while the landlord has to ride it out until the expiry of the fixed term.
Apart from an initial lease, it is the tenant who has the choice as to which type of lease he wants Fixed Term for best security of tenure or Part 4 for minimum security which you seem to have opted for.

Yeah for sure- I was young and innocent at the time and didn't know my rights. So the lease had lapsed into a Part 4 from a fixed term. I had never known about the meaning of these until after the event.

Looking back now I should have taken a case to the PRTB when I found out off a neighbour that it was his son's mate who moved in and not his son but at the time I just couldn't be bothered. Still though my point about amateur landlords in Ireland still stands, of course they are not all that way but I've had my fair share of them over the years. Even the OP starting this thread putting a poll up on Boards to ascertain how much of a deposit he should refund smacks of amateur hour. And the other thread with the landlord barging in is more amateur and shouting is more amateur behaviour; it reminds me of a landlord I had in a bedsit years ago- he just barged in to anyones home when he felt like it which was just utterly unacceptable.

Shades799

RATM wrote: »

Even the OP starting this thread putting a poll up on Boards to ascertain how much of a deposit he should refund smacks of amateur hour

Ya it is amateur hour, because I bought a house at the wrong time, had to move for work and couldn't sell it because of the downturn. I'm sorry if this annoys you.

I was confused because I read contridicting statements all over the place, made worse by the fact that when I called the PRTB they appear to have told me wrong.

I started this thread because I was feeling conflicted about something I thought was my legal right and I could do with right now and something that I wasn't really comfortable with. I'm sorry if this offended or annoyed you.

Thanks everyone else for your help as always. My question is answered now but feel free to continue the thread for your discussion if the mods allow. Thanks.

Col1980

Keep the full deposit at a minimum. You are also fully entitled to follow up the two months rent owed to complete the lease. A fixed term lease is just that fixed for the term agreed. One-year in this case.

Joe Hart

Colmq wrote: »

Keep the full deposit at a minimum. You are also fully entitled to follow up the two months rent owed to complete the lease. A fixed term lease is just that fixed for the term agreed. One-year in this case.

If you read the rest of the thread before replying then you would realise you look a bit silly now.

Col1980

Joe Hart wrote: »

If you read the rest of the thread before replying then you would realise you look a bit silly now.

No time. Just here to offer the correct legal advice to the op and cut out all the waffle previously advised,

Joe Hart

Colmq wrote: »

No time. Just here to offer the correct legal advice to the op and cut out all the waffle previously advised,

Unfortunately you've offered incorrect legal advice. Please don't post again.

In this case a tenant has broken a fixed term lease and given insufficient notice. Was the landlord entitled to keep the full months rent and also the rent due for the remainder of the tenancy? No. They were only entitled to the rent that they have lost.
http://public.prtb.ie/DownloadDocs/Sections%2037%20and%20194.pdf

Please everyone thank this post for clearing things up.