The Residential Tenancies Board has mandated a landlord to pay damages for failing to return a deposit to students for allegedly erecting a telephone pole without permission near their rental property. The tribunal convened in June and discovered that the pole, installed on the landlord’s property in Galway city in 2020, was not an issue until three years later, when the tenancy ended, despite the landlord’s several visits.
The students insisted they received permission for the pole, but the entire deposit of €2,700 was still held. Castlecarra Developments’ representative, Sandra Butler, repeatedly asked for consent proofs for the pole installation, which she never got, and hence didn’t refund the deposit.
Butler outlined that the pole’s removal had caused inconvenience and cost €600. The remainder €2,100 from the deposit had not been refunded despite opportunities to do so, a move the tribunal termed as ‘utterly deceitful’.
Butler provided evidence from KN Network Services, which claimed that one tenant had secured permission from the managing company to erect the pole. However, Kieran Staunton, another representative for the landlord, denied granting any consent for the pole, citing ongoing planning applications to build on the location.
Sam O’Neill, representing the tenants, argued that they had obtained the pole’s permission early into the tenancy. They had reached out to the property’s managing agency, no longer working for Castlecarra Developments. The tenants maintained that the landlord had known about the pole early in their tenancy because of the steady work behind the house and multiple site visits.
Mr O’Neill reported that there was no debate over the deposit’s return once both parties had acknowledged the property had been handed back in immaculate condition. Nonetheless, problems surfaced later on.
The panel mandated Castlecarra Developments to refund the wrongly held deposit of €2,700, in addition to compensation of €1,350, to be paid within three weeks.
The students had compelling evidence that they were given authorisation by the landlord’s representative to fit the pole, according to the committee.
There was clear proof that the landlord was fully aware of the pole and had no objections to it, as stated in the panel’s findings. This correlates with approval being granted for the pole’s fitting.
Interestingly, the tribunal also pointed out that the landlord had indeed provided evidence that supported the tenants’ argument. The landlord’s agent had confirmed the consent, according to the evidence.
The panel emphasised the emotional and logistical hardship, as well as financial loss, the students endured due to the held deposit. They particularly identified the retention of the €2,100 as an aggressive approach, calling it an attempt to discipline the tenants.