Getting your deposit back — and lawfully keeping it.

Deposit disputes come down to the numbers more than any other case the RTB decides — and they are among the most winnable, for whichever side puts its numbers together honestly. The pattern in decided cases is remarkably consistent: the outcome turns less on what happened in the dwelling than on who can prove it, item by item, euro by euro. This guide sets out how these cases are actually decided.

1. The onus sits on the landlord — for every deduction

The starting point is that the deposit is the tenant's money. The Act requires it to be returned promptly at the end of the tenancy, and permits deductions only for two things: rent or charges lawfully unpaid, and the cost of putting right damage beyond normal wear and tear. Every deduction must be justified by the landlord — with reasons, in writing, itemised. In decided cases, retention with no stated reasons, no supporting documents, or no attendance at the hearing fails on onus alone: the full refund is ordered without the merits ever being reached.

2. The legislation governs — the agreement can only narrow it

Parties cannot contract out of the Act. No clause can give a landlord more than the statute allows — clauses demanding more than the statutory standard, such as mandatory professional cleaning or repainting at the end of every tenancy, are void. But the agreement's words still matter one way: a clause can narrow what may be deducted, and exclusions are enforced as written. Decided cases have held an "accidental fire excepted" clause to defeat a fire-damage claim, and rejected strained readings — a no-smoking clause does not prohibit candles. A tenant may rely on a favourable clause; a landlord must show every deduction stands on its statutory footing with or without one.

3. Damage means damage — not time passing

Deterioration that is normal for the length of the tenancy is not deductible at all — and the longer the tenancy, the more that concept covers. Where something genuinely was damaged, decided cases apply depreciation by default: replacement cost for an aged item is cut hard, and the failure of an aged appliance is treated as wear and tear outright. New-for-old is not the measure — the measure is the actual, evidenced cost of making good, discounted for the age of what was there.

4. The evidence hierarchy

Decided cases apply a hard hierarchy of proof. At the top: an ingoing condition report or inventory the tenant saw at the start, end-of-tenancy photographs, and itemised invoices for work actually done. In the middle: dated correspondence and contemporaneous complaints. At the bottom — scoring nothing: quotes and estimates for work never carried out, and assertions unsupported by a baseline. A damage claim without ingoing condition evidence is assertion, and decided cases reject it; an invoice should be checked line by line — was the work done, after the tenancy, itemised, and priced at depreciated value?

5. The arrears set-off — fight the right battle

Where rent genuinely went unpaid at the end of the tenancy, the deduction for it is close to automatic — the Act says so in terms. A tenant disputing everything, including a genuine arrears set-off, spends credibility that the winnable points need. Equally, a landlord holding the entire deposit against a modest, partial claim should return the undisputed balance immediately: withholding it all reads as leverage, not right, and decided cases have added awards on top of refunds where withholding was plainly unjustified.

6. Two habits that lose these cases

For tenants: treating the deposit as the last month's rent. Unilaterally setting it off is itself a breach — it has validated terminations, and it surrenders the high ground in the very dispute it tries to shortcut. For landlords: not turning up. Failure to attend, with the onus unmet, is the single most common way deposit retentions end in a full refund.

7. This week, whichever side you are on

Reduce the dispute to a table: the deposit, each claimed deduction, the evidence for it, and the running balance — then argue the table, not the relationship. Tenants: request return in writing if you have not already; the dated request starts both the promptness clock and your chronology. Landlords: put your reasons in writing, itemised, with the invoices behind them — and price at depreciated value, because over-claiming on one line costs credibility on every other.

The practical point

The party with the cleaner table usually wins. Heat is free; it is the numbers that get ordered.