Two different prices for the same sized room.

Ann-Marie

I'm paying more rent than my housemate (only two of us) for a room that is exactly the same size as theirs. I don't think it's fair that the the landlady can do this. The guy moved in late, so she claims that she had to reduce the price in order to find someone at such a late stage. As far as I'm concerned it still doesn't excuse the fact that we're paying different rates for the same sized rooms.

Any advice/experience of the same situation.

johndaman66

Judging by the way you are speaking you have approached your landlady already in this regard and she refused to reduce your rent. I could be wrong in saying this and please correct me if such is the case.

If you haven't being talking to her already and were just comparing notes with this guy I'd approach her regarding a rent reduction to the same as you house mates rent. Wouldn't necessairly go out all guns blazing sort attitude as there may well be no need but if she refuses you I'd threaten to move out and this may well work a threat. If you are a good tenant I'd be surprised if she wouldn't reduce your rent.

Also not sure what you mean when you say "the guy moved in late". I assume you mean lately but again could be wrong in making this assumption also.

Ann-Marie

Firstly, thanks for the quick reply.
I did confront her and she said that she will come and discuss the matter with me, bearing in mind that I'm unhappy with the situation. I haven't actually dealt with the situation with all guns blazing because I'm not sure what the landlady has the right to do in relation to such cases. It may well be that she has every right to vary the rent, only that I don't find it fair and refuse to pay more than someone else for the same thing.
In relation to the housemate arriving late. The landlady started looking for tenants in September (mostly students looking for rent) when the others moved out and the housemate only arrived last week, so her claim was that she had to reduce the rate in order to get someone to fill the room at such a late date.
You raise a very valid point there when asking about what I meant by late. There's no starting/ending point for looking for tenants technically speaking, thus I'm not sure if having to give the other housmate a lower rate due to late arrival is really a vaild excuse.

wyndham

“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

“So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.”

(Matt.20: 1-16)

JoeyJJ

wyndham wrote: »

(Matt.20: 1-16)

Nice quote but the Vineyard owner was being generous with his money, this is different this is charging people different amonts for the same thing not giving them the same money for working less hours of someone doing the same job.

Back to the point I would tell the landlady to reduce or find a new tennant and considering the time it took to get yer man i'd say the landylady would accomodate (bad pun) you.

monkeypants

All you can do is ask. If she doesn't agree, then you can move out. I wouldn't present it as an ultimatum.

00112984

Ann-Marie wrote: »

I'm not sure what the landlady has the right to do in relation to such cases. It may well be that she has every right to vary the rent

She does. It's an open market and subject to supply and demand. At the time she rented to you the supply was such that the room demanded €X. When she took on the new tenant, the supply had increased so the demand became €X-Y and that's what he's paying.

Ann-Marie wrote: »

so her claim was that she had to reduce the rate in order to get someone to fill the room at such a late date

That's exactly what she had to do and did.

Ann-Marie wrote: »

I don't find it fair and refuse to pay more than someone else for the same thing

That's fine too. There's nothing to stop you airing your problem with the landlady as you're doing and coming to a compromise with her. She's under no obligation to reduce the rent but you're also under no obligation to consider living there beyond the terms of the rental agreement/lease which you signed.

LittleBook

Ann-Marie wrote: »

Any advice/experience of the same situation.

Myself and a guy were sub-letting rooms from another guy. He was an odd housemate in any case but when we eventually discovered that the two of us were paying the rent for the entire house and he wasn't paying anything, we moved out and left him to it.

Whatever about what you can afford or what a room is worth, if you know something like this it grates.

Have a chat with your landlady and take it from there, she's perfectly entitled to charge what she wants for the room but you're not obliged to stay and pay it.

28064212

Your agreement with her is completely separate to any other. Even if you had both started renting at the same time, she was perfectly entitled to accept a lower offer from your flat-mate if, for example, he haggled her down and you didn't. You accepted her offer to rent at a given price. That doesn't become unfair because someone offered lower than that

You are perfectly entitled to ask for a reduction, but she's perfectly entitled to say no, and would be right to. You have no leverage here, other than a threat to walk out, in which case you lose your deposit and have to find somewhere else to live

Cathmandooo

You agreed to pay the rent you're paying now. It all depends on what sort of lease or agreement is in place now.

Your landlady doesnt have to reduce your rent, and you might not be entitled to leave the property either if you're tied into a lease.

00112984

LittleBook wrote: »

you're not obliged to stay and pay it.

Very much depends on the lease that the OP signed. She may not have to stay and pay rent but she could forfeit a deposit and possibly have to meet other conditions.

D3PO

Cathmandooo wrote: »

You agreed to pay the rent you're paying now.

^^ This

You cant come on here complaining because somebody negotioted a better deal for themselves than you did.

Christ whats next a queue of people looking for house refunds because they bought at a higher price. Its not fair my next door neightbour has the same sized house for less money ......

JonJoeDali

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

I'd start sending her cheques for the reduced amount and tell her to suck it up (in the nicest possible way of course).

28064212

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

First of all, yes they are. Secondly, the market rate is whatever the tenant has agreed to pay.

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'd start sending her cheques for the reduced amount and tell her to suck it up (in the nicest possible way of course).

That's a good way to get yourself evicted, lose your deposit, and have to pay the extra amounts you missed anyway

Cathmandooo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

I'd start sending her cheques for the reduced amount and tell her to suck it up (in the nicest possible way of course).

I assume you're joking

D3PO

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

Market rate = what somebody is willing to pay.

Economics 101. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

johndaman66

28064212 wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to ask for a reduction, but she's perfectly entitled to say no, and would be right to. You have no leverage here, other than a threat to walk out, in which case you lose your deposit and have to find somewhere else to live

I am at odds with these comments. Yes agreed that the Landlord is entitled to refuse when tenant asks for a rent reduction, that is the landlords prerogative. However to say the landlord would be right to refuse? There is a difference in saying the Lanlord has the right to refuse and the lanlord is right to refuse. Assuming that the OP has being a reasonably good tenant I don't think the landlord would be right to refuse a rent reduction either morally or from the Landlords own point of view if she wants to keep the room occupied...remember there is an abundance of empties out there in most parts of the country too.

As such are you not jumping the gun a wee bit to say that the OP has no leverage here? Granted I don't fully know the OP's exact circumstances but to say she has no leverage is a bit presumptious at best I reckon. I'm sure the OP can stay there for her notice period and collect her deposit at the end of it minus any breakages, possible cleaning bills, any money the landlord may need to hold back to cover bills etc etc. I am making the assumption that there is no lease in place. If there is the OP is obviously bound by its terms but would be free to walk or renegotiaite rent for new lease period when it ends.

Ann-Marie

Just so you know, My housemate didn't negociate the price. Please don't start spouting off without facts.

Ann-Marie

Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate it.

28064212

johndaman66 wrote: »

I am at odds with these comments. Yes agreed that the Landlord is entitled to refuse when tenant asks for a rent reduction, that is the landlords prerogative. However to say the landlord would be right to refuse? There is a difference in saying the Lanlord has the right to refuse and the lanlord is right to refuse. Assuming that the OP has being a reasonably good tenant I don't think the landlord would be right to refuse a rent reduction either morally or from the Landlords own point of view if she wants to keep the room occupied...remember there is an abundance of empties out there in most parts of the country too.

The landlord has no reason to give a reduction to the OP. If the OP wants to walk, the landlord has time (either through the deposit or a notice period) to find someone else, and at worst, ends up no worse off than if she had given the rent reduction

johndaman66 wrote: »

As such are you not jumping the gun a wee bit to say that the OP has no leverage here? Granted I don't fully know the OP's exact circumstances but to say she has no leverage is a bit presumptious at best I reckon. I'm sure the OP can stay there for her notice period and collect her deposit at the end of it minus any breakages, possible cleaning bills, any money the landlord may need to hold back to cover bills etc etc. I am making the assumption that there is no lease in place. If there is the OP is obviously bound by its terms but would be free to walk or renegotiaite rent for new lease period when it ends.

I specifically said she has exactly one piece of leverage.

Ann-Marie wrote: »

Just so you know, My housemate didn't negociate the price. Please don't start spouting off without facts.

To negotiate means to reach an agreement. Just because he had a different starting point than you, doesn't mean you have any entitlement to a rent reduction. By virtue of the fact that he didn't attempt to rent the room at the higher rate, he de facto negotiated a better price

johndaman66

2864212 wrote: »

The landlord has no reason to give a reduction to the OP. If the OP wants to walk, the landlord has time (either through the deposit or a notice period) to find someone else, and at worst, ends up no worse off than if she had given the rent reduction

I just don't agree with you on the above at all. Yes granted the landlord does not have to give the tenant a rent reduction. But to say the Landlord has no reason to give the OP a rent reduction might be a bit presumptious from point of view of recognising the landlords circumstances. Such as the way things are at the moment the Landlord may not be afforded this luxury if there was a very real threat of OP moving out. She may be depending on the rent money to pay the mortgage or other obligations. Of course conversly so such may not be the case either and as I say I recognise that the Landlord is not under any specific obligation legally to grant a rent reduction. I think its a bit naive to assume that the landlord would end up in no worse a situation if the OP were to walk now than if she didn't. She would most likely incur advertising costs and demands on her time to show room to prospective tenants. Absolutely no guarntee she would find somebody to move in immediately following Ann Maries departure. Furthemore what if the only tenant she finds is at least as good if not a whole lot better at bargaining as low or lower rent figure than guy who moved in lately. Can only assume she won't knock as much out of this new tenant ans Ann Marie with the way rents are going. She is taking the chance also that the person she gets is noisey, unclean and untidy, rough with household equipment, slow to pay rent, etc....I've seen this quite a lot.

2864212 wrote: »

I specifically said she has exactly one piece of leverage.

Reading your initial post which I quoted again I take your point...Its just such was not very clear to me the first time round;)

Just to mention also that I was renting a room for 3 - 4 months some time back and I did not pay a deposit or need to give any notice period whenever I left. Person I was renting of was not a friend or relation or any such acquaintance. No doubt such was the exception to the general rule but I'm sure there are others with similar arrangements out there all the same.

Distorted

OP - your contract with the landlord sounds as if it is totally individual to you, independent of that of your flatmate. It is nothing to do with you legally whether or not your flatmate pays more or less than you do. You have no "right" to a reduction in rent but you can try to negotiate one. In the present market, where I am based, I wouldn't entertain such a request - I'd also be worried about a tenant who signed a lease and then couldn't stick to the terms. However in your area tenants might be scarce and she might entertain a reduction - only she can make the decision.

I've done similar in that I ended up renting out an en suite room for the same cost as a normal bathroom. No complaints from either tenant. It was 6 months between the lettings and tbh there are sometimes factors that you can't mention to tenants for fear of hurting their feelings, such as them not coming across too well to other prospective tenants and putting them off (although obviously they're a good tenant in other respects and I made the decision to keep them as a tenant). Not saying this applies here, just pointing out there are sometimes unknown variables.

Ann-Marie

What I meant was that there was no negotiation process. The room was advertised at that price. (i.e the reduced rate).

amdublin

Cathmandooo wrote: »

You agreed to pay the rent you're paying now.

It's a bit like buying a coat at a price. And a week later a friend buys it at 40% off. Sh1t happens.

Suggest you ask your LL to reduce your rent. They may, rather than risk losing you and having to find a new tenant.

They may not as well : again, you agreed to pay the rent you're paying now.

Cathmandooo

Ann-Marie wrote: »

What I meant was that there was no negotiation process. The room was advertised at that price. (i.e the reduced rate).

That still doesn't mean your rent should be equal, put it this way, if there were less properties available, meaning landlords have their pick of tenants and rents are on the up, and the landlord advertised the other room for a higher rent than you're paying in line with other rooms available in the vicinity at that time would you be running after your landlord to pay the extra rent to keep in line with your housemate? I really don't think you would.

astrofool

Ann-Marie wrote: »

What I meant was that there was no negotiation process. The room was advertised at that price. (i.e the reduced rate).

Did you negotiate your price? Were you happy to pay it? If your flatmate paid more, would you want an increase?

JonJoeDali

D3PO wrote: »

Market rate = what somebody is willing to pay.

Economics 101. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The landlord will soon learn that lesson.

And besides, peoples homes aren't commodities. Landlords legally aren't allowed to charge more than the "market rate" for many good reasons.

Cathmandooo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The landlord will soon learn that lesson.

And besides, peoples homes aren't commodities. Landlords legally aren't allowed to charge more than the "market rate" for many good reasons.

This landlord IS charging the market rate at the time of the signing of the lease. No lessons need to be learned here.

JonJoeDali

Cathmandooo wrote: »

This landlord IS charging the market rate at the time of the signing of the lease. No lessons need to be learned here.

The statutory rights of tenants supercedes any contract.

Cathmandooo

I'd love to see anyone be able to change their rent every single time the market rent dips or rises.

It's completely unworkable. It's one rent review per year. You go with the market rent when you sign your lease.

JonJoeDali

Cathmandooo wrote: »

It's one rent review per year.

Where's that written into law? The tenant is perfectly entitled to pay just the "market rent" and not a cent more. In this case, the "market rent" clearly is what his housemate is paying.