Rent increase?

daisyscience

My landlord has informed me that due to an error on both our parts, I have been paying €40 too little on my rent per month for the last six months and now he wants to increase my rent going forward by that amount, but he has said that I only have to back pay half the amount.

He seems like a pretty genuine and nice guy except for the fact that our place is really damp and he has done nothing about it. I've lost a couple of hundred euros worth of items to this damp including clothes, shoes, food, utensils etc. I told him that I have to turn on the heating and leave the windows open to dry the apt. out daily but he has yet to offer to buy a dehumidifier which I have heard is very expensive to run.

I'm not sure how to go forward with this. The rent is due so I will have to tell him that I am not paying the amount he specified (or didn't because he has yet to get back to me with the total figure). This would add €160 to my rent this month. Its the holidays so I am assuming that threshold and the PRTB are closed although I am looking into their websites. I found PRTB confusing as I am not sure, is this a rent increase if we should have been paying this amount all along? I really don't want to have to move again.

stateofflux

did you sign a lease agreement?

daisyscience

Yes but the rent amount isn't listed on it. The deposit amount of €500 is though (which I was paying as rent).

silja

What exactly is the error? I am confused how it can be both his and your error- either it is his (such as wrong amount stated on the lease) or yours (direct debit set up for the wrong amount, or you are paying every month when lease states 4 weeks etc).

daisyscience

I had the option to pay the rent monthly or weekly. I was told it was €125 per week but we agreed I would pay monthly on the last Friday of every month. I cant remember if we agreed €500 per month but we definitely did not agree €540 per month or this would not have become an issue. So I was paying €500 per month and after six months he said that he had gotten some accounting stuff mixed up and had only realised that I was not paying the full amount for the property. I'm just going to find the lease again now to see if the €125 per week is written on it but I don't think it is. I am fairly sure that we did agree €500 per month but I am not certain and do not have it in writing.

daisyscience

Just found it there, the only details filled in the tenancy agreement are the landlords name, our address, length of lease and deposit amount of €500. When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

ted1

sounds about right.

125*52=6500
500*12=6000
540*12=6480

Slydice

ted1 wrote: »

sounds about right.

125*52=6500
500*12=6000
540*12=6480

Looks right. If you agreed 125 a week, then that's 6500 a year whereas 500 a month only works out 6000 a year.

The difference is 500 which divided by 12 months is 500/12 = 41.66. If he's asking you to pay 540 from now on, then he's down by the €1.66 a month.

Asking you to pay half of the other €40 payments which he says you should have paid starts to confuse the matter for me. It sounds like he's admitting he got it wrong but wants to cover it with a "show of good faith". It might be a good idea to talk to the PRTB (http://www.prtb.ie) or to Threshold (http://www.threshold.ie) about it.

I'd say you're in a dodgy situation now either way. I see three possibilities:
1. you end up paying what the landlord wants (and you feel bad)
2. you do not pay what the landlord wants (and the landlord feels bad)
3. you work out some other arrangement (but at the end of the day, your relationship with the landlord has changed and so someone might feel bad)

Not what you need at this time of the year. Good luck to ya.

djimi

If its is a fixed term lease then he cannot review the rent until the lease is up.

Legally the landlord can review the rent once in a 12 month period, but seeing as how it would have been "reviewed" when you moved in, he cannot look to increase it until you have been there 12 months.

The error is on his part. You have been there for 6 months; that is more than enough time for him to realise that you have not been paying enough. Tell him that there will be no rent increase until you have been there 12 months, and under no circumstances will you be paying any back rent (thats just pure nonsese from him). If he doeesnt like it tell him that you will take a case with the PRTB and let them sort it, but that he will almost certainly lose the case, and while you are waiting for the case to be heard (which will most likely be somewhere in the region of 6 to 9 months) you can legally continue paying the rent that you have been paying.

This guy sounds like he hasnt got a breeze of his legal obligations. Do not give him the time of day.

daisyscience

Thank you all for your advice. I'm still not sure what exactly I will do but at least am more aware of my options now. Really appreciate it.

djimi

My advice is to do nothing. I dont think the landlord has a leg to stand on here if Im honest. Contact Threshold if you want to get a more official line on where you stand (probably no harm tbh).

mlumley

Tell him to fix the damp first and in the mean time, you will contact the PRTB. The place has to be habitable, the PRTB will not like him not doing anything about the damp.

Tails142

djimi wrote: »

My advice is to do nothing. I dont think the landlord has a leg to stand on here if Im honest. Contact Threshold if you want to get a more official line on where you stand (probably no harm tbh).

The lease says 125 per week and the tenant hasn't been paying this amount to date so the tenant is in error.

The landlord is going to let you off by only having to pay half of the rent you haven't paid so far, seems fair to me.

Leroy42

Firstly you need to separate the situation from the emotion. You mention two distinct issues in your OP. One is the rent amount, the second if the damp/conditions.

You mention that you paid 1 week in advance, 125. Why do you then think that you should not pay for each week. The landlord agreed that you could pay in monthly instead of weekly but miscalculated it. Would you accept being paid for only 48 weeks instead of 52 for a year? I think he is being quite reasonable in not expecting all the monies back in one go, although to be fair he would have to be some fool to look for it since it was partly his mistake. I say partly because it was your mistake too. You knew the rent was 125 per week and therefore in some months that would be more.

The second issue of the damp is more on your side. Simply make the case in writing, detailing out the problem, the extra costs etc, and give him an appropriate amount of time to rectify the problem. If he doesn't, then decide whether the rent is appropriate for the place you live and if not move out.

ted1

djimi wrote: »

If its is a fixed term lease then he cannot review the rent until the lease is up.

Legally the landlord can review the rent once in a 12 month period, but seeing as how it would have been "reviewed" when you moved in, he cannot look to increase it until you have been there 12 months.

The error is on his part. You have been there for 6 months; that is more than enough time for him to realise that you have not been paying enough. Tell him that there will be no rent increase until you have been there 12 months, and under no circumstances will you be paying any back rent (thats just pure nonsese from him). If he doeesnt like it tell him that you will take a case with the PRTB and let them sort it, but that he will almost certainly lose the case, and while you are waiting for the case to be heard (which will most likely be somewhere in the region of 6 to 9 months) you can legally continue paying the rent that you have been paying.

This guy sounds like he hasnt got a breeze of his legal obligations. Do not give him the time of day.

It's not an increase, they agreed to a price which isn't being paid.
For someone who appears to know what they are talking about you really dropped the ball on your advice here.
Your very fast to bring in the PRTB. The rent should just be paid as agreed.

faceman

daisyscience wrote: »

He seems like a pretty genuine and nice guy except for the fact that our place is really damp and he has done nothing about it. I've lost a couple of hundred euros worth of items to this damp including clothes, shoes, food, utensils etc. I told him that I have to turn on the heating and leave the windows open to dry the apt. out daily but he has yet to offer to buy a dehumidifier which I have heard is very expensive to run.
.

Just on this bit. I've been in that boat. Most Landlords are clueless when comes to addressing damp and when they see the cost of doing it properly, they'll just give you a plugin dehumidifier which is worthless if the whole property is affected.

Damp can seriously affect your health. In my situation I just moved out. Going to threshold (there was no one else at the time) would have involved to much to-ing and fro-ing and I'd imagine its still the same the other regulatory body too

If its an option find somewhere else?

stateofflux

i would not pay it. its the landlords fault for not stating the rent amount on the lease agreement. he was ok with €500 and now he wants to put you in a situation over his accounting error. also its not as if he gives a stuff about you getting pneumonia from a dampness...some cheek

Agent J

daisyscience wrote: »

Just found it there, the only details filled in the tenancy agreement are the landlords name, our address, length of lease and deposit amount of €500. When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

The Op has clearly said that the 125 Euro a month is not on the lease.

It should be but it isn't. How that affects the issue legally i've no idea. Threshold & PRTB would be the people to ask on that front. Ask Threshold, The PRTB will take forever.

However, this isn't a rent increase. It's paying what was initally agreed. Just because you've been accidently underpaying your rent for the last 6 months doesn't mean you get to continue now it has been recognized.

As for back rent, honestly i would try to meet the landlord half way here. You both made an agreement & both got the sums wrong.

The_Conductor

Guys- you're meandering all over the place.
The dampness, lack of a dehumidifier and leaving the windows open all the time- are not related to the OP's initial query. Amateur legal advice is also unhelpful- as is bickering about who is right and who is wrong.

If you want to help the OP- respond to his or her initial question- wandering around other issues is a red herring and waste of both your time and his or hers.

djimi

Tails142 wrote: »

The lease says 125 per week and the tenant hasn't been paying this amount to date so the tenant is in error.

The landlord is going to let you off by only having to pay half of the rent you haven't paid so far, seems fair to me.

The lease doesn't mention the rent amount.

I Wold say that after 6 months of the OP paying 500 it would be very hard for the landlord to argue that they verbally agreed something different.

djimi

ted1 wrote: »

It's not an increase, they agreed to a price which isn't being paid.
For someone who appears to know what they are talking about you really dropped the ball on your advice here.
Your very fast to bring in the PRTB. The rent should just be paid as agreed.

Without the agreed amount in writing how can the landlord prove anything? This is their problem; they didn't bother to check what rent the OP was paying, or they didn't bother rectifying the problem until now if they did notice it, so I would say they will have a very hard time proving their story if the OP were to take a case against them. As it stands, in my eyes its an attempt at a rent increase.

dahamsta

I disagree. The landlord made an error in not specifying the rent in the lease therefore the tenant is in a strong position to use the damp as a bargaining chip. If it was me I'd tell the landlord I'd be happy to pay the "new" amount and some or all of the "back rent" if he fixes the issue with the damp first. If he doesn't, I'd be gone and stuff him for not fixing it when he was asked.

smccarrick wrote: »

Guys- you're meandering all over the place.
The dampness, lack of a dehumidifier and leaving the windows open all the time- are not related to the OP's initial query. Amateur legal advice is also unhelpful- as is bickering about who is right and who is wrong.

If you want to help the OP- respond to his or her initial question- wandering around other issues is a red herring and waste of both your time and his or hers.

tara73

daisyscience wrote: »

Just found it there, the only details filled in the tenancy agreement are the landlords name, our address, length of lease and deposit amount of €500. When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

OP, did you doublecheck there isn't written the amount of rent you have to pay weekly or monthly in the lease?
very weird
If it's really not, I would say you're in a good position with paying only 500/month as your deposit is obviously stated with 500€ and the usual deposit for renting is 1 month rent.
I would say this to your landlord first, if he doesn't agree to it I would let him know you'll talk to the PRTB and also would hint about bringing up the dampness in the apartment to the PRTB...see how he reacts.

xper

djimi wrote: »

Without the agreed amount in writing how can the landlord prove anything? This is their problem; they didn't bother to check what rent the OP was paying, or they didn't bother rectifying the problem until now if they did notice it, so I would say they will have a very hard time proving their story if the OP were to take a case against them. As it stands, in my eyes its an attempt at a rent increase.

The OP has stated that the place was offered at 125/wk. The OP paid 125 for the first week before switching to monthly payments. Ergo, the OP knows damn well that the agreed amount was 125/wk, equivalent to c.540/mth.

A mistake was made by both parties. One party has now spotted it and taken some responsibility by only asking for half the outstanding amount. I think the landlord should also consider the practicality that it is the week after Christmas when money might be very tight and allow the outstanding amount to be paid over a couple of months but it is quite clear that the agreed rent for the property is and always has been 540/mth.

The damp, etc is a separate matter.

djimi

xper wrote: »

The OP has stated that the place was offered at 125/wk. The OP paid 125 for the first week before switching to monthly payments. Ergo, the OP knows damn well that the agreed amount was 125/wk, equivalent to c.540/mth.

A mistake was made by both parties. One party has now spotted it and taken some responsibility by only asking for half the outstanding amount. I think the landlord should also consider the practicality that it is the week after Christmas when money might be very tight and allow the outstanding amount to be paid over a couple of months but it is quite clear that the agreed rent for the property is and always has been 540/mth.

The damp, etc is a separate matter.

Nowhere in writing does it say that the rent is 125 per week. The OP also paid 500 for the last 6 months, which in fairness gives a lot more weight to their story that there was a verbal agreement of 500 a month, rather than the landlord saying that it was agreed at 125 per week. The landlord might have had some claim after a month or two tops, but not half way into the lease.

To be honest I dont believe for a second that the landlord did not notice this until now. Either it suited them to collect 500 a month and something has changed recently that they want/need more, or they really dont keep an eye on their affairs in which case its their own problem that they are not getting the amount that they want. There is nothing in writing to back up their claim of a verbal agreement of 125 a month, so I have no sympathy for them now and I dont think the PRTB would either. Its a hard lesson for them to learn about why they should run their business properly.

Of course, this is all just my opinion; I am not giving legal advice and as I have already said the OP should contact Threshold if they want proper advice on the matter.

beaner88

The rent is 500 per month as that is what you have been paying. Unless the landlord can produce documentary evidence of him demanding a higher rent from the beginning or in the proceeding months then it has to be assumed that he was happy with the rent received.

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

Nowhere in writing does it say that the rent is 125 per week. The OP also paid 500 for the last 6 months, which in fairness gives a lot more weight to their story that there was a verbal agreement of 500 a month, rather than the landlord saying that it was agreed at 125 per week.

The OP has said they agreed to 125 euro a week verbally.

daisyscience wrote: »

I had the option to pay the rent monthly or weekly. I was told it was €125 per week but we agreed I would pay monthly on the last Friday of every month..

daisyscience wrote: »

When we moved in we paid 1 weeks rent in advance cash of €125 (with the deposit) and then we started paying €500 per month straight away.

We can argue about the rights & wrongs of that being legally enforcable since it wasn't written down however the weekly amount isn't in dispute.

The OP knows this. It's a matter of whether they are going to stick to their original agreement (Monthly miscaluation by both sides notwithstanding) or try to argue their way out. They may even have cover because of the landlords mistake on the lease. However then it is just the OP exploiting a mistake by the Landlord to go back on their word.

I don't see why either the Landlord or the Tenant should be punished for a mutual mistake hence meeting them halfway.

djimi wrote: »

To be honest I dont believe for a second that the landlord did not notice this until now. Either it suited them to collect 500 a month and something has changed recently that they want/need more

Are you seriously suggesting the Landlord intentionally ignored being underpaid by a tenant for 6 months?

dahamsta

It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not, he screwed up by not correcting the problem earlier, he screwed up by not putting the correct amount in the lease and he screwed up by not correcting the problem with the damp. The tenant may be wrong but so is the landlord, so the tenant might as well take advantage of that.

Not everything is black and white.

djimi

Agent J wrote: »

The OP has said they agreed to 125 euro a week verbally.

We can argue about the rights & wrongs of that being legally enforcable since it wasn't written down however the weekly amount isn't in dispute.

The OP knows this. It's a matter of whether they are going to stick to their original agreement (Monthly miscaluation by both sides notwithstanding) or try to argue their way out. They may even have cover because of the landlords mistake on the lease. However then it is just the OP exploiting a mistake by the Landlord to go back on their word.

I don't see why either the Landlord or the Tenant should be punished for a mutual mistake hence meeting them halfway.

Im going to be honest, it doesnt actually matter a jot what was verbally agreed. The OP was of the impression that they were to pay 500 a month in rent, and for the last 6 months that is what they have been doing. Thats 6 months in which the landlord could have raised it as an issue but didnt. You can argue the morality of the situation all you want; legally there is nothing in writing to backup the landlords story while the OP has the fact that for the past 6 months they have been paying 500 a month to back up their story.

Its not a mutual mistake; its a mistake on the part of the landlord to firstly not write the rental amount into the lease, and secondly to not check the amount that has been coming in until half way through the lease.

Its a business transaction; there is no such thing as fair, and the verbal word means nothing unless it can be proven, which in this case it almost certainly cannot.

Agent J wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting the Landlord intentionally ignored being underpaid by a tenant for 6 months?

Can you give me any other explination why it took them 6 months to notice this as an issue? Either they didnt bother checking their bank account for 6 months or they were happy with the amount that they were receiving until recently.

Agent J

djimi wrote: »

Its a business transaction; there is no such thing as fair, and the verbal word means nothing unless it can be proven, which in this case it almost certainly cannot.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but i believe a person is as good as their word. It doesn't matter a damn legally of course.

I think it's rather disingenuous to now claim it is a rent increase when they have admitted the monthly amount is incorrect & has been all along. Both sides screwed up on the monthly figure but the OP knew the agreed weekly figure.

If the OP wants to go back on their word that is their business. They probably even have the legal cover to do it (Opinion only) but at least be honest about their intentions. I accept there is very little the Landlord can do about this.

I think the OP is going to hurt themselves long run with this. By adopting a hard line approach they sour the relationship with the landlord meaning if they want to stay on longer , get a reference or anything else which falls under discretion of the Landlord they will run into a brick wall.

djimi wrote: »

Can you give me any other explination why it took them 6 months to notice this as an issue? Either they didnt bother checking their bank account for 6 months or they were happy with the amount that they were receiving until recently.

They probably made the same calculation error the OP did.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Or to borrow another phrase "Cock up before conspiracy".

djimi

Agent J wrote: »

Maybe I'm old fashioned but i believe a person is as good as their word. It doesn't matter a damn legally of course.

I think it's rather disingenuous to now claim it is a rent increase when they have admitted the monthly amount is incorrect & has been all along. Both sides screwed up on the monthly figure but the OP knew the agreed weekly figure.

If the OP wants to go back on their word that is their business. They probably even have the legal cover to do it (Opinion only) but at least be honest about their intentions. I accept there is very little the Landlord can do about this.

I think the OP is going to hurt themselves long run with this. By adopting a hard line approach they sour the relationship with the landlord meaning if they want to stay on longer , get a reference or anything else which falls under discretion of the Landlord they will run into a brick wall.

The way Im reading it the landlord was a bit ambiguous about how they wanted to get paid, and the OP seems to be a bit unsure as to what was agreed. If I was the OP, the fact that the landlord seemingly accepted 6 monthly payments of 500 would say to me that they are happy with such an arrangement. After such a long period I think its ridiculous of the landlord to expect that they can not only change the payment amount, but actually look for back rent to cover their error.

Had it been written into the lease that the rent was 125 a week and the OP had paid 500 a month then the landlord could have cause for complaint. As it stands I dont believe that they do. It might sound like Im being harsh about it, but this is exactly why any agreement should be put down in writing. Verbal agreements mean nothing, and for the most part only lead to confusion at a later date as to what was agreed. Had the landlord acted professionally and shown that they knew what they were doing there would not have been a problem as they arrangement would be in writing for all to see.

Agent J wrote: »

They probably made the same calculation error the OP did.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Or to borrow another phrase "Cock up before conspiracy".

If he expected to be paid weekly then why did he not notice that he had only received 6 payments instead of the 26 he should have gotten in that time? I know the weekly vs monthy discrepancy can cause confusion, but the problem really should be been sorted long before it was addressed if the landlord was to have any realistic hope of getting it rectified.