# Landlord wants to take me  to court for subletting a room



## mamo (28 Jan 2015)

We have moved out of apartment 3 months ago, once our yearly lease was up. Have been in the property for 4 years. But did not get a deposit back. 

Once I asked for a deposit back, landlord said that because we were subleting his property and were doing business out of the property he will take us to court for breach of lease contract.

We were not doing any business out of apartment, but rented out a room for a short period of time. landlord knew about this and never made any writen or oral complains.

If she will take us to court or PRTB can she win a case? He wants us to pay him money to cover his loss of income and breach of contract.

What should I do?


----------



## G7979 (28 Jan 2015)

What loss of income has he suffered?

Do you have anything in writing regarding subletting the room?

Lodge your own complaint with the PRTB for non return of the deposit. See here for more information [broken link removed]


----------



## Gerry Canning (28 Jan 2015)

G7979 said:


> What loss of income has he suffered?
> 
> Do you have anything in writing regarding subletting the room?
> 
> Lodge your own complaint with the PRTB for non return of the deposit. See here for more information [broken link removed]


Has the smell of landlord wanting to keep your Deposit.
G7979s advice is good.

If landlord knew you were sub-letting and only gets crankey because you are now looking for deposit back , methinks he is chancing his arm. 
They are 2 separate potential disputes.


----------



## mamo (28 Jan 2015)

Thank you for your replies, He has not suffered any loss as I understand, because he got all payments agreed on time and in full. we were never late with any payments. I dont have anything written and that person did not have any bills or anything in her name on this property. She left the country since then


----------



## G7979 (28 Jan 2015)

Having someone stay for a short period of time - how that was done and whether permission etc was sought or required etc - you know the details of that, and will need to check your lease to see where you stand on this

This just smacks of greedy landlord, you were there for 4 years. A deposit should be held for damages above normal wear and tear. having a house guest should not have any bearing on that


----------



## mamo (28 Jan 2015)

Lets say on the lease was a clause that I was not allowed to sublet or rent out a room, can they sue me now? what sort of damages are we looking here. Rent was 900 EUR


----------



## G7979 (29 Jan 2015)

Then you shouldn't have done it - simple.
This was grounds for the landlord to ask you to leave, issue a notice of termination and following proper procedure etc 

However - this is a separate issue to the withholding of the deposit. Deposits are not allowed to be held as penalty in such cases. Deposits are for unpaid rent and damages above normal wear and tear. Check the link and lodge your complaint


----------



## facetious (29 Jan 2015)

mamo said:


> Once I asked for a deposit back, landlord said that because we were subleting his property and were doing business out of the property he will take us to court for breach of lease contract.
> 
> If she will take us to court or PRTB can she win a case? He wants us to pay him money to cover his loss of income and breach of contract.
> 
> What should I do?


Before a landlord can claim a breach of lease contract, he must first advise you of that breach and give you time to remedy it. He cannot simply claim sometime afterwards that you have breached the lease conditions especially if he knew you had sub-let.

As I understand your post, you had already moved out of the property. Thus, you became a landlord in your own right and must fulfill all landlord obligations: Register tenancy with the PRTB and pay the fee, and as you have rental income, you must declare this in your tax returns, to mention just two things.

Furthermore, just about all leases have a clause that prohibits sub-letting without the written consent of the landlord (this is a clause in the RTA 2004 on which fixed term leases are based).


----------



## mamo (29 Jan 2015)

Thank you for your advice. Yes, I moved out of the property 3 months ago. She started to make complains only after I asked for a deposit umerous times. She did not mail any letters that there was a breach of contract. we had verbal agreement.

My main question would be can she take it to court once the lease is over and get monetary compensation because I sublet a room while we had lease agreement eventhough it is over now.


----------



## G7979 (29 Jan 2015)

I think there has been a misunderstanding - did you move out and sublet to another person, or did you rent a room in the property while you were still there?

Either way I dont think she can take you to court - again what compensation, for what? What losses were incurred? There were none that you are telling us about so no she cant take you to court (or PRTB)


----------



## mamo (29 Jan 2015)

Thank you for your reply, I was subleting a room while I was living in the property. Once I have given the keys there were no people living in there. New tenants moved in next day. There were no property damage or anything like that.


----------



## Dermot (29 Jan 2015)

mamo.  If what you have stated is correct I cannot see what your Landlord is on about.  This is the sort of thing that makes it difficult for good Landlords.  I'm a Landlord and I would have no problem returning your deposit if everything was as you say when you were moving out 3 months ago.  How and when did your Landlord become aware of the new Tenant.
Facetious has a technical point about you being a Landlord but I do not think you need to worry yourself too much about it.


----------



## facetious (30 Jan 2015)

It would be a very stupid landlord that would permit a tenant to sublet shortly before the expiry of a fixed term lease without having the possibility of reference checking a tenant.

However, the landlord of the property would, I believe, be able to evict the tenant up to the six month period of occupation as said OP's fixed term tenancy would have rolled over to a Part 4 at the end of 3 months. 

Again, if the landlord knew about the sub-letting, and the OP can prove it, then the landlord would not, IMHO, have a claim for breach of contract.


----------



## G7979 (30 Jan 2015)

@facetious - I think there has been some confusion, the tenant did not sublet to an alternative tenant while they were no longer in the property, they also from the look of things did not seek to have an additional tenant added to the lease agreement. For whatever reason the original tenant let a room to a third party - almost certainly without the prior consent/knowledge of the landlord, and most likely in conflict with standard lease agreements used in Ireland. Possibly a friend needed short term accommodation or they were in a bind financially - who knows how or why this came about. 

The original tenant would have been a landlord of sorts but I believe this would have fallen under the rent a room scheme and no responsibility would have been with the original tenant to register with the PRTB and (i'm guessing here) was unlikely to have earned enough to have to pay tax on the amount. 

The original tenant was in the property for 4 years and we don't know if the additional person joined at the beginning middle or end of the tenancy. What we do know is that they vacated before or along with the original tenant. 

The landlord became aware of the other person and from what the OP is saying didn't do anything about it and "never made any written or oral complaints"

As Dermot says quite correctly that was the landlords opportunity  to make a complaint and to look for a remedy (following proper procedure) ie - inform the original tenant of the breach of contract, insist that the additional tenant be removed and if necessary issue a notice of termination for breach of contract.

There are many reasons why it is very foolish for a landlord to do nothing in these situations, the landlord has a responsibility to the PRTB to register those staying at the property but the PRTB is a bit vague on what to do in such a case as this. But there are issues or overcrowding and insurance for a start. Wear and tear is another concern for a landlord in these circumstances. This doesn't fall under subletting or assigning a lease as set out by the PRTB

However it was only after the original tenant moved out - the property was vacated fully and the keys handed back - and had requested the return of the deposit multiple times that this became an issue.



mamo said:


> She started to make complains only after I asked for a deposit umerous times. She did not mail any letters that there was a breach of contract. we had verbal agreement.



Lots of mistakes on both sides here, both of them are in the wrong.

A deposit can not be used as a penalty in this case - a deposit is for monetary reimbursement, typically for rent arrears, damage beyond normal wear and tear (cant expect it back perfect after 4 years!) or in the case of breaking the lease, advertising and re-letting costs, but the full amount cannot be kept - it should be vouched for with invoices, quotes etc. Only the amount which is required to set the matter right can be retained and the balance should be returned - ie one broken lamp does not mean a full months rent is forfeit (assuming 1 months rent is held as a deposit as would be the norm)

The landlord let the property straight away according to the original tenant, so there is no reason to withhold the deposit this is just a greedy landlord chancing their arm and as Dermot says makes it more difficult for decent landlords.


----------



## mamo (30 Jan 2015)

Thank you all for your complete answers and your time.

To clarify: I subleted a room for 3 months in the middle of the last year lease. House was empty once I gave the keys back.

I have spoken to her about this and she changed her tune to saying that many things were broken and she will have to deduct that, but new tenants moved in next day after we moved out. However, she made these complains just now that she found out many items missing or broken. 

How much time does she have to claim for broken things? How can she prove that it was me and not new tenants. New tenants have been living in the property for 3 months. Once we did inspection there were none broken that was pointed out to me. Also she did not tell me that anything was broken in first month since I moved out.


----------



## facetious (30 Jan 2015)

G7979, thanks for the correction and clarification.



mamo said:


> Thank you for your reply, I was subleting a room while I was living in the property. Once I have given the keys there were no people living in there. New tenants moved in next day. There were no property damage or anything like that.


The Op has not always been very clear, to my mind, as to when things happened.
On re-reading the posts several times, I now think I have misunderstood what the OP meant:
I was subletting a room while I was living in the property.  _This should have been renting a room, not sub-letting_.
next sentence: *Once I have given the keys* there were no people living in there. _This, I understood as the OP gave the keys to the sub-tenant._
Following sentence: New tenants moved in next day. _My original understanding was that the sub-tenant took over when the OP vacated._

I now think the OP meant the following:
I was renting a room while living there, we I and my "lodger" (not sub-tenant) moved out at the end of the lease and the next day new tenants moved in.

In this case, the OP did not become a landlord under the definition for the PRTB, but was a live-in landlord renting a room in her home and not liable to PRTB registration. As the OP's landlord did not object to the OP having a lodger (licensee) although he knew about the new person in the property.

Therefore, to answer the OP's original question,


mamo said:


> If she will take us to court or PRTB can she win a case? He wants us to pay him money to cover his loss of income and breach of contract.


IMHO, if the landlord made a claim against you for having another person in the property, he would not succeed and the OP should make a claim against the landlord for unjustifiably retaining the deposit. The OP should also claim for damage for the unjustifiable retention of the deposit.

To help people reading this thread, it should be clarified as to what sub-letting is.
A sub-let exists when a tenant renting a property, vacates the property and in turn rents the property to another tenant. Thus, the original tenant becomes a landlord in their own right and must comply with all rules and regulations relating to being a landlord. In a sub-let situation, there are two landlord involved: the landlord (probably the owner of the property) and the "Head tenant" (the original tenant) who is liable to the landlord for the rent. The head tenant may charge the sub-tenant more or less than the landlord (owner) charges the head tenant but the head tenant is responsible for the rent stated on his lease.


----------



## Dermot (30 Jan 2015)

I would imagine that she will have great difficulty in proving same seeing that she did not bring it to your attention much earlier.  Have you a record of all contacts with her since you left.  I think you may have to take this Landlord to PRTB in order to have your rent returned.  G7979 has already advised this course of action. You can advise her that is what you are doing but not necessary.  
Is she registered with the PRTB.  This does not matter from your point of view.


----------



## amethyst (1 Feb 2015)

I'm coming in late to the thread, but mamo, you have been well advised here.  Go straight to the PRTB for non-refund of deposit.

The landlord's late claim of 'lots of things broken' sounds suspicious and will probably ring hollow with the PRTB.

No, I don't think you have any worries about any 'breach of contract' case.  The landlord has two huge obstacles with that.  The first, (and unsurmountable) is that she has no damages to claim, as has been pointed out.  The second is that if she did know of your renting a room, and made no objection, she can be said to be *acquiescing*.  She would lose her contract rights by acquiescing in the breach.

It's not hugely important, but I'm curious--how do you know that the landlord knew about the lodger?  And when did the landlord know about it?


----------



## G7979 (2 Feb 2015)

So the landlord has changed their tune - it is no longer breach of contract for your lodger, now its damages, unspecified, previously unmentioned and no invoices to prove costs, damages. This person has no intentions of giving you back your deposit.

I would stop trying to engage with this person, stop trying to reason with them and lodge the complaint. You are wasting your time.

If it were me I wouldn't even tell the landlord I was doing it - would only give them the chance to fabricate the supposed damages. Detail everything you can in writing as you remember it, give as much information as you can, dates copies of emails and texts if you have it etc and wait for The PRTB to handle it. 

There is no set time period for a landlord to have to return a deposit or make a claim but they must do it promptly- 3 months after you leave is not prompt.


----------



## mamo (2 Feb 2015)

Thank you all for your advice and time. 

I will proceed through PRTB to get deposit back, will update with an outcome for a case study.

To answer questions raised above:

I told her that I will be renting one room for some time and she did not say anything against it. I was never late with payments.

As per facetious great post: to clarify - I was renting a room, not sub-letting the property. Sorry for confusion. 

How can she prove that damages were done by me if new tenants are living in the property for 3 months?


----------



## G7979 (2 Feb 2015)

In short - she cant prove it. The onus was on her to promptly provide you with a list of damages and costs for repair. Three months later is no good


----------



## amethyst (2 Feb 2015)

It has occurred to me that there is actually a small flaw in what most of us, including me, have said to you.  If there was an agreement that you would have no lodger, and you did take one on,  it would be reasonable I believe for the landlord to claim some small damage under 'increased normal wear and tear'.  Normal wear and tear is built into the rent, and cannot be charged for in the security deposit.  But there is a case that a landlord could charge for increased normal wear and tear for lodgers that are forbidden by contract. But in any case this should be small.  I don't know what would be considered reasonable,  but certainly only a very small fraction of monthly rent.  Off the top of my head, I'd say any claim of more than 5% of the monthly rent would be excessive for that, and that may be too high.

The landlord could have some basis to claim this, but since you have won my sympathy against a party which is not earning my sympathy,  I would suggest that you do not help them in making this claim. For your part, simply stick to the case that there was *no damage done* by the lodger, and therefore nothing to be paid.

>> I told her that I will be renting one room for some time and she did not say anything against it.

That qualifies as acquiescence to me. A contract-party is not allowed to acquiesce in appearance, while quietly storing up a notion of breach to hit you with later; that would be unreasonable and bad-faith behavior. The law solves this problem by taking a view of acquiescence as equivalent to the contract being tacitly amended with the consent of both parties--so there is no breach.

>> How can she prove that damages were done by me if new tenants are living in the property for 3 months?

There is never any true proof in any area of law.  One's task is to convince the judge/jury/adjudicator (the PRTB in this case) under the evidence that you are allowed to present.

There is a common fallacy among Irish people that 'it is her word against mine' means that the words cancel out in the eyes of the court,  and maybe also that then only hard physical evidence or records matter. This is wrong. Testimony is evidence, and it gets weight.  Credibility affects the weight of evidence. The standard in a civil matter like this is preponderance of the evidence--the PRTB should decide which of the two cases --your case (that you did not damage the stuff) and the landlord's case (that you did) is more likely to be true.

Assuming you have told us the relevant facts,  your landlord should be in serious trouble in this regard, assuming an intelligent adjudicator.  Because the landlord's credibility is seriously damaged.

Just put the full story on front of the PRTB.  Tell  the PRTB that you told the landlord about the lodger, and give an approximate date if available, and how the landlord did not object, etc.

And then how you were first told that the deposit was being taken for 'breach of contract' because of the lodger.  And how the landlord changed the story to one of damaged property but only after you got advice that no retention of deposit should follow from breach of contract related to the lodger, and how all this happened after a long delay.

Assuming you have presented all the relevant evidence, and the adjudicator is reasonable and intelligent,  I think you have an excellent chance of prevailing over the landlord.


----------



## trasneoir (21 Feb 2015)

mamo said:


> How can she prove that damages were done by me if new tenants are living in the property for 3 months?


With time-stamped inspection photographs taken before the new tenants arrived. Also receipts and photographs of the replacement items in situ. Any sane landlord would collect this kind of evidence as a matter of course if an inspection found damage. 

If such evidence existed you would have heard about this issue three months ago, not last week when the landlord realized her bluff was being called.


----------



## facetious (22 Feb 2015)

trasneoir said:


> With time-stamped inspection photographs taken before the new tenants arrived. Also receipts and photographs of the replacement items in situ. Any sane landlord would collect this kind of evidence as a matter of course if an inspection found damage.
> 
> If such evidence existed you would have heard about this issue three months ago, not last week when the landlord realized her bluff was being called.


The trouble nowadays is that photographs can be "photoshopped", including the date stamp. I believe that in the UK, photos are not now considered as full proof. More and more properties are now inspected by an independent Inventories Clerk. They provide mostly written evidence and a few photos which is fully accepted by the Deposit holding companies and more so than either a landlord's or his agent's inventory.


----------



## trasneoir (22 Feb 2015)

facetious said:


> The trouble nowadays is that photographs can be "photoshopped", including the date stamp. I believe that in the UK, photos are not now considered as full proof.


Of course photos will never constitute cast-iron proof, but in a civil dispute they could certainly sway the balance of probability. 

Bear in mind that the burden of proof is with the complainant. If I were arbitrating this, I'd be wondering why the complainant didn't bother spending two minutes to gather the most basic evidence.


----------



## mamo (15 May 2015)

For a case study I would like to update this story. 

I though something is not right because landlord did not present anything before a hearing, just copies of our emails. All evidence was brought on a hearing day, so I did not know what to prepare for. 

Deposit held 900 EUR

PRTB determined that pictures taken by the landlord were inconclusive to show damage caused to the property beyond normal wear and tear, but they awarded her most of my deposit even though it was oral evidence no invoices were presented to me or to PRTB. Invoices that were presented at the hearing were 30-45 days after I have moved out.  Total value of invoices for damages were for 80 EUR ( small items - keys, locks, etc)

PRTB awarded her 200 EUR for her loss of income while cleaning her property during her working hours on top of two separate invoices for cleaning from two different cleaning companies. 120+100 EUR 

She got money for damaged table that she had to replace and transportation expenses - no pictures or invoices were presented - 200 EUR

So in total out of 900 EUR- I should get 200EUR, 

In the beginning she claimed that she lost 500 EUR of her income while cleaning the property and they determined that it is too much I guess and gave her only 200EUR

My invoices were not taken into consideration, even for partial compensation - for example that I bought microwave and did not get money back from her and other things for total value of 250 EUR

At the same time they advised her to file separate case against me for renting out a room and breaching a contract.

Is it worth to file for retrial with PRTB or is it just waste of time?

After all this , I think PRTB is made to protect landlords. I met other people who had very very similar experience like mine above, even though our original thought was that they are neutral party.


----------



## facetious (16 May 2015)

mamo said:


> For a case study I would like to update this story.
> 
> I though something is not right because landlord did not present anything before a hearing, just copies of our emails. All evidence was brought on a hearing day, so I did not know what to prepare for.
> 
> ...


A landlord cannot claim for her time in cleaning, only for products used. Invoices provided may be deducted from you deposit if applicable. However, the landlord should have to prove that the property was left in a state worse than when the OP moved in. If there was no entry inventory the landlord cannot prove this unless she has invoices to prove that it was professionally cleaned immediately prior to the OP moving in.



mamo said:


> F
> She got money for damaged table that she had to replace and transportation expenses - no pictures or invoices were presented - 200 EUR



If you damaged the table you are liable for the damage



mamo said:


> My invoices were not taken into consideration, even for partial compensation - for example that I bought microwave and did not get money back from her and other things for total value of 250 EUR



If you purchased these items then they are yours and you are entitled to have them returned to you. That is, unless you broke them in the first place and these are replacements but my understanding of your post this is not the case.

A landlord is required by law to supply a microwave, if she did not then she was in breach of contract (Housing standards for rental properties 2008/2009, not the RTA 2004).

From the information that you have posted, I believe you should apply to the PRTB for a Determination and not the Adjudication that you have. It is certainly about €450  at stake. However, I and all posters can only comment on the information that you have supplied and the final decision is yours. Threshold may be able to advise you further with a face to face discussion.


----------



## mamo (19 May 2015)

Thank you again for your answer

As per Threshold answer - Landlord is allowed to deduct money for his time fixing or cleaning the property. 

To clarify - Table was not damaged, pictures were not shown of the damage and no receipts or invoices were provided to show that it was even purchased in the end. Just words without any proof.

she said that microwave was not working properly because of me and she wont return money or partial compensation for it. PRTB seems to agree to her side of the story and did not award anything for me.

So live and learn next time I will know what to do.


----------



## WizardDr (25 May 2015)

@mamo - sorry to have arrived late to the discussion.

I would have thought the PRTB decide the cases on the 'balance of probabilities'. One of the matters is the issue of 'normal wear and tear'.  They have a reasonably good reputation.

I think @facetious has given you a lot of good advice - as I wandered through the various posts it was actually difficult to be clear on some of the issues until they were teased out.

I don't think the Landlord has any case on somebody else in property if you were there.

However the real issue to me is that people need to get their facts lined up and also understand the other sides point of view. These tribunals can be persuaded by somebody who has the facts and dates clear. Sometimes there is too much detail and maybe some posters anxious to help made assumptions which turned out maybe were not what they had thought.

Sorry that your news wasn't better - but I would reread @facetious as I think this poster went to a lot of trouble and seems to have detailed knowledge.


----------



## amethyst (25 May 2015)

>> After all this , I think PRTB is made to protect landlords.

I wouldn't assume that.  I'd only assume that you happen to be a tenant who suffered a crappy adjudication which worked against them.  Many a landlord suffers the same thing.

Sorry to hear about your unfavorable result.  In the light of what you told me, it does not seem fair.


----------



## mamo (6 Jun 2016)

I want to update for future reference and to wrap up case study maybe somebody will be in the same situation like me and can learn something out of this.

So like it says in the post above I was awarded 200 EUR after PRTB hearing, still I did not get anything after 1 year.

Because landlord refused to pay me after getting PRTB order and PRTB says that they cant do anything because they deal with cases above 3000EUR.

They told me that I have to go to small claims court if I want to get my money. I guess I wont go because its extra cost


----------



## facetious (6 Jun 2016)

It is really not in anybody's interest if the PRTB (now RTB) is unable to stand up to the damages awarded to either tenant or landlord. It really makes a mockery of the whole process and adds to the fact that the RTB is not fit for purpose by not having any authority over people who don't abide by their decisions.


----------

