# Help re Tenant Mess



## BusyBee176 (19 Feb 2013)

Hi,

First time poster.

We have a house let and the tenant had indicated that she would be leaving soon and we informed her that we would need a month's notice. This never came - she stated last Wednesday that she would be moving soon and then moved out over the weekend and we only found out by texting to ask her cos there were bags outside the house.

My question is in relation to her deposit. How much can we retain based on the following:

The house is in a terrible state. It's filthy.
The windows I don't think were ever open - the house is musty and the blinds are destroyed with damp. The walls are also covered in damp near the windows and I'm advised that this is due to the air not circulating
The floor is destroyed. She had asked if she could varnish it and we stupidly agreed but its half done and in tatters.
There are two crater like holes in the back garden where she must have been growing something and then removed it
There are pictures missing from the walls.
The carpets are absolutely filthy and look like they need to be replaced.

She was only in the house for 15 months and before she moved in it had been completed repainted and cleaned up. It's going to cost some money to get it habitable again.

We are fully registered and compliant with PRTB and Revenue so just want to do things properly.

I would appreciate any advice you can give.

Thanks,  Ellie


----------



## norejon (19 Feb 2013)

Busy bee did you ever do an inspection  of the house during the 15 months ???


----------



## oldnick (19 Feb 2013)

Whether Busy bee inspected or not does not affect her right to retain the deposit, though she was silly not to pass by a couple of times in the last fifteen months.

Unfortunately for busy bee...

1. PRTB are pro tenant. And it is a sad fact that some LLs have retained deposits for rather flimsy grounds. PRTB may believe it is the same here without real proof of damage.

2. Proving what busybee claims is difficult. Even with a video it's hard to show to "filthy"or" musty"  or that pictures are missing. 
Dampness may be due to a tenant not opening windows but I'm uncertain whether this can be provable or not -and ,anyway, is it obligatory (albeit sensible)for tenants to open windows regularly? Was this in any agreement or put in writing to her ?
(i'm playing devil's advocate here).

If tenant doesn't make a fuss about the deposit, fine. Even if she demands a deposit  then busybee must have a  detailed written response stating why a return of deposit is not possible -and indeed there may be a claim for damages.  *But* if tenant goes to PRTB then I wonder if it's worth the hassle of continuing the fight , attending meetings etc. for an outcome that may not be in LL's favour.

Sad as it is to say this -  if one has got 15 months rent from a tenant then a few days cleaning up and a few hundred euros replacing some items is not that abnormal, annoying as it is. 

Many LLs will disagree with me -and strictly speaking they are right. One should fight for one's rights.  But  sometimes one has to decide whether it's worth the fight to the bitter end.

To sum up - play hardball until   PRTB proceedings are due -then decide.


----------



## uptomyeyesin (20 Feb 2013)

Get quotes to fully clean and repair your house. 

I would document everything of damage with pictures and send copies to the tenant with a letter explaining the cost of repair and request the tenant pays the difference to cover the damages made.

State you are withholding deposit as a months notice was not given as agreed with the tenant at the start. 

If you pay someone to repair, keep all the receipts.

The tenant may go to the PRTB but if they do at least you have documented evidence of the damage and cost of repair. 

PRTB are very pro tenant and some landlords claim excessive damage as an excuse to keep a deposit but it does sound like you could reasonably expect to keep some or all of the deposit to repair big damages like the floor. 

Cleaning etc I would consider part of a normal landlords remit unless you had it in writing that you wanted it professionally cleaned as part of the exit. 


Then in future, I would have the clause of cleaning and regular inspections to make sure the house was being looked after.


----------



## facetious (20 Feb 2013)

> 1. PRTB are pro tenant. And it is a sad fact that some LLs have retained  deposits for rather flimsy grounds. PRTB may believe it is the same  here without real proof of damage.





> PRTB are very pro tenant and some landlords claim excessive damage as an  excuse to keep a deposit but it does sound like you could reasonably  expect to keep some or all of the deposit to repair big damages like the  floor.



I do not believe that the PRTB are really "pro tenant". Landlords are considered to be professional people in business and therefore should know all the ins and outs of their business. They should have a paper trail from the start to the end of a tenancy - for example:  signed lease agreement, detailed entry inventory, do inspections from time to time, have all verbal communications confirmed in writing (sending the tenant a copy and keeping a copy), exit inventory.

Unfortunately very few landlords actually have a proper paper trail and therefore, when there is a claim, they cannot prove that which would help their case.

On the other hand, tenants are amateurs and are not expected to not know all the laws etc. Thus, a tenant is given the benefit of any doubt.

A landlord who can prove his case will win his claim.

So, if the OP believes s/he has an open and shut case, not only could the cost of repairs be deducted from the deposit, but if the deposit does not cover the repairs/lose of rent (for leaving without the required notice) then the landlord is at liberty to pursue the ex tenant through the PRTB for any loss over and above the amount of the deposit.

If there was no entry inventory to prove the state of the property, this could pose a problem. However, if the OP has detailed invoices/receipts for the painting, decorating, cleaning the property immediately prior to the letting, these would go a long way in proving certain parts of the condition of the property.



> The floor is destroyed. She had asked if she could varnish it and we stupidly agreed but its half done and in tatters.


The fact that the OP gave the tenant permission to varnish the floor was an error unless the tenant was a professional at varnishing floors. One cannot expect a professional finish from an amateur.

I state as a final point, on reading PRTB decisions, I have come across one landlord/agent (obviously with multiple properties) who has made 15 claims against tenants and won all 15 cases. He also had one tenant claim against him and the tenant lost.


----------



## Bronte (21 Feb 2013)

BusyBee176 said:


> The house is in a terrible state. It's filthy.
> The windows I don't think were ever open - the house is musty and the blinds are destroyed with damp. The walls are also covered in damp near the windows and I'm advised that this is due to the air not circulating
> The floor is destroyed. She had asked if she could varnish it and we stupidly agreed but its half done and in tatters.
> There are two crater like holes in the back garden where she must have been growing something and then removed it
> ...


 
I've never received a house back that didn't need some kind of cleaning. This particularly applies to cookers and fridges. You should take pictures of the state it is in now. If you hire professional cleaners you can deduct this from the depoist. If the blinds are unsalvagable then the tenant should pay for the replacement. Keep the old blinds for now. You should be able to wipe off the damp with a cloth hopefully and open all the windows for a good long time period. If you get teh floor revarnished then that too should come out of the deposit, but not sure the deposit will go this far?

The two crater holes in the garden, just fill them in and put down some lawn seed or put two plants in them, that's the easiest and cheapest solution.  Forget about replacing pictures, just better not to have them.  

You should carefully store and date the damage, and keep all receipts, if this tenant does take you to the PRTB then with a properly documented file you should not have any bother. Also keep proof of when you were given notice etc. As previous poster said the proof in paper of the previous work on painting that was done will also be helpful. If the repairs cost more than the deposit I wouldn't waste time pursing this via the PRTB. You might win but that doesn't mean you'll get anything from the tenant. 

And next tenant, visit them at lease a month and get inside the house.


----------



## BusyBee176 (21 Feb 2013)

Thank you for all your replies. 

Unfortunately my husband deals with the tenant and she was always away and never answers phone so he wouldn't go in without speaking to her.

The mould is all over the walls near the windows, the doors etc are yellow - not sure what from as the house was only painted when she moved in.

The craters out the back garden have wooden frames around them embedded in the ground, so they need to be dug up.  To be honest, the cleaning etc isnt the problem, the 3 days notice is a real issue - she told him on Wednesday that she was leaving and then left over the weekend - he only found out when he drove by and seen bags outside then rang her and got reply the next day that she had already left. The blinds are destroyed from the damp etc and will have to be removed/replaced. The carpet also has to be replaced as the dirt just can't be removed from it.

I have taken photos etc and will see how it goes.  Thanks again


----------



## oldnick (21 Feb 2013)

facetious 
 -I'm fascinated by your in-depth knowledge of  the rules,regulations of tenancy agreements and especially how much you know about the workings of PRTB, even to the extent of having knowledge of PRTB rulings.

May I ask you something..

When you say that a LL/agent took 15 cases against 15 seperate tenants  and won all the cases, can you clarify the word "won"?

My definition  of winning when taking a case against tenants is that the tenant hands over  the money for all damages, loss of rental and all legal costs (if any). 

My belief,admittedly based on anecdotes,including posts on AAM,  rather than case history, is that when a LL takes a case before PRTB:-

- it can take months before the case is heard and a decision is reached. in the meantime  the LL is constrained against taking action against the tenants (except in serious anti-social cases). during those months the LL can be losing rent.
- If a decision in favour of the LL is made  the PRTB rarely enforce their decision. The LL has to pursue the matter in the courts. more time - and  now costs.
- If the tenant claims he/she has no money (assuming the tenant hasn't emigrated to Canada or gone back to Poland) then what happens?  I believe that the type of tenant who falls behind in rent and/or causes lots of damage is not going to be the type of person who remains in the area with lots of ready cash to immediately pay any claim.

But,then,I may be wrong. Certainly your report  of a LL taking numerous bad tenants to PRTB and winning every case is reassuring.


----------



## facetious (21 Feb 2013)

oldnick said:


> facetious
> -I'm fascinated by your in-depth knowledge of  the rules,regulations of tenancy agreements and especially how much you know about the workings of PRTB, even to the extent of having knowledge of PRTB rulings.
> 
> May I ask you something..
> ...



Most PRTB decisions are available to view on the PRTB website. Most include tenants' and landlords' names which I believe should be obligatory but either may request the removal of their names from the published decisions
I have studied many Adjudication and Tribunal decisions (just out of mere interest!!) and found that most claims can be broken down into (usually) two or more reasons. For example, a tenant makes a claim against a landlord for the retention of the entire deposit.



> Extract from PRTB Ref: DR786/2007
> The Respondent Landlord shall pay the sum of €350 to the Applicant Tenants within 28 days of the date of issue of this order, being part of the retained deposit of €1,487 having deducted €497 for cleaning costs and €640 for repairs and replacements in excess of normal wear and tear .....


In these findings, the landlord was awarded an amount for cleaning costs, an amount for damage in excess of normal wear and tear and the remainder of the deposit to be returned to the tenant as unjustifiably retained portion of deposit.

Thus, I analyse this as three reasons - two awarded to the landlord and one reason to the tenant. But, as the tenant brought the claim, I deem him as having won his claim, though this was only in part and did not receive the full deposit.

I class a person as having "won" a claim depending on who made the claim and how much was awarded to the claimant - just a personal view. In the above case, I could also have made the landlord as having been the winner as he was awarded more than the tenant. Possibly my analysis needs to to be modified? 

However, in the case of the landlord who has won his 15 claims,
1 Rent arrears
2. Eviction granted (Notice of Termination is valid), rent arrears, unpaid utilities
3. Rent arrears, unpaid utilities
4. Arrears of rent (8,000 euros and may retain entire deposit.
5 Arrears of rent and unpaid utilities
6 Eviction granted (Notice of Termination is valid), rent arrears
7 Arrears of rent, damages for no paying rent on time (very rare decision), Entire deposit justifiably retained.
8 Arrears of rent
9 File on PRTB website not found
10 Oral Notice of termination by tenant invalid; tenant shall pay: rent arrears, damages in lieu of valid Notice of termination, entire deposit justifiably retained; - 123 euros awarded to landlord having deducted 150 euros awarded to tenant for  landlord breach of obligations.
11 Arrears of rent
12 Claim by tenant against landlord - landlord awarded arrears of rent and may retain entire deposit.
13 Arrears of rent
14 Arrears of rent
15 Arrears of rent, entire deposit justifiably retained
16 Arrears of rent, entire deposit justifiably retained



oldnick said:


> My belief,admittedly based on anecdotes,including posts on AAM,  rather than case history, is that when a LL takes a case before PRTB:-
> 
> - it can take months before the case is heard and a decision is reached. in the meantime  the LL is constrained against taking action against the tenants (except in serious anti-social cases). during those months the LL can be losing rent.
> - If a decision in favour of the LL is made  the PRTB rarely enforce their decision. The LL has to pursue the matter in the courts. more time - and  now costs.


Agreed - but it used to take just as long, if not longer going through the courts, before the PRTB came into existence.



oldnick said:


> - If the tenant claims he/she has no money (assuming the tenant hasn't emigrated to Canada or gone back to Poland) then what happens?  I believe that the type of tenant who falls behind in rent and/or causes lots of damage is not going to be the type of person who remains in the area with lots of ready cash to immediately pay any claim.


This is where proper vetting of a tenant is important. If a tenant loses  his job will he have any funds to continue renting the property? If a couple break up what will happen? Is the tenant a foreigner who might just up and return to his native land, leaving debts and damage? Is the tenant  Irish, but may also try to just disappear. 

IMO, it is always advisable to try to get the address of someone well known to the tenant; and the return of the deposit at the end of a tenancy is best sent to the tenant who should provide their next address - may seem unreasonable but in my estimation, landlords probably make claims for in excess of one million euros every year - a lot of money to lose and therefore probably also affecting the takings of the revenue commissioners. 

Unfortunately, IMO, landlords do not do sufficient checks and combine certain facts which could be established / surmised, they tend to take more-or-less the first tenant who comes along. Again, Irish landlords seem to be stuck on 1 months rent as a deposit while in the UK, it is not uncommon to have 1.5 or even 2 months rent if the tenant seems somewhat dubious, but otherwise acceptable.

Finally, as regards PRTB decisions, the landlord seems to seldom be awarded damages while the tenant is often awarded damages - in the decisions I looked at, in 240 claims tenants were awarded damages while only 54 landlords received damages for tenants' breach of obligations. One very interesting exception, and this, on top of rent arrears is:


> Tenant  shall  pay  the  sum  of  €20,000, being  damages  due  to  the  breach  of  their  obligations  under  the  Act  in  not paying the rent and their failure to vacate the dwelling having been served with a valid notice of termination.


----------



## Bronte (22 Feb 2013)

oldnick said:


> My definition of winning when taking a case against tenants is that the tenant hands over the money for all damages, loss of rental and all legal costs (if any).
> 
> - If a decision in favour of the LL is made the PRTB rarely enforce their decision. The LL has to pursue the matter in the courts. more time - and now costs.
> - If the tenant claims he/she has no money
> ...


 
Your definition of win is the same as most people's. I've read a lot of those cases on the PRTB website too and I can see that often the landlord's 'win'. But if you are awarded money as a landlord by the PRTB it means diddly squat if the tenant is not an honourable person who decides to ignore the decision. Most tenant's involved in these proceedings will have worked that out for themselves. Also in the cases which are taken against a landlord for deposit retention and the landlord 'wins' these, well no money changes hands as the landlord has just proved that he was justified in withholding a deposit. 

In relation to facetious observations about damages.

The PRTB know full well it is pointless to award damages against a tenant who is not a mark. However a landlord has assets/income etc and then they'll order damages and more likely than not the landlord will pay it over because otherwise the landlord has the big stick of the PRTB persuing them via the courts and adding further costs. 

I have no problem with the PRTB awarding damages against landlords or landloards paying up. I have an issue with the fact that the PRTB does not treat landlords and tenant's equally, they do not pursue tenants via the courts, they are of no help to landlords who have tenants who will not pay, they are of no help to landlords who do everything by the book and end up with property destroyed. They refuse to use their power of going to court claiming lack of finance even those it is us landlords not tenant's who pay for the PRTB.

Think of it like this if you were awarded a sum of back rent say by the PRTB and the tenant had moved next door never mind Poland/Canada, would you pursue him. Like hell you would, you know you've lost even though you've won. That's winning PRTB style. That's all thatacetious has pointed out.  

Another way to think of it is if a tenant used up the deposit as rent for the last month which as you know you can do nothing about and they left behind 500 Euro of damage, would you go to the PRTB.  I wouldn't waste my time and I presume neither would you or most sane landlords.  Why because it's a complete waste of time effort and money.  

The PRTB needs serious reform.  I'm all for a properly functioning fair PRTB.  But I'm afraid with the new reforms us landlords are now going to be made the scrapegoat for tenant's anti social behaviour as evidenced by the recent court case.  We are in effect going to do what county councils and gardai have never done, deal with anti social tenants.  We will become the moral guardians of misfits.


----------



## delgirl (22 Feb 2013)

BusyBee176 said:


> The house is in a terrible state. It's filthy.
> ... blinds are destroyed with damp. The walls are also covered in damp near the windows ....The carpets are absolutely filthy and look like they need to be replaced.


In your position, I would add up the damage and the rent loss due to lack of notice and would definitely retain the deposit.

You won't be able to claim for the damage to the varnished floor as you gave permission for this, but if the other damage and lost of rent exceeds the deposit, you could make a claim against the tenant to the PRTB or at least you could advise the tenant that you will make a claim against them unless they clean and pay for the damage. You will have to have proof that these items were in good order prior to the tenant moving in. On the bottom of my entry inventory, it states that all furnishings and fitting are received by the tenant in good and clean order, the tenant signs this and I take photos and I attach copies of the photos to the inventory.

Replace the carpets with laminate flooring, we did this a number of years ago and haven't had any further problems. 

Regarding the blinds (you don't say if they are roller or vertical), we had a similar problem with awful tenants last year - the roller blinds had mould on the bottom, the pull cords were missing and they were covered in dirty hand marks, food stains, nicotine etc. We took them to our local blind shop and, as there was twice as much material on the roller than needed, she cut off the damaged part and attached a new rod and pull cord and they look like new blinds! Cost €15 per blind. If they are rollers, check how much material is on the roller before you discard them.

We had tenants who used to dry their laundry on the radiators in the bedrooms and who blocked all the vents in the house with towels, resulting in mould cused by condensation on the ceiling and walls. It was fairly easy to remove with Cillit Bang (the spray one with the bleach) and this also removed scuff marks etc from walls.

We also now include a supplement to the lease called 'Common Causes of Deductions from your Deposit' - which expalins that deductions will be make for excessive cleaning, detail of burn damage to furniture and carpets, decoration damage, disposal of refuse and insufficient notice of leaving. We give this to all new tenants and have them sign it - if you want a copy PM me and I'll email it to you.

It's very upsetting when your property is returned to you in such terrible condition, you can only learn from it and try to avoid it recurring by doing your best to cover yourself for future tenancies.


----------



## facetious (22 Feb 2013)

Bronte said:


> .......
> In relation to facetious observations about damages.
> 
> The PRTB know full well it is pointless to award damages against a tenant who is not a mark. However a landlord has assets/income etc and then they'll order damages and more likely than not the landlord will pay it over because otherwise the landlord has the big stick of the PRTB persuing them via the courts and adding further costs.
> ...


In the "old days", that is before the PRTB came into existence, claims were made through the courts. Firstly, a landlord or tenant would access the probability of winning the case and if the offending party was capable of (had sufficient funds to pay) any damages awarded. This is the same with the PRTB - an assessment must first be made (and this also based on a tenant's vetting/referencing checks). If the checks do not ring sufficiently good, then either do not accept the tenant or increase the deposit required to a suitable figure.

Again, in pre PRTB days, if a court awarded damages to the landlord, and the tenant failed to pay, what happened? The landlord had to go back to the courts. It is the same with the PRTB; the landlord must go back to the PRTB indicating that the tenant is in breach of the PRTB order and request the PRTB to follow up the order, if necessary, via the courts.

In reality, there is very little difference between the PRTB now and using the small claims court previously. However, one would expect the PRTB to deal with all cases in a more speedy manner than they currently do. 

A certain amount of time is required for each step of the way - time to notify claimant and respondent parties of the claim, time for the parties to respond, time to arrange a hearing, again time to notify the parties of the hearing date, time for the adjudicator to make his/her decision and again time for that decision to be notified to the respective parties. In each step, there is some two weeks or more added to the whole process. It all takes time just as it does with a claim in the small claims court.

It seems to me that the Irish time frame is considerably greater than that of the UK. "Ahh, sure when God made time, didn't he make plenty of it!" 

I fully agree that the PRTB needs serious reforms especially as to the time frame required before a decision is reached.


----------

