Landlord wants to take me to court for subletting a room

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
 
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.
 
mamo said:
How can she prove that damages were done by me if new tenants are living in the property for 3 months?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
@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.
 
>> 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register