Residential Tenancies Board<\/a> (RTB) tribunal were \u201cfoot marks\u201d on a wall and the tenants\u2019 use of \u201cswivel chairs\u201d.<\/p>\nRyan said the chairs, used by the tenants while working from home, had damaged the varnish on his wood floor, saying it cost him \u20ac1,000 to have the area sanded and revarnished.<\/p>\n
Also at issue were his 20-year-old carpets, which he claimed had been in \u201cvery good\u201d condition before the tenants moved in. He told the tribunal he and his wife had made the \u201cexecutive decision\u201d to replace them as they were \u201cso dirty and stained and were full of dog hairs and odours\u201d.<\/p>\n
Before the tenancy, Ryan claimed, the property was in \u201csuperb\u201d and \u201ctop class\u201d condition, and Ryan said estate agents had classified it as an \u201cexecutive let\u201d.<\/p>\n
Although the tenants were paying \u20ac3,100 a month in rent, they paid a \u20ac3,600 security deposit after Ryan charged a \u20ac500 \u201cdog deposit\u201d.<\/p>\n
Noting that the property had been left \u201cvery unclean\u201d, he said the tenants agreed to him deducting \u20ac1,090 in cleaning costs.<\/p>\n
He ultimately decided to retain the deposit in full, however, as \u201ceven after two days cleaning, it was an absolute disgrace\u201d.<\/p>\n
He claimed he had incurred \u20ac4,740 in costs in returning the property to its prior state, including repainting.<\/p>\n
Describing \u201cfoot marks\u201d on one particular wall, he claimed one of the tenants \u201cobviously was in the habit of sitting in their chair with their feet against the wall\u201d, which he argued showed a \u201ctotal disregard for the property\u201d.<\/p>\n
He believed other marks on walls had been caused by the tenants\u2019 dog, while \u201csmears\u201d may have been caused by the tenants\u2019 children \u201cif their hands were dirty\u201d.<\/p>\n
Papolczy told the tribunal he had broken his ankle towards the end of the tenancy and was unable to do a \u201cproper clean\u201d. He said they agreed to a \u20ac1,090 deduction to cover cleaning costs.<\/p>\n
Aside from this, however, he claimed \u201call of the works\u201d carried out were done for the purpose of marketing the property for sale, arguing that the 20-year-old carpets in particular were \u201cpast the end of their expected lifespan\u201d.<\/p>\n
He believed the costs incurred by their former landlords were costs that \u201cincreased the resale value\u201d and made it \u201ceasier to sell\u201d.<\/p>\n
Describing the \u201cbefore\u201d photographs of the 20-year-old carpets showing significant marking and wear, the tribunal noted the receipt for their replacement was dated prior to the tenancy ending.<\/p>\n
It said it was \u201cclear\u201d that an \u201cexecutive decision\u201d had been made to replace the carpets before the tenants \u201ceven left\u201d and before the Ryans had had an opportunity to assess their condition.<\/p>\n
The tribunal said it was satisfied the carpets were replaced to make the property \u201cmore saleable\u201d and to increase \u201cthe resale value by way of cosmetic improvement\u201d, adding that the Ryans had been \u201cfortunate to get so many years use out of them\u201d.<\/p>\n
The tribunal found that the Ryans had unlawfully retained \u20ac1,910 from the deposit, after allowing a \u20ac600 deduction for the damage caused to the wooden flooring.<\/p>\n
It accepted that the tenants did not do \u201cany meaningful cleaning\u201d after removing their belongings, though this was \u201camply covered\u201d by the \u20ac1,090 agreed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A couple who charged tenants for the replacement of 20-year-old carpets have been ordered to return a portion…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":247747,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[72,40892,3662,61,60,13696],"class_list":["post-466009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-business","tag-dublin-18","tag-housing-crisis","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-residential-tenancies-board-prtb"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/466009","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=466009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/466009\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/247747"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=466009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=466009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=466009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}