Never seen that on a lease before. Maintaining the property, yes. But "clean", eh???
Wow, sweeping generalisation there.
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.
Eh, Obvious to Elainem, the owner of the house.Obvious to who? Not to me, not to the agent and not to others here.
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.Never seen that on a lease before. Maintaining the property, yes. But "clean", eh???
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.Wow, sweeping generalisation there.
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.Where are they in breach? I don't recall the OP saying there was damage done or the rent not being paid?
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 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?
You sound like the perfect tenant that all landlords dream about.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).
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
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?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.
TR355 /DR230/2010
TR355 /DR230/2010facetious are you sure about this reference?
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.
Its a good place to find potentially bad tenants and bad landlords.What's ridiculous about allowing people their privacy?
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'!
TR355 /DR230/2010
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?