# Tenants threw hundreds of butts in garden?



## elainem (5 May 2013)

I had to get some maintenance done on house I was renting out. With the tenants permission I went to the house with builder.

However, when I went to the house, it was filthy. In the garden,which has a lovely patio, was strew with hundres of cigarette buts. They butts were also thrown into the plants on the raised border. There was bits of food on the floor and dishes with half eaten food left on the table, though they were all away for the weekend. Upstairs, the doors of the bedrooms were black with dirt and fingermarks - they have only lived there since August - the stairs to the attic room was also black and thick with dirt. 

There are four women, all 'professionals' in the house. There is a letting agent. What to do? They're away for weekend, so texted them that I was unhappy, but got no reply! 

Any ideas/thoughts how to handle situation would be welcome.

 I actually have never had anything of this kind with tenants before, not dirtiness anywya.


----------



## Setanta12 (5 May 2013)

No damages? Breakages ?

What does the lease say ?  If nothing about general tidiness, then leave alone.  Don't forget there must be normal wear-and-tear; and this sounds like it.


----------



## Harry31 (5 May 2013)

I always tell tenants that we expect the inside & outside of the house to be kept in a reasonable state.  I don't think that is unreasonable. I would tell those 'professionals' to get their act together or take notice. It may seem harsh, but imagine the state the place will be in when they do leave & who will be paying the price!


----------



## elainem (6 May 2013)

*Tenants threw cigarette butts in garden.*

Hi! Thanks to both you for replies. Kildavin, I don't think this is normal wear and tear. The last tentans who had this house left it sportless - they were there for two years! For me, cigarette buts strew all over a garden is dirty and completely disrespectful. It is me who will have to go around and pick up each one of these!

Harry31 - if they don't clean up the mess, can I give them notice for this? I tried to contact them over the weekend but no success - there are four of them. I left a message on each of their phones and sent a global test yesterday afternoon, saying how upset we were at the state ofthe place, especially the garden - but as yet got no replies!

I can't understand why anyone would think it acceptable to stump out hundreds of cigarettes in anyone's garden, even if they are renting, when all they need to do is get a small covered bin/couple of ashtrays to put them iinto.


----------



## Bronte (6 May 2013)

I don't think you can evict them for anything you've posted. Maybe you should buy them a bin for the patio and tell them to dispose of the butts there. When they leave you should pay someone to clean up the butts and you can deduct this from the deposit, I don't think this is normal wear and tear. The dirty dishes are irrelevant. Not sure about the doors. If it's beyond normal wear and tear then you can deduct from the deposit the cost of painting but to me repainting is more a landlords responsibility, generally has to be done every time a tenant leaves.  If these are the worst tenant's you've encountered then you've been very lucky.


----------



## Harry31 (6 May 2013)

Keep trying to contact them, if you live nearby make an appointment to meet with them. If you took photos of the mess in the garden, show them. I would try talking to them in a friendly fashion first (even if you feel mad!). And try to get them to agree that the house & garden should be kept in a reasonable order. I am not suggesting anything in a legal sense, just dealing with tenants over the last few years.  At the end of the day, it is your property & they are only renting it for a period of time - you are the one who will end up doing the clean up (I spent 2 whole days cleaning an oven & a washing machine of stomach churning gunk, so I became much tougher). See how talking to them goes & I hope it goes well - keep us updated!


----------



## serotoninsid (6 May 2013)

elainem said:


> I can't understand why anyone would think it acceptable to stump out hundreds of cigarettes in anyone's garden, even if they are renting, when all they need to do is get a small covered bin/couple of ashtrays to put them iinto.


Understand it! - there are plenty that will do it.  It's disgusting - especially when you have to pick each and every one of them up.  However, I'd imagine if this is the worst experience you have, you'll be getting off lightly.


----------



## seantheman (6 May 2013)

elainem said:


> There is a letting agent.


 
So why are you getting involved? Is this not within the agents remit?


----------



## elainem (7 May 2013)

*Tenants threw hundreds of butts on the ground*

Hi! Seantheman, letting agent doesn't see what the problem is. Says that even though I entered the house with tenants permission to let gardener do the garden, that I can actually be sued by the tenant because I looked upstairs after seeing the mess in the garden and downstairs. It appears the world has gone mad. Really, it is not just the garden - the dirt of the house was stomach churning. There was rotten and Hal eaten food on plates with cigarettes stubbed out in them. There were coffee cups around with coffee in them that we're pure solid from mould. Bits of food all over the floors. The bathroom was also filthy with excrement - dried in faeces and blood. The toilet bowl was covered with brown staining - I am of the age where I have seen better outside toilets - obviously a bottle if bleach was too costly. There were also dirty coffee cups on the bathroom floor! Are my letting agents right in what they have said, or are they trying to scare me?


----------



## delgirl (7 May 2013)

According to the lease I use, it's the standard topfloor one, under the  tenant's obligations:

3.7 To keep the interior of the property and the contents *in good and clean condition*, damage by accidental fire and reasonable wear and tear excepted, and to keep the property at all times well and sufficiently aired and warmed during the tenancy.

I think you're quite correct to point out the state of the property, including the stairs and the bathroom.  If I were you, I would put it in writing to them making reference to their obligations as tenants under their lease, paragraph XX to maintain the property in good and clean condition and advising them specifically what needs to be rectified.

If they query why you went to the bathroom, just say you had to use the toilet. 

You might want to also include in the letter that you intend to inspect the property 4 weeks from now at their convenience.

Would also point out that it is in their interest to keep the property in good and clean order as, when the time comes for them to vacate, if the property is returned in poor order where excessive cleaning is required, hefty deductions will be made from the deposit to cover these costs.


----------



## commonsense (7 May 2013)

elainem said:


> I had to get some maintenance done on house I was renting out. With the tenants permission I went to the house with builder.
> 
> However, when I went to the house, it was filthy. In the garden,which has a lovely patio, was strew with hundres of cigarette buts. They butts were also thrown into the plants on the raised border. There was bits of food on the floor and dishes with half eaten food left on the table, though they were all away for the weekend. Upstairs, the doors of the bedrooms were black with dirt and fingermarks - they have only lived there since August - the stairs to the attic room was also black and thick with dirt.
> 
> ...




You entered the house to do maintenance, not to "check" on the property. 

As you say these are four professional women, they rented a property in a certain condition, they are expected to leave the property as they found it.

I am sure they paid you a deposit? 

IMO, you had no right to text them as the purpose of your visit was to gain access for maintenance.

You have no right to comment on how they choose to live - dirty dishes and butts can be cleaned up.

You rented your property in a certain condition, you have a right to expect it back near to that condition, but to be honest commenting oon bits of food and unwashed dishes is pretty unacceptable. 
You are renting your property - not your lifestyle.

Paintwork and dishes can be washed - butts can be picked up.


----------



## elainem (7 May 2013)

*Tenants threw butts all over the garden*

Hi! Delgirl and Commonsense, thanks for your comments. Commonsense, the letting agent took your view, and I can see where they are coming from to a large extent. I never intended it to be an inspection of the property, but I was just so shocked at the state of the back garden, and also the downstairs of the house.


----------



## serotoninsid (8 May 2013)

elainem said:


> the letting agent took your view, and I can see where they are coming from to a large extent. I never intended it to be an inspection of the property, but I was just so shocked at the state of the back garden, and also the downstairs of the house.


I would imagine they have seen it all before and that what you describe is the thin end of the wedge.  Rented out rooms in my house over the past 7 years to both irish and non-nationals.  The messy ones were irish.


----------



## Bronte (8 May 2013)

elainem said:


> . The bathroom was also filthy with excrement - dried in faeces and blood. The toilet bowl was covered with brown staining - ?


 
I must say your tenant's sound absolutely disgusting.  How do grown adults behave and live like this.


----------



## delgirl (8 May 2013)

commonsense said:


> You entered the house to do maintenance, not to "check" on the property.


If it's so obvious that the property is filthy, then the landlord has every right to point this out to the tenants as they are obliged under the terms of their lease to keep the property in good and clean order.  It's better to nip the situation in the bud before the filth becomes so ingrained that it becomes very difficult to clean.



commonsense said:


> As you say these are four professional women, they rented a property in a certain condition, they are expected to leave the property as they found it.
> 
> I am sure they paid you a deposit?


They are also required to keep the property in 'good and clean order' *during* the tenancy.

You've obviously never had to clean up after dirty tenants have vacated a property. The vast majority of tenants will use their deposit as the last month's rent and if they leave the place dirty, the LL has to either clean the place themselves or fork out for a cleaning company to do it. 



commonsense said:


> IMO, you had no right to text them as the purpose of your visit was to gain access for maintenance.
> 
> You have no right to comment on how they choose to live - dirty dishes and butts can be cleaned up.


The LL has every right to point out that the tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreement.

The last tenants I had to clean up after filled the bins in the rear garden with a mixture of ash from the fire and dirty nappies. We couldn't move the bins as they were too heavy, so they had to be emptied with a shovel.

They had also burnt all/most of their rubbish in the open fire with the result that we had to get a chimney sweep in who removed loads of plastic from the chimney. They left a skip full of rubbish in the cupboards, garden shed and in the attic and the house, blinds, walls, ceilings, carpets, wooden floors and tiles and all the applicances were absolutely filthy.

It took 2 weeks to clean the house and remove all the rubbish and cost a lot of money which, as they were in rent arrears when they left, was not covered by the deposit.


----------



## delgirl (8 May 2013)

elainem said:


> Hi! Delgirl and Commonsense, thanks for your comments. Commonsense, the letting agent took your view, and I can see where they are coming from to a large extent. I never intended it to be an inspection of the property, but I was just so shocked at the state of the back garden, and also the downstairs of the house.


The Letting Agent doesn't care about your property, all the are interested in in getting their fee every month and they don't want the hassle of dealing with tenants or finding new ones.

I say this out of experience with letting agents and would personally never use one again.


----------



## shesells (8 May 2013)

serotoninsid said:


> I would imagine they have seen it all before and that what you describe is the thin end of the wedge.  Rented out rooms in my house over the past 7 years to both irish and non-nationals.  The messy ones were irish.



To add to this. The messiest tenants in our house and who did the most damage (in ten years of renting) were four professional Irish women. Hope they are not the OP's tenants!


----------



## facetious (9 May 2013)

You are entitled to an inspection of the property from time to time - it looks as if you have not done this.

I recall a case with the PRTB where the adjudicator said that if the landlord had used his power as given him in the RTA 2004 to inspect the property from time to time, then there would not have been so much damage to it. Accordingly he reduced the landlord's claim for damages.

However, how a tenant lives in the property is basically up to him/her.

By doing an inspection, and afterwards write to the tenants pointing out things like the butts in the garden, that this may affect the return of their deposit should it area not be left in a condition free thereof. Equally as regards the dirtiness of the attic stairs. Dirt is damage, not wear and tear.


----------



## commonsense (9 May 2013)

delgirl said:


> If it's so obvious that the property is filthy, then the landlord has every right to point this out to the tenants as they are obliged under the terms of their lease to keep the property in good and clean order.  It's better to nip the situation in the bud before the filth becomes so ingrained that it becomes very difficult to clean..



Obvious to who? Not to me, not to the agent and not to others here.  




delgirl said:


> They are also required to keep the property in 'good and clean order' *during* the tenancy..



Never seen that on a lease before.  Maintaining the property, yes. But "clean", eh??? 



delgirl said:


> You've obviously never had to clean up after dirty tenants have vacated a property. The vast majority of tenants will use their deposit as the last month's rent and if they leave the place dirty, the LL has to either clean the place themselves or fork out for a cleaning company to do it. .


 
Wow, sweeping generalisation there. 



delgirl said:


> The LL has every right to point out that the tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreement..



Where are they in breach?  I don't recall the OP saying there was damage done or the rent not being paid? 



delgirl said:


> The last tenants I had to clean up after filled the bins in the rear garden with a mixture of ash from the fire and dirty nappies. We couldn't move the bins as they were too heavy, so they had to be emptied with a shovel..



So? What has that got to do with this? 



delgirl said:


> They had also burnt all/most of their rubbish in the open fire with the result that we had to get a chimney sweep in who removed loads of plastic from the chimney. They left a skip full of rubbish in the cupboards, garden shed and in the attic and the house, blinds, walls, ceilings, carpets, wooden floors and tiles and all the applicances were absolutely filthy.



So? 



delgirl said:


> It took 2 weeks to clean the house and remove all the rubbish and cost a lot of money which, as they were in rent arrears when they left, was not covered by the deposit.



??  

So now every tenant story you hear has some relation to your experience?


The OP has a deposit, he left the property in a certain condition and would like it back that way - who are you to say that he won't get it back in the same condiiton?


----------



## Bronte (10 May 2013)

facetious said:


> I recall a case with the PRTB where the adjudicator said that if the landlord had used his power as given him in the RTA 2004 to inspect the property from time to time, then there would not have been so much damage to it. Accordingly he reduced the landlord's claim for damages.
> 
> .


 
That's a shocking decision.  You are allowed to inspect and you ought to but it's not a legal obligation.  And if a tenant has done damage the tenant should pay for it.  

Do you have a link to that case?


----------



## Bronte (10 May 2013)

commonsense said:


> Never seen that on a lease before. Maintaining the property, yes. But "clean", eh???
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, sweeping generalisation there.


 
Delgirl has the 'clean' clause in her lease. And she's entitled to put it there. But her tenant's have to abide by it. Sounds perfectly reasonable. As I don't have leases I don't impose it. And based on the OP's story, so far nothing has come out that allows an eviction. It is highly likely though that the tenants will use the deposit as last months rent and OP will have to pay someone to massively clean the house. The way they keep the house says a lot about the tenants. 

In relation to your sweepign generalistion on cleaning up after tenant's. I'd say about 90% of my tenants who left a property required some kind of cleaning. It might only be the oven and fridge, this seems to be the area that impacts me, but I'm racking my brains to think of tenant's who left a place completely not needing some kind of work. I just write it down as a cost of business. Sometimes have had to buy new cookers such is the state of it.  I should have shares in the electrical companies as they get a lot of spending from me.  Another one is hoovers, the amount of people unable to operate them is beyond me.


----------



## Janet (10 May 2013)

Bronte said:


> In relation to your sweepign generalistion on cleaning up after tenant's. I'd say about 90% of my tenants who left a property required some kind of cleaning.



This would tie in with my experience, too but as a renter.  Landlords were always astonished that they were getting the place back properly cleaned (usually in far better condition than I took it over in).  One couple, who had to ask us to leave because they needed the use of the house themselves, made a point of phoning me a week or two after they'd moved in to thank me and repeated the thanks every time they saw me over the next few weeks when I called to collect post.  They'd seen that it was clean when we did the handover but it was only when they did a closer inspection after they moved in that they realised we really had cleaned properly (mind you, they still charged me rent for the four days when I had technically moved out but was coming back to do the cleaning, tidy up the garden etc. - I had misunderstood their casual attitude to our date of moving out.  Probably wouldn't have bothered with cleaning the carpet if I'd realised.)  The next place we moved out of, when we were arranging with the landlady what day it would be etc., they very snottily asked if they were going to need to arrange for the molly maids to come in once we left.  Since we had always looked after the place it was pretty insulting to be asked that but it just seems to be what most landlords expect and us leaving the place in good condition definitely seemed to come across as unusual.


----------



## delgirl (10 May 2013)

commonsense said:


> Obvious to who? Not to me, not to the agent and not to others here.


Eh, Obvious to Elainem, the owner of the house.



commonsense said:


> Never seen that on a lease before. Maintaining the property, yes. But "clean", eh???


How many leases have you seen? Mine is a standard letting agreement used by many landlords in Ireland. The leases available on www.irishlandlord.com and www.topfloor.ie are identical and have the clause which requires the rental property to be kept in good and clean order during the term of the tenancy.



commonsense said:


> Wow, sweeping generalisation there.


I think not. I have been a landlord for over 18 years and have yet to see a property returned by tenants in the condition in which it was received. I have also never had a tenant in all these years who didn't use their deposit as a last month's rent. 

That's my experience and also the experience of friends and relatives who are also landlords, some of them owning 20 or more units.



commonsense said:


> Where are they in breach? I don't recall the OP saying there was damage done or the rent not being paid?


If the lease is a standard one which makes reference to the property being kept in good and clean order throughout the tenancy, then the tenant is in breach of their obligations.




commonsense said:


> The OP has a deposit, he left the property in a certain condition *and would like it back that way* - who are you to say that he won't get it back in the same condiiton?


I didn't say that, I just said in my experience of 18 years I have never received a property back as clean or even remotely nearly as clean as the tenant received it at the start of the tenancy.

The Landlord would of course '*like it back that way'*, but that's not how it works in the real world. And the deposit is of no use if the tenant decides to use it as a last month's rent, there's absolutely no way of stopping them from doing this.


----------



## delgirl (10 May 2013)

Janet said:


> This would tie in with my experience, too but as a renter. Landlords were always astonished that they were getting the place back properly cleaned (usually in far better condition than I took it over in).


You sound like the perfect tenant that all landlords dream about.


----------



## facetious (11 May 2013)

Bronte said:


> That's a shocking decision.  You are allowed to inspect and you ought to but it's not a legal obligation.  And if a tenant has done damage the tenant should pay for it.
> 
> Do you have a link to that case?



TR355 /DR230/2010
6.  The  Tribunal  rejects  the  claim  by  the  Appellant  Landlord  in  respect  of  an  additional weeks rent of €500 arising out of the extra time to prepare the dwelling for re-letting.    

Reason: In his evidence the Appellant Landlord accepted that there were no regular inspections of the dwelling during the tenancy.  An earlier inspection could have prevented later problems.


----------



## oldnick (11 May 2013)

It defies all logic and morality to deny justice to an aggrieved party because that party "should" have inspected his property regularly .

Likewise
- a mugger could claim that if the victim was not carrying too much money and had taken precautions the robbery "could have been prevented"
-  an  attacker of women could claim because his victim has dressed in a different manner the attack "could have been prevented"
...and so on and so on...

There must be something more to this, Facetious -otherwise the decision is appalling.


----------



## ajapale (11 May 2013)

facetious said:


> TR355 /DR230/2010



From [broken link removed]

TR355 /DR230/2010 Damage to the Dwelling in excess of normal wear and tear

*Background:*
The Tenant made an application to the PRTB. The matter was referred to an Adjudicator who determined that the Landlord must pay the Tenant the sum of € 2,100, being the retained security deposit. Subsequently a valid appeal was received from the Landlord.

*Background:*
The Tenant made an application to the PRTB. The matter was referred to an Adjudicator who determined that the Landlord must pay the Tenant the sum of € 2,100, being the retained security deposit. Subsequently a valid appeal was received from the Landlord.

*Submissions of the Parties*
*Appellant Landlords Case: *
The Appellant Landlord stated that the Dwelling was a relatively new house in ‘showroom’ condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The monthly rent was € 2,100 and the security deposit was € 2,100. He had engaged Estate Agents to let the property. The Appellant Landlord stated that he was shocked at the condition of the dwelling when he inspected it immediately following termination of the tenancy by the Respondent Tenant. He submitted photographs to demonstrate the condition of the property at the time of this inspection. These photographs showed a number of different scribbles on walls fittings and items of furniture. These, he said, were in every room of the house. They were made with a variety of crayon, biro and marker. Following cleaning he still had to use a proprietary paint product to cover up the marks because the biro marks kept showing through the coats of paint. The Appellant stated he was claiming a total amount of € 8,625.68 for damage beyond normal wear and tear. The Appellant Landlord stated that the 5 leather upholstered kitchen chairs that were extensively marked with biro could not be repaired at an economic cost and he had to replace them with new ones. The Appellant Landlord gave evidence that the leather couch in the property had been damaged and the leather was split through. The Respondent Tenant’s attempt to repair the leather couch was not successful. He stated that the couch replacement had cost € 2,280, although there was ambiguity in regard to the invoices presented. The Appellant Landlord conceded that an inventory list was not provided to the Respondent Tenant. He thought his agent would do this but could not produce any evidence to show same had been done. He also conceded that he had not carried out regular inspections of the dwelling during the tenancy. The Appellant landlord stated that, despite the provision of the tenancy agreement, he himself had been paying the monthly Sky rental all along. Whilst he did consent to the work on the satellite dish, he did not agree at any stage that he would take responsibility for the cost of that work, which was instigated by the Respondent Tenant when he wanted to upgrade to HD. 

*Respondent Tenant’s Case: *
The Respondent Tenant stated that he considered any damage caused to the property to be normal wear and tear, particularly in light of the fact that the dwelling was let to a family with young children. He stated that the graffiti on the walls was not as widespread as to warrant the repainting of the entire house as claimed by the Appellant Landlord. Not all walls in the house had been marked, the photographs were close-ups and should have included some broader angle shots toshow the small areas concerned. In his view ad hoc touch - up type painting work to small areas would restore the walls to their original condition. He also considered that much of the crayon and marker damage could be removed merely by wiping. He himself had removed some of the crayon marks successfully. He had attempted to remove the biro marks but this was not successful. He accepted that the damage to the 5 kitchen chairs was of a nature such that it was uneconomical to repair them, but considered that, as they were almost 3 years old at the end of the tenancy, any replacement value should be on the basis of their condition at that stage rather than a new set. He also accepted that the leather couch was damaged but that he had spent € 150 on its repair. The Respondent Tenant gave evidence that on the day on which he was carrying out cleaning at the  termination of the tenancy the Landlord rang to state that he wished to show the property to a prospective new tenant. This resulted in his having to rush the job and some matters were not attended to. However it was his contention that these were matters that could be dealt with by minimal cleaning on the part of the Appellant Landlord. The Respondent Tenant gave evidence relating to the satellite reception at the dwelling being very poor or non-existent. When he sought to upgrade the system to HD he rang the Appellant Landlord and asked him to speak to the technician with regard to re-adjustment of the dish on the chimney. He believed that conversation and the contents of subsequent text contact showed that the Appellant Landlord accepted that the cost of the work would be borne by the Appellant Landlord. This amounted to € 155 (subsequently referred to in written submissions as € 150). The Respondent Tenant gave evidence of not having received an inventory of the items in the dwelling despite seeking same. He also refuted that he had caused damage to the decking as alleged by the Appellant Landlord, and suggested that the damage referred to was there on commencement of the tenancy. He cited a number of matters that were not attended to promptly by the Appellant Landlord including repair to a blocked toilet, repair to a clothes dryer and the outlet from the main bathroom wash hand basin. He referred to a mouse infestation that had occurred during the tenancy. 

*Determination:*
The Respondent Tenant shall pay the net sum of € 875 to the Appellant Landlord in respect of damage over and above normal wear and tear to a total value of € 2,975, having deducted the amount of the security deposit, in sum € 2,100, as has been justifiably retained by the appellant Landlord in respect of the tenancy of the dwelling. 

Other Tribunals that may be of interest:
1.     TR167/DR1263/2010: No Jurisdiction as the named Appellant Landlord was not in fact the Landlord 
2.     TR183 /DR680 & DR707/2010: Notice of Termination, Breach of Landlord/ Tenant Obligations 
3.     TR244/DR990/DR996/2010: Standard and Maintenance of the Dwelling & Notice of Termination required on the expiry of a fixed term lease agreement.


----------



## facetious (11 May 2013)

oldnick said:


> It defies all logic and morality to deny justice to an aggrieved party because that party "should" have inspected his property regularly .
> 
> Likewise
> - a mugger could claim that if the victim was not carrying too much money and had taken precautions the robbery "could have been prevented"
> ...


It's like going to the doctor, from time to time, for a check-up, rather than waiting until you get ill. Should cancer screening be abolished?

However, I do feel that many landlords are not in full control of their property/properties. Once the rent comes in on a regular basis they are happy enough. Then, before the end of a fixed term the fail to enquire if the tenant intends on remaining or leaving.

A preliminary inspection of a property a couple of weeks before tenants vacate would resolve many problems about deposit being returned or with-held. This would allow time for the tenant to effect a remedy prior to vacating, as, once the lease has expired, the tenant has no right to return to correct matters.

But then, I may be over-simplistic.


----------



## ajapale (11 May 2013)

facetious said:


> TR355 /DR230/2010



facetious are you sure about this reference?


----------



## elainem (12 May 2013)

*Tenants threw hundreds of cigarette butts on the ground*

Hi! All. Thanks for all the replies. The matter has now been resolved until they move out at the end of June, but there was some stand off, with tenants threatening to go to the PRTB because I had gone upstairs in the house, after seeing the state of the garden and downstairs. When I pointed out to them that the gardener took two hours to pick up all the butts from the garden, and then actually had to do the gardening, they backed down a little, and admitted that the state they left the garden in was inappropriate. I assured them that I had not gone into any of their bedrooms - the doors were all closed - but the state of the bathroom (my 10 year old son wouldn't use the toilet it was so dirty)  stairs and black marks, make-up marks on all the doors was quite shocking to me and above normal wear and tear in my opinion. They were really concerned about getting a reference for another property - which I was quite surprised at, as I thought a lot of landlords/letting agents did not check references - I told them that I would be happy to give them a reference if the house was properly cleaned and the marks were removed from doors upstairs.

My letting agent did nothing and just told me the PRTB is almost completely on the tenant's side. I think I will manage the property myself next time.


----------



## facetious (12 May 2013)

ajapale said:


> facetious are you sure about this reference?


TR355 /DR230/2010

I'm pretty certain that is the correct reference, but you have to look Feb 2011 Tribunal decisions to find it. The silly way they have arranged their system. Also ridiculous is the fact that you can't use a search engine to find things in the decisions - as well as allowing applicants and respondents to have their names excluded from the decisions.

I have been trying to check it for the last couple of hours but the PRTB site seems to be down.


----------



## mandelbrot (12 May 2013)

facetious said:


> Also ridiculous is the fact that you can't use a search engine to find things in the decisions - as well as allowing applicants and respondents to have their names excluded from the decisions.



What's ridiculous about allowing people their privacy?


----------



## Steve D (12 May 2013)

It sounds like the tenants are being considerate by going out into the garden to smoke rather than letting the smell of smoke stink out the house. You should be thankful because it would be a lot worse if they were smoking indoors!


----------



## Luternau (12 May 2013)

Unless specifically in the lease, a LL cannot insist that a tenant keeps the house in a cerain way or as they would keep it. However, when tenants are vacating, a LL has the right to withold part or the full amount of the deposit to get the place back to the same condition it was in at commencement of the lease-normal wear and tear excluded. 

As to the PRTB, its time they started to show some measure of reason towards LL's and the risk they take when letting property.  One months deposit does not offer sufficient security.  A 3 month deposit, held in a third party account is what is required. That way tenants may think twice about the way they keep the property and at the same time it protects them from LL's witholding deposits. I thought the PRTB would by now have implemented this as part pof their aim ' to requlate and impove standards in the residential sector'!


----------



## facetious (12 May 2013)

mandelbrot said:


> What's ridiculous about allowing people their privacy?


Its a good place to find potentially bad tenants and bad landlords.

Before the PRTB, all claims went through the courts - were the rulings not all available to those who wanted to know the outcome?


----------



## Kine (13 May 2013)

Luternau said:


> As to the PRTB, its time they started to show some measure of reason towards LL's and the risk they take when letting property. One months deposit does not offer sufficient security. A 3 month deposit, held in a third party account is what is required. That way tenants may think twice about the way they keep the property and at the same time it protects them from LL's witholding deposits. I thought the PRTB would by now have implemented this as part pof their aim ' to requlate and impove standards in the residential sector'!


 
I would whole heartedly agree - as both a landlord in Ireland and tenant in the UK I have been through both systems and I do much prefer the UK deposit system. 

Best of luck to the OP in keeping the property tidy, glad they got a result of sorts.


----------



## Bronte (14 May 2013)

facetious said:


> TR355 /DR230/2010
> 
> .


 

As you said PRTB website is being upgraded so we cannot see that case but Ajaple printed it on here.  It does not state that the award to the landlord was less as the landlord didn't visit the property?


----------

