The farcical state of renting in Dublin

ABC101

Gatling wrote: »

Sorry you seem to be mistaken on some of your points,

Property tax is paid indirectly though the tenant.when property tax came in rents increased ,
Tenants by proxy are paying property tax ,
Broadcasting charge been introduced will also be paid directly by the tenant as its the tenant living in a property using devices capable of receiving public broadcasts through various gadgets ,
Exactly the same as the TV licence its paid by the occupiers or not in a lot of cases apparently,
Bin charges in apartments are paid through management fee's ,which in turn are paid by proxy by a tenant paying €1000+ pm,
Water charges coming in August will also be paid by the tenant or occupier of the rented property just like electricity and gas ,

So the tenant who's paying €1000+pm still has the burden all of the above charges either indirectly or directly on top of the rent + electricity+gas were already paying

Hi Gatling,

I'm not sure if I can respond to your points without being banned or getting the post deleted, but seeing as the original poster of this thread invited opinions about the cost of renting property then I assume it should be o.k. to respond to your comment.

I don't agree with some of your points, rents are going up due to inflation and of course the fact that extra costs some of which are non tax deductible have been introduced.

Do you believe that if all these extra charges i.e. NPPR, LPT, Household Charge, 25% of Interest etc etc where NOT introduced that rental prices would be the same now as they where 10 years ago? I don't believe they would.

In relation to the TV license.. yes you are correct in saying that this is paid by the tenant, and not the landlord. But that is the old system,, Pat Rabbite is introducing the new Broadcasting Charge (this year I think). All properties, whether they have a receiving apparatus or not, whether they are rented or privately owned or lying derelict will be subject to the Broadcasting charge.

The option of Landlord waiting for the new tenant to arrive and pay the broadcasting charge will not exist. If the property is between tenants, then the landlord has to pay the broadcasting charge.

My understanding is that the Broadcasting charge.. is another tax on property, which must be paid by the owner of the property, whether it is rented or lying derelict, or occupied by a tenant. At the moment the emphasis to pay is on the occupier provided they have a receiving apparatus. The new system is a mandatory charge, regardless of whether it has a TV or a tenant.

It's easier to get money from the owner.. getting money from the tenant is a lot harder.

In addition I wish to answer your point about charges being passed on to tenants i.e. LPT, NPPR, which are NON deductible for taxation purposes. This is a very important point which nobody seems to have picked up on.

For example... a charge of 315 euro is imposed upon the property as a LPT. This charge has to be paid by the Landlord, and is not deductible for taxation purposes. What does this mean for the tenant if the landlord is to pass on the charge to the tenant? Will the annual rent increase by 315 or 730 euro?

The simple fact is that for the landlord to get back 315 paid in property tax, he must charge the tenant 730euro, the 730 euro is then subject to the high rate of income tax, 50%, so 50% of 730 is 315 euro.

If the LPT was deductible for taxation purposes... then the landlord could recoup 315, by increasing the annual rent by 315.

As more charges are introduced which are "non deductible for taxation", the landlord is pushed into passing on the charge to the tenant at "DOUBLE" the cost to the Tenant.

My opinion is that it is a cruel, cracked up, f***ed up way of squeezing people to get money to keep this state running, its unfair to both tenant and LL, but the establishment is very happy to impose these costs and have LL and tenant blaming each other.

On your other point about "water charges", I hope you are right... but again I suspect if the Landlord has to pay.. then the charge will be passed on.. and if it is a Non Tax deductible charge the tenant will have to pay Double, 1/2 of which goes to the revenue, and 1/2 to the landlord.

cmssjone

Do you believe that if all these extra charges i.e. NPPR, LPT, Household Charge, 25% of Interest etc etc where NOT introduced that rental prices would be the same now as they where 10 years ago? I don't believe they would.

No - as you stated before they would have risen due to inflationary measures.

The option of Landlord waiting for the new tenant to arrive and pay the broadcasting charge will not exist. If the property is between tenants, then the landlord has to pay the broadcasting charge.


This is why it will probably be made tax deductible.

In addition I wish to answer your point about charges being passed on to tenants i.e. LPT, NPPR, which are NON deductible for taxation purposes. This is a very important point which nobody seems to have picked up on.


NPPR no longer exists. LPT is tax deductible.
http://www.bmsolicitors.ie/property/local-property-tax-lpt/

I agree with you in some respects. By making it more expensive to be a LL, this is just going to be passed on to the end user, the tenant. They will be the ones paying the increases so that the LL can maintain their profit margin.

ABC101

@ cmssjone,

Thanks for the input... I don't have time to check it out... but are you certain that the LPT is allowed to be deductible from rental income?

I was under the impression it was not... because if it is... that's good news for Landlords and good news for tenants.

Here's hoping your right!

Piriz

gaius c wrote: »

No it isn't. Real capitalism would see people not repaying their loans having the security repossessed and sold for what the market will bear.

The fact that only a tiny portion of housing stock is genuinely for sale is distorting prices in the same way that 0.2% of AIB shares being tradable is distorting those prices (AIB valued at €80 billion? yeah right). However, unlike shares, you can't short houses.

Dublin is the 33rd or 34th largest city in Europe, in a bankrupt country on the western seaboard of Europe. Take away the tax sheltering, double Irish, etc and a large portion of those jobs will disappear. Tax "harmonisation" is going to be the price demanded for the eventual write down on our sovereign debt.

With what money? 50% of the market is cash only. Our banks are zombies, alive in name only and foreign banks have no interest in exposing themselves to our "repayment is optional" lending system.

P.S. Finfacts have pointed out that while vacancy in Dublin city is currently around 5%, it was half that for much of the 90's with none of the panic we are seeing right now. Our young people are emigrating, thus balancing out much of the inward migration we are seeing. We actually don't need as many new houses as certain vested interests are making out.

Love reading your posts. Very informative..

cmssjone

ABC101 wrote: »

@ cmssjone,

Thanks for the input... I don't have time to check it out... but are you certain that the LPT is allowed to be deductible from rental income?

I was under the impression it was not... because if it is... that's good news for Landlords and good news for tenants.

Here's hoping your right!

Pasted from the link:

"The Revenue have stated that LPT is a self-assessed tax, and if you are liable to pay you must complete and submit the Return, calculate the liability and pay any tax due.

Property owners should note that the LPT tax is deductible from rental income when calculating profit for income tax purposes at the end of the year. The NPPR and the household charge are not deductible."

I'm assuming the solicitors have verified this if they have posted it on their website.

murphaph

davyy77 wrote: »

I think overall down to the person as a landlord, have a great relationship with my landlord at present and only moving out as wanting to live with my other half,anytime anything needed fixing which was rarely the price of rent didn't increase!my point is if a place is left a state by the tenant then that's what the deposit is for!!

If I'm renting and a washing machine breaks down I'm sorry but due to natural course of wear and tear things happen and it up to the landlord to take the hit for that and that by law is our right!

I understood your view but it's just down to a matter of opinion

If a place is nice I don't mind paying the rent for it,it's just some places are literally horrible! My point is that some landlords not all, have no shame renting places for certain prices due to market at moment!

Yep and it's the landlord's legal right to review the rent every 12 months if he so chooses. DinnyIrwin chooses not to unless he is distracted by the property. He repairs whatever needs repairing, replaces whatever the tenant asks to have replaced and then at the next legal opportunity he reviews the rent to the market rate, as is his legal right.

He "gives quiet tenants a break" if they are capable of wiping their own arses and doing small repairs etc. themselves without getting on the blower to him about them. He saves these tenants a small fortune if they stay with him and he benefits from a good tenant with steady rent. Win win for both parties.

Many landlords exercise their legal right to review the rent every 12 months regardless of how they see their tenants. Dinny forgoes this right for self sufficient tenants. You're really giving stick to the wrong guy. His good tenants know they are doing well and he knows he's doing well with his good tenants.

TheBandicoot

dinnyirwin wrote: »

So if the place needed a lick of paint, a new mattress, new cutlery and crockery and a microwave.
If they were to live with the stains they put on the paint, and bought a new mattress and plates and cutlery themselves and a microwave themselves that would cost them about €300.

Do you actually tell the tenants any of this in the first place? Do you tell them they are allowed to paint the walls like that? In most rentals you are not and would need LL permission. If they call up and ask you if they can paint it, does that qualify as an 'annoyance' for you and a trigger for a rent review?

murphaph wrote: »

He "gives quiet tenants a break" if they are capable of wiping their own arses and doing small repairs etc. themselves without getting on the blower to him about them. He saves these tenants a small fortune if they stay with him and he benefits from a good tenant with steady rent. Win win for both parties.

I have no problem with that as long as he is upfront about this and makes it clear what the scope of 'small repairs' is to them- his setup is very different from most furnished rentals in Ireland and the risk is when people innocently act as they think is normal in this environment they are from their perspective effectively punished with a rent increase and had no way of knowing.

The argument is obviously that the types of tenants who naturally act the way dinnyirwin likes get the benefit and he is no under obligation to give anyone the benefit. I just think it is better to be upfront about what he wants out of the tenancy and what he expects.

dinnyirwin

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Do you actually tell the tenants any of this in the first place? Do you tell them they are allowed to paint the walls like that? In most rentals you are not and would need LL permission. If they call up and ask you if they can paint it, does that qualify as an 'annoyance' for you and a trigger for a rent review?

I dont deal with them personally, but i instruct the agent to tell them after the first year, if they are good tenants, that the market rate is now x, but since they have not needed to call me about anything im happy to leave the rent as is.

I dont allow tenants to paint themselves. I had bad experiences with that in the past. Everyone thinks they cant paint - they cant.

So if they call the agent and say they want the place painted the agent will decide if it needs painting - if it doesnt, i never hear about it and if it does call the agent calls me. Then it will be painted and the finances have to be examined again for that property.

The_Morrigan

dinnyirwin wrote: »

I dont deal with them personally, but i instruct the agent to tell them after the first year, if they are good tenants, that the market rate is now x, but since they have not needed to call me about anything im happy to leave the rent as is.

I dont allow tenants to paint themselves. I had bad experiences with that in the past. Everyone thinks they cant paint - they cant.

So if they call the agent and say they want the place painted the agent will decide if it needs painting - if it doesnt, i never hear about it and if it does call the agent calls me. Then it will be painted and the finances have to be examined again for that property.

Dinny I'm curious, if say the washing machine needs a repairman to call out or a window gets broken and the tenants ring the agency to let them/you know, but say they will look after it themselves. Do you consider that an annoyance and subject to rent review?

Tenants should be able to ring up the landlord or agent to keep them informed of stuff, like an appliance breaking or an issue with the house/garden (say storm damage in the recent weeks) or a break in etc. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn between good tenants keeping the landlord informed of all things concerning their asset and annoying them with every little thing.

TheBandicoot

dinnyirwin wrote: »

I dont deal with them personally, but i instruct the agent to tell them after the first year, if they are good tenants, that the market rate is now x, but since they have not needed to call me about anything im happy to leave the rent as is.

Why not tell them what you define as a good tenant at the start of the first year so they have a chance to act in a way that will work out best for both you in the long run?

ABC101

cmssjone wrote: »

Pasted from the link:

"The Revenue have stated that LPT is a self-assessed tax, and if you are liable to pay you must complete and submit the Return, calculate the liability and pay any tax due.

Property owners should note that the LPT tax is deductible from rental income when calculating profit for income tax purposes at the end of the year. The NPPR and the household charge are not deductible."

I'm assuming the solicitors have verified this if they have posted it on their website.

I'm getting a confused picture here... I looked up the Revenue.ie site and downloaded IT 70 form, a guide to rental income.

No mention of the LPT was made.

I did a google search... and I came up with this link...

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/lpt/pqs/week-ending-20130203.html

Scroll down to 255. Deputy Noel Grealish.

"The Thornhill Group recommended that the Local Property Tax paid in respect of a rented property should be deductible for income tax or corporation tax purposes, in a similar manner to commercial rates. This is not provided for in the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012; it is the intention of the Government to introduce such a provision on a phased basis but the manner in which this will happen has not been decided. Such change would be provided for by primary legislation."

Looks like the Revenue have fudged the issue...:mad: If this is correct... then Landlords and Tenants get stuffed again

dinnyirwin

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Dinny I'm curious, if say the washing machine needs a repairman to call out or a window gets broken and the tenants ring the agency to let them/you know, but say they will look after it themselves. Do you consider that an annoyance and subject to rent review?

Tenants should be able to ring up the landlord or agent to keep them informed of stuff, like an appliance breaking or an issue with the house/garden (say storm damage in the recent weeks) or a break in etc. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn between good tenants keeping the landlord informed of all things concerning their asset and annoying them with every little thing.

If its a cost for me in time or money, for any reason at all, then it puts it om my review list, which is going to be a time cost anyway. I dont want to be looking at every property all the time.
I pay the agent a monthly fee to do that for me. But when it comes to spending money the agent has been told to clear it with me. That means i had to spend time/money on the property. If the property looks after itself whether down to the agent. tenant or just luck, then i dont want to see anything to do with it and am happy to leave the status quo.

Its normally nobodies fault when I have to reexamine the financial situation of a property, but when it doesnt arise im happy. And when it does then I just reset it to market rates. Sometimes when reviewing there will be an opportunity for improvements made to the property and the rent will be raised to reflect this too,

The main exception in a quiet property being when our dear government visits extra costs on me. hen the rent must be reviewed. Sometimes reviewing the rent though there is no room for an increase, so i have to leave it as is. Sometimes I had to reduce rents a few years ago when tenants were able to demand decreases.

dinnyirwin

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Why not tell them what you define as a good tenant at the start of the first year so they have a chance to act in a way that will work out best for both you in the long run?

Because nothing is going to happen in the first year anyway with rent reviews. And if i told them this in advance id be accused of scaring them into not contacting the agent, since they cant actually talk to me.

When its a reward given in arrears its a thankyou, not a warning.

And i assume that tenants already know what to expected from a good tenant. At least I assume the agency has vetted them to filter out the ones who dont.

MouseTail

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Why not tell them what you define as a good tenant at the start of the first year so they have a chance to act in a way that will work out best for both you in the long run?

I don't think guidelines are needed here, just common sense. Its right I'm informed of, and replace/fix the cooker, but you're an adult now, you can tighten screws on a loose knob, buy your own cutlery, or unblock a sink. Some tenants are just more self sufficient than others.

The_Morrigan

dinnyirwin wrote: »

If its a cost for me in time or money, for any reason at all, then it puts it om my review list, which is going to be a time cost anyway. I dont want to be looking at every property all the time.
I pay the agent a monthly fee to do that for me. But when it comes to spending money the agent has been told to clear it with me. That means i had to spend time/money on the property. If the property looks after itself whether down to the agent. tenant or just luck, then i dont want to see anything to do with it and am happy to leave the status quo.

Its normally nobodies fault when I have to reexamine the financial situation of a property, but when it doesnt arise im happy. And when it does then I just reset it to market rates. Sometimes when reviewing there will be an opportunity for improvements made to the property and the rent will be raised to reflect this too,

The main exception in a quiet property being when our dear government visits extra costs on me. hen the rent must be reviewed. Sometimes reviewing the rent though there is no room for an increase, so i have to leave it as is. Sometimes I had to reduce rents a few years ago when tenants were able to demand decreases.

Are you a politician??

My point is, if the tenant has to ring the agent or you to let you know of something that has happened, then it will cost you time - maybe you have to ring your insurance company to let them know that a house was broken into or that a tree in one of your gardens caused damage to the property, flood risk etc.
If you treat a good tenant you informs you of important information for your business, like property damage or potential updates to your insurance policies, then why should they be penalised? This is stuff that they can't undertake themselves as it's your responsibility as the landlord. Would you rather they never contact you and then your insurance doesn't pay out because you weren't informed of a potential risk that happened during their tenancy?

Can you see where your penalty system may fall down and be an off putting system to some good tenants? A good tenant is not always one that leaves you alone, but one who contacts you to ensure you are aware that your asset is at risk and to allow you the opportunity to cover your ass(et) appropriately.

dinnyirwin

MouseTail wrote: »

I don't think guidelines are needed here, just common sense. Its right I'm informed of, and replace/fix the cooker, but you're an adult now, you can tighten screws on a loose knob, buy your own cutlery, or unblock a sink. Some tenants are just more self sufficient than others.

Hers the latest example of that. Unfortunately there are many.
3 nights ago an electrician was called to an apartment of mine because the electricity had gone off.He flicked the trip switch and it was back. He suspected they had done something to trip the switch, like overloaded a socket or plugged in something faulty, but were not telling. But there was no problem now.

If they had bothered to find out about trip switches, and flipped it themselves, as we would all do in our own houses, before calling the agent then problem solved, nobody had to be woken up or engaged for a needless callout.

Or if they had flipped the switch themselves, as they were asked to do on the phone, and wouldnt, before the whole callout scenario was initiated, the electricity is back on.

This cost me €180 in total between agent and electrician call out charges. I am seething.

That person moved into that apartment at €700 per month in June 2011. They are still paying that in rent.

Monday I am instructing the agent to send them their required notice that the rent will be increasing at the earliest opportunity (March, i think,) to the current market rate of €900 per month. And he will tell them that their failure to flick a switch or investigate what they could do themselves is the reason the low rent was brought to my attention.


But thats kind of off topic, but im just venting.

TheBandicoot

dinnyirwin wrote: »

And i assume that tenants already know what to expected from a good tenant.

MouseTail wrote: »

Some tenants are just more self sufficient than others.

I think you both have unreasonable expectations, sorry. The law/convention in regards to furnished residential rentals in this country is so grey and muddled that it is not really possible to expect tenants to know the extent of autonomy expected from them unless you take 5 minutes to spell it out to them in the lease or other agreement. A bit of clarity so both parties know what to expect and how to behave in the tenancy would work out so much better.


And I am still confused by dinnyirwin's stance, sorry. So you will review rent if the tenant is just notifying you of something(when you haven't told them that you don't care to be notified).
If I were a tenant I would have thought the safest option would be to look after basic stuff(shower hoses, bulbs, cutlery/delph, tightening screws etc) myself, but immediately inform agent/LL of anything requiring a professional or expensive part and see what they say about it. If want me to take care of it, depending on what it is I might be happy to do so, but I don't want to risk anything in terms of deposit or relationship, so I am just going to be honest and vocal. But apparently this is not safe!

It's also deeply unfair- some issues will only crop up after multiple tenancies- wear and tear, appliances worn out, painting needed etc. Even if you have a string of identical, equally good tenants who you never hear from, as soon as one of these long term issues comes to head and needs to be resolved(which is no fault of the incumbent tenant), they get hit with the rent increase, even though they are otherwise identical to previous tenants! It is basically reliant on luck and timing, and not actually on the behaviour of tenants and their 'self-sufficiency', so stop pretending it is.

Having said that, I find it hard to actually bash your approach, dinnyirwin. Obviously as time passes more money will have to be put into the house, and this must be recouped, so rent has to increase sometime. The ideal time would be between tenancies, but obviously it is better for all if a good tenant stays long term, so there will never be a convenient gap. The fairest solution would be simply to do a rent review every year at every opportunity, regardless of anything else. But this is hassle and can cause friction, or price tenant out of the tenancy. So I really don't know what you could do differently, even though I am unhappy with the way you do it currently. It is frustrating me.

dinnyirwin

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Are you a politician??

My point is, if the tenant has to ring the agent or you to let you know of something that has happened, then it will cost you time - maybe you have to ring your insurance company to let them know that a house was broken into or that a tree in one of your gardens caused damage to the property, flood risk etc.
If you treat a good tenant you informs you of important information for your business, like property damage or potential updates to your insurance policies, then why should they be penalised? This is stuff that they can't undertake themselves as it's your responsibility as the landlord. Would you rather they never contact you and then your insurance doesn't pay out because you weren't informed of a potential risk that happened during their tenancy?

Can you see where your penalty system may fall down and be an off putting system to some good tenants? A good tenant is not always one that leaves you alone, but one who contacts you to ensure you are aware that your asset is at risk and to allow you the opportunity to cover your ass(et) appropriately.

I assure you my good tenants are happy tenants.
When anything is wrong that a tenant cant deal with they go to the agent. The agent is paid to deal with it. If there is a cost then that cost will be retrieved in the next rent review, and since the rent cannot be reviewed more than once a year it must be reviewed to the max it can be in case any other costs come up in that year. If there is nothing for that year then rent wont be reviewed the next year. It will only be reviewed after that when there is a cost.

This is simple and fair. I could just review the rent every single year. But when I dont I keep good tenants and they know what they did right and how to make sure rent isnt reviewed the next year. Its fair and advantageous to us both.

I dont understand people who think that if i have a cost i must absorb it myself unless i am forced to. But thats the difference between running a business and talking about running one.

The_Morrigan

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Having said that, I find it hard to actually bash your approach, dinnyirwin. Obviously as time passes more money will have to be put into the house, and this must be recouped, so rent has to increase sometime. The ideal time would be between tenancies, but obviously it is better for all if a good tenant stays long term, so there will never be a convenient gap. The fairest solution would be simply to do a rent review every year at every opportunity, regardless of anything else. But this is hassle and can cause friction, or price tenant out of the tenancy. So I really don't know what you could do differently, even though I am unhappy with the way you do it currently. It is frustrating me.

I'm having the same problem. I admire the theory of the system, but I can see obvious flaws where tenants should be communicating with their landlords and maybe reluctant to do so because of the reward/penalty system in place and then they are classified as bad tenants for inadvertently costing the landlord more money for not disclosing an issue.

Hence my questions...

I also think that a lot of new renters are naive when it comes to practical issues - this could be overcome by a good agent going through practical things onsite. Like pointing out where the mains water and gas are turned off. How to reset a tripped switch or change a fuse. How to bleed radiators etc. These skills are learnt, often by error and agents probably should include this in their handing over the keys, sign the lease appointment in the property.

The_Morrigan

dinnyirwin wrote: »

I assure you my good tenants are happy tenants.
When anything is wrong that a tenant cant deal with they go to the agent. The agent is paid to deal with it. If there is a cost then that cost will be retrieved in the next rent review, and since the rent cannot be reviewed more than once a year it must be reviewed to the max it can be in case any other costs come up in that year. If there is nothing for that year then rent wont be reviewed the next year. It will only be reviewed after that when there is a cost.

This is simple and fair. I could just review the rent every single year. But when I dont I keep good tenants and they know what they did right and how to make sure rent isnt reviewed the next year. Its fair and advantageous to us both.

I dont understand people who think that if i have a cost i must absorb it myself unless i am forced to. But thats the difference between running a business and talking about running one.

Hang on a minute, you've changed your answer now.
Previously you said if the tenants contact you and it costs you time then you will put a note in your log about a rent review - I've given the extremely important example of insurance disclosure.

It's simple - if your tenants contact you to keep you informed and you time is consumed with having to update your insurance are they penalised? Yes or No?

TheBandicoot

dinnyirwin wrote: »

I assure you my good tenants are happy tenants.
When anything is wrong that a tenant cant deal with they go to the agent. The agent is paid to deal with it. If there is a cost then that cost will be retrieved in the next rent review, and since the rent cannot be reviewed more than once a year it must be reviewed to the max it can be in case any other costs come up in that year. If there is nothing for that year then rent wont be reviewed the next year. It will only be reviewed after that when there is a cost.

This is simple and fair. I could just review the rent every single year. But when I dont I keep good tenants and they know what they did right and how to make sure rent isnt reviewed the next year. Its fair and advantageous to us both.

I dont understand people who think that if i have a cost i must absorb it myself unless i am forced to. But thats the difference between running a business and talking about running one.

I think your stance is fine, it's just that from the tenant's perspective it seems like they are being punished for things out of their control(I am excluding the case of the tripswitch above, as that is the tenant's 'fault'). From their perspective it seems unfair , but as I said earlier- I really don't know how else you can realistically do it and still keep long term tenancies going.

dinnyirwin

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I think you both have unreasonable expectations, sorry. The law/convention in regards to furnished residential rentals in this country is so grey and muddled that it is not really possible to expect tenants to know the extent of autonomy expected from them unless you take 5 minutes to spell it out to them in the lease or other agreement. A bit of clarity so both parties know what to expect and how to behave in the tenancy would work out so much better.


And I am still confused by dinnyirwin's stance, sorry. So you will review rent if the tenant is just notifying you of something(when you haven't told them that you don't care to be notified).
If I were a tenant I would have thought the safest option would be to look after basic stuff(shower hoses, bulbs, cutlery/delph, tightening screws etc) myself, but immediately inform agent/LL of anything requiring a professional or expensive part and see what they say about it. If want me to take care of it, depending on what it is I might be happy to do so, but I don't want to risk anything in terms of deposit or relationship, so I am just going to be honest and vocal. But apparently this is not safe!

It's also deeply unfair- some issues will only crop up after multiple tenancies- wear and tear, appliances worn out, painting needed etc. Even if you have a string of identical, equally good tenants who you never hear from, as soon as one of these long term issues comes to head and needs to be resolved(which is no fault of the incumbent tenant), they get hit with the rent increase, even though they are otherwise identical to previous tenants! It is basically reliant on luck and timing, and not actually on the behaviour of tenants and their 'self-sufficiency', so stop pretending it is.

Having said that, I find it hard to actually bash your approach, dinnyirwin. Obviously as time passes more money will have to be put into the house, and this must be recouped, so rent has to increase sometime. The ideal time would be between tenancies, but obviously it is better for all if a good tenant stays long term, so there will never be a convenient gap. The fairest solution would be simply to do a rent review every year at every opportunity, regardless of anything else. But this is hassle and can cause friction, or price tenant out of the tenancy. So I really don't know what you could do differently, even though I am unhappy with the way you do it currently. It is frustrating me.

How is anything unfair.
None of my tenants pay above the market rate.
A lot of them pay below the market rate.
When there is a cost to me, then they pay the market rate again.

Should I feel guilty for not allowing everyone to pay below the market rate, and just some people, whos tenant/property combination has resulted in that property not costing me while they were there?

It doesnt matter if the tenant washing machine breaks. I dont blame them (most of the time, sometimes it is their fault) they just happen to be in the property where something went wrong and they cant influence that. But that tenant never has to pay over the odds. If the do cause something then it is their fault and they still never have to pay over the market rate.

But a tenant benefits when nothing goes wrong both through their willingness to get their own new hoover or kettle, or the luck that their washing machine never broke. they will be paying below market rate.

Noone is punished. Some people are thanked. Others are treated like anyother tenant in the country.

dinnyirwin

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I'm having the same problem. I admire the theory of the system, but I can see obvious flaws where tenants should be communicating with their landlords and maybe reluctant to do so because of the reward/penalty system in place and then they are classified as bad tenants for inadvertently costing the landlord more money for not disclosing an issue.

Hence my questions...

I also think that a lot of new renters are naive when it comes to practical issues - this could be overcome by a good agent going through practical things onsite. Like pointing out where the mains water and gas are turned off. How to reset a tripped switch or change a fuse. How to bleed radiators etc. These skills are learnt, often by error and agents probably should include this in their handing over the keys, sign the lease appointment in the property.

Thats what I pay agents for and what I charge two months deposit for.

Second section. Perhaps there should be a course that every tenant must pay to do for this kind of stuff, but im not their daddy. Next they'll be looking for someone to show them how to change a light bulb.

dinnyirwin

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Hang on a minute, you've changed your answer now.
Previously you said if the tenants contact you and it costs you time then you will put a note in your log about a rent review - I've given the extremely important example of insurance disclosure.

It's simple - if your tenants contact you to keep you informed and you time is consumed with having to update your insurance are they penalised? Yes or No?

What have I changed? Point it out and if ive mistyped i'll correct it, but ive so many posts here now i cant tell where you are talking about.

If you clarify your question ill answer it.

TheBandicoot

dinnyirwin wrote: »

How is anything unfair.

dinnyirwin wrote: »

But a tenant benefits when nothing goes wrong both through their willingness to get their own new hoover or kettle, or the luck that their washing machine never broke. they will be paying below market rate.

That is where the perceived unfairness comes from. Tenants are going to see an rent increase as a punishment, being penalised, a cost- it is not something they are happy or understanding about, in the main. So it will seem unfair to them when they are 'penalised' as a result of, as you say, the "tenant/property combination has resulted in that property [costing you]", when the penalisation is from their perspective a result of bad "luck that their washing machine [broke]", and not from an action they had control over.

From a logical and business perspective your system is fine and I applaud you. But by its nature it will piss off some humans and will be decried as 'unfair' by them and others who hear about it- but I don't see how that can be avoided.

dinnyirwin

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I think your stance is fine, it's just that from the tenant's perspective it seems like they are being punished for things out of their control(I am excluding the case of the tripswitch above, as that is the tenant's 'fault'). From their perspective it seems unfair , but as I said earlier- I really don't know how else you can realistically do it and still keep long term tenancies going.

How are they punished if they are paying no more than market rate?

dinnyirwin

TheBandicoot wrote: »

That is where the perceived unfairness comes from. Tenants are going to see an rent increase as a punishment, being penalised, a cost- it is not something they are happy or understanding about, in the main. So it will seem unfair to them when they are 'penalised' as a result of, as you say, the "tenant/property combination has resulted in that property [costing you]", when the penalisation is from their perspective a result of bad "luck that their washing machine [broke]", and not from an action they had control over.

From a logical and business perspective your system is fine and I applaud you. But by its nature it will piss off some humans and will be decried as 'unfair' by them and others who hear about it- but I don't see how that can be avoided.

None of my tenants know my dealings with any other tenants. How do they know what is unfair compared to others, therefore where would they get the idea that they were being treated unfairly. In fact I dont even know my dealings with a lot of them until year end.


All tenants in any property anywhere, should be aware that their rent at anytime outside of a year from the last review, their rent can be adjusted to the new market rate.

TheBandicoot

dinnyirwin wrote: »

How are they punished if they are paying no more than market rate?

Realistically, they are not. That's why I say is perceived. It seems to them like an unfair punishment, to go x years with a certain rent and then have it increased after a cost they didn't cause is incurred. But you are right, if they objectively look at they will be appreciative of the money they saved not paying market rate for the x years and understand that it couldn't last forever. It's just human factors at play, hence why you get bashed by some posters here.

The_Morrigan

dinnyirwin wrote: »

If its a cost for me in time or money, for any reason at all, then it puts it om my review list, which is going to be a time cost anyway. I dont want to be looking at every property all the time.
I pay the agent a monthly fee to do that for me. But when it comes to spending money the agent has been told to clear it with me. That means i had to spend time/money on the property. If the property looks after itself whether down to the agent. tenant or just luck, then i dont want to see anything to do with it and am happy to leave the status quo.

Its normally nobodies fault when I have to reexamine the financial situation of a property, but when it doesnt arise im happy. And when it does then I just reset it to market rates. Sometimes when reviewing there will be an opportunity for improvements made to the property and the rent will be raised to reflect this too,

The main exception in a quiet property being when our dear government visits extra costs on me. hen the rent must be reviewed. Sometimes reviewing the rent though there is no room for an increase, so i have to leave it as is. Sometimes I had to reduce rents a few years ago when tenants were able to demand decreases.

dinnyirwin wrote: »

What have I changed? Point it out and if ive mistyped i'll correct it, but ive so many posts here now i cant tell where you are talking about.

If you clarify your question ill answer it.

Your first post above you state that if the tenant costs you time or money for any reason at all they are put no your list.
The issue that I have with your system is that if a 'good tenant' doesn't get in touch with you for fearing a rent increase that it could be more costly for you. There has to be a balance of when a tenant can and should be contacting you regardless of cost/time to you - it is your business that you are trying to protect and if your tenants are scared to contact you or your agents for fear of a rent increase then that isn't very good for business.

My example was around insurance, which only you can deal with as the interested party. If the tenants contact you to keep you up to date with a potential risk to your property are they then put on the list for rent review because you have to do your job and contact your insurance company to adhere to the 'full disclosure' that all policies operate under.

TheBandicoot

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Your first post above you state that if the tenant costs you time or money for any reason at all they are put no your list.
The issue that I have with your system is that if a 'good tenant' doesn't get in touch with you for fearing a rent increase that it could be more costly for you. There has to be a balance of when a tenant can and should be contacting you regardless of cost/time to you - it is your business that you are trying to protect and if your tenants are scared to contact you or your agents for fear of a rent increase then that isn't very good for business.

My example was around insurance, which only you can deal with as the interested party. If the tenants contact you to keep you up to date with a potential risk to your property are they then put on the list for rent review because you have to do your job and contact your insurance company to adhere to the 'full disclosure' that all policies operate under.

Well the tenants don't know he is using the system, so they are not going to be scared to contact him. If the rent does then increase, they won't know it's because of the call- it is just a bringing of the rent to the market rate and is not linked to any action they took, and they have no way of knowing why he chose to do it at the time he does it.