Landlord wants to increase rent

ash777

I'd be very grateful for some advice or links about when a landlord is allowed to increase the rent!

We moved in to a house in May, and the landlord recently mentioned that he wanted to increase the rent - it's being paid per calendar month, and he said that they wanted it to be now paid weekly so that they get 52 weeks' payment as opposed to 12 yearly payments amounting to 48 weeks' rent. However, we signed a year's lease, at x amount per calender month - i.e., technically paying for 48 weeks.

They're not allowed to change the rent amount/rent terms while the lease is still valid, are they?

better call saul

ash777 wrote: »

I'd be very grateful for some advice or links about when a landlord is allowed to increase the rent!

We moved in to a house in May, and the landlord recently mentioned that he wanted to increase the rent - it's being paid per calendar month, and he said that they wanted it to be now paid weekly so that they get 52 weeks' payment as opposed to 12 yearly payments amounting to 48 weeks' rent. However, we signed a year's lease, at x amount per calender month - i.e., technically paying for 48 weeks.

They're not allowed to change the rent amount/rent terms while the lease is still valid, are they?

no hes not the cúnt

ash777

Thanks! Is there anything online that I could print out saying this?

super_furry

He can't raise the rent for a year, he's taking the piss - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

salamanca22

Do you mind paying weekly? If you don't then calculate the rent that should be paid per week so it works out the same as before.

If you do mind however then there is nothing the landlord can do to make you change the arrangement as they are only allowed a rent review once per year.

ash777

salamanca22 wrote: »

Do you mind paying weekly? If you don't then calculate the rent that should be paid per week so it works out the same as before.

If you do mind however then there is nothing the landlord can do to make you change the arrangement as they are only allowed a rent review once per year.

I'm annoyed, really, that they're trying to change the contract of the lease!

Also, they don't have a BER cert. It's a house share, and 2 other people were living here when I moved in. Another tenant then moved in, and the 2 previous tenants then moved out. Are they able to avoid getting a BER because the house wasn't rented 'newly', i.e. that there was an overlap of tenants, or should they really have one? It's the law, isn't it? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

salamanca22

ash777 wrote: »

I'm annoyed, really, that they're trying to change the contract of the lease!

Also, they don't have a BER cert. It's a house share,

Does the landlord live in the house too? If so you are not a tenant and do not have the protection of RTA 2004. If this is the case they can review the rent whenever they wish.

If they do not live there then you are afforded the protection under the act and they cannot amend the rent agreement within the first 12 months of the rental.

Some people might tell you that because you are renting a room you are not a tennant but a licensee, this is incorrect as per this PRTB rulling:
http://www.prtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR168.2011.DR92.2011/Report.pdf

The important information is the landlord was trying to say that people renting a room are licensees but it was ruled that they are infact tenants and are under protection of the act.

Regarding the BER it is my opinion if new leases are written up then the BER should be up to date. It is theorised that if there is no BER then the lease in null and void and the tenant can break it whenever they want. I do not know if that theory has been tested though. Though I am also of the opinion that the BER is hogwash

ash777

salamanca22 wrote: »

Does the landlord live in the house too? If so you are not a tenant and do not have the protection of RTA 2004. If this is the case they can review the rent whenever they wish.

If they do not live there then you are afforded the protection under the act and they cannot amend the rent agreement within the first 12 months of the rental.

Some people might tell you that because you are renting a room you are not a tennant but a licensee, this is incorrect as per this PRTB rulling:
http://www.prtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR168.2011.DR92.2011/Report.pdf

The important information is the landlord was trying to say that people renting a room are licensees but it was ruled that they are infact tenants and are under protection of the act.

Regarding the BER it is my opinion if new leases are written up then the BER should be up to date. It is theorised that if there is no BER then the lease in null and void and the tenant can break it whenever they want. I do not know if that theory has been tested though.

The land lord doesn't live here.

salamanca22

ash777 wrote: »

The land lord doesn't live here.

Then the ball is in your court! Good luck

ash777

salamanca22 wrote: »

Regarding the BER it is my opinion if new leases are written up then the BER should be up to date. It is theorised that if there is no BER then the lease in null and void and the tenant can break it whenever they want. I do not know if that theory has been tested though. Though I am also of the opinion that the BER is hogwash

Thanks! Do you have a link for this?

salamanca22

ash777 wrote: »

Thanks! Do you have a link for this?

I don't as it's only a theory that some people believe to be fact. It has never to my memory been tested in a tribunal though so could be wrong.

You could ring up threshold or the prtb themselfs to get more information on it.

http://threshold.ie
http://prtb.ie

The_Morrigan

better call saul wrote: »

no hes not the cúnt

There is absolutely no need for language like this to be used on this forum.

amdublin

Big time not allowed increase the rent yet.

BER. ....me....are you bothered? .

Mrs OBumble

ash777 wrote: »

at x amount per calender month - i.e., technically paying for 48 weeks.

They're not allowed to change the rent amount/rent terms while the lease is still valid, are they?

As others advised, they can't arise the rent within 12 months.

However they can do so during a lease, if the last rent increase was more than 12 months ago.

And it's bollox that you're only paying for 48 weeks. You are paying for 52 weeks, with each instalment covering approx 4.5 weeks. If the LL wishes to changes the payment frequency, calculate the weekly rate from

(monthly rate X 12 ) / 52


(Personally I'd be arguing to have a slight discount for the extra bank charges and inconvenience you'd be facing with having to keep on top of the account every single week.)

P_1

If the landlord is trying to charge you ((monthly rent/4) x 52) tell him where to go. If they're asking for the payments to work like ((monthly rent x 12) / 52) then I'd hear them out but try to get any excess banking fees reflected in this figure.

I'm not sure why they'd want to switch to a weekly payment though unless they were trying to pull a fast one, the extra banking fees that they'd face by switching weekly wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Penny Tration

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

As others advised, they can't arise the rent within 12 months.

However they can do so during a lease, if the last rent increase was more than 12 months ago.

And it's bollox that you're only paying for 48 weeks. You are paying for 52 weeks, with each instalment covering approx 4.5 weeks. If the LL wishes to changes the payment frequency, calculate the weekly rate from

(monthly rate X 12 ) / 52


(Personally I'd be arguing to have a slight discount for the extra bank charges and inconvenience you'd be facing with having to keep on top of the account every single week.)

Re the bolded bit - they can't, not during a fixed term lease. The lease is a contract, and can't be broken just because the LL wants more money

Twas Not

ash777 wrote: »

I'd be very grateful for some advice or links about when a landlord is allowed to increase the rent!

We moved in to a house in May, and the landlord recently mentioned that he wanted to increase the rent - it's being paid per calendar month, and he said that they wanted it to be now paid weekly so that they get 52 weeks' payment as opposed to 12 yearly payments amounting to 48 weeks' rent. However, we signed a year's lease, at x amount per calender month - i.e., technically paying for 48 weeks.

They're not allowed to change the rent amount/rent terms while the lease is still valid, are they?

Maths may not be your strong point. The rent will remain the same over the year just paid at a different frequent. It's no big deal. Mark yourself out as a problem tenant and you will be out on your ear when the lease is up.

shruikan2553

Twas Not wrote: »

Maths may not be your strong point. The rent will remain the same over the year just paid at a different frequent. It's no big deal. Mark yourself out as a problem tenant and you will be out on your ear when the lease is up.

Depends on how weekly is calculated. If done properly then there is not much change, if the LL divides the monthly rent by 4 then it will work out at about an extra month worth of rent a year.

And the LL still has to follow the law, no matter if you let him/her ignore your rights or not.

P_1

Twas Not wrote: »

Maths may not be your strong point. The rent will remain the same over the year just paid at a different frequent. It's no big deal. Mark yourself out as a problem tenant and you will be out on your ear when the lease is up.

Now that's not very fair to say. It all depends on how things are calculated.

Lets say for argument's sake that the OP currently pays €1000 each month.

So 1000 x 12 gives us €12000 paid each year.

If the landlord is looking for 52 payments of €250 ((1000/4)x52) then the OP will be paying €13000 for the year.

If the landlord is looking for 52 payments of €230.77 ((1000x12)/52) then the OP will be paying €12000.04 for the year.

A grand is a lot of money to be sneaking in on the calculations so the OP is right to question what may or may not be going on.

the world wonders

Twas Not wrote: »

Maths may not be your strong point. The rent will remain the same over the year just paid at a different frequent. It's no big deal.

Reading may not be your strong point -- the OP says specifically the landlord wants them to pay for 52 weeks instead of the equivalent of 48 weeks. Clearly an increase. The old "4 weeks in a month" is a classic trick from dodgy landlords.

Mark yourself out as a problem tenant and you will be out on your ear when the lease is up.

No, because by the time the lease is up they will have Part 4 protection.

Twas Not

the world wonders wrote: »

Reading may not be your strong point -- the OP says specifically the landlord wants them to pay for 52 weeks instead of the equivalent of 48 weeks. Clearly an increase. The old "4 weeks in a month" is a classic trick from dodgy landlords.No, because by the time the lease is up they will have Part 4 protection.

Maybe logic isn't your strong point. A year is 52 weeks no matter what way you look at it.

The_Morrigan

Twas Not wrote: »

Maths may not be your strong point. The rent will remain the same over the year just paid at a different frequent. It's no big deal. Mark yourself out as a problem tenant and you will be out on your ear when the lease is up.

the world wonders wrote: »

Reading may not be your strong point -- the OP says specifically the landlord wants them to pay for 52 weeks instead of the equivalent of 48 weeks. Clearly an increase. The old "4 weeks in a month" is a classic trick from dodgy landlords.No, because by the time the lease is up they will have Part 4 protection.

Twas Not wrote: »

Maybe logic isn't your strong point. A year is 52 weeks no matter what way you look at it.

Cut it out - or your next personalised posts will result in an infraction.

Tigger

there are 4.33.. weeks in a month
your current rent will remain the same if the weekly rate is the monthly rate divided by 4.33.. otherwise its an increase

Tarzana

salamanca22 wrote: »

Do you mind paying weekly? If you don't then calculate the rent that should be paid per week so it works out the same as before.

Yes, do this OP and remind him that he can't charge higher than that until the 12 month mark.

Question, does he think you'll think you're paying the same if paying weekly and is just hoping you wouldn't notice?

tenifan

ash777 wrote: »

he said that they wanted it to be now paid weekly so that they get 52 weeks' payment as opposed to 12 yearly payments amounting to 48 weeks' rent. However, we signed a year's lease, at x amount per calender month - i.e., technically paying for 48 weeks.

What sort of nonsense is that? Either your landlord has bamboozling you into believing there are 48 weeks in a year, or you just got the wrong end of the stick all by yourself.

Bolded bit.. if you signed a year's lease, at €x amount per calendar month, that's technically paying for 52 weeks.

If your monthly rent is €1000, that's €12,000 a year. Divide that by 52 and your weekly rent is €230.77 (not €250).

Mr. Incognito

Cant increase under the act for the first years rental.

Ber cert is required for a sale not a rental

salamanca22

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Cant increase under the act for the first years rental.

Ber cert is required for a sale not a rental

This is incorrect. All houses and apartments rented after January 1st 2009 require a BER cert to be compliant with the european directive.

ash777

I'm not sure who to quote/reply to, but thanks for all the replies.

The landlord basically wants to increase the rent, so that we pay the monthly rate every 4 weeks, which is not what the lease says.

ash777

Tarzana wrote: »

Question, does he think you'll think you're paying the same if paying weekly and is just hoping you wouldn't notice?

Precisely.

TheChizler

ash777 wrote: »

Precisely.

What a chancer! I hope when you point out that you would calculate it so you're paying the same per year he'll realize he's been caught out and just back down. You're under no obligation to change the frequency of payments.

The_Conductor

salamanca22 wrote: »

Regarding the BER it is my opinion if new leases are written up then the BER should be up to date. It is theorised that if there is no BER then the lease in null and void and the tenant can break it whenever they want. I do not know if that theory has been tested though. Though I am also of the opinion that the BER is hogwash

The term used in the Act is new tenancy- not lease.
If there is an argument that a lease is being reassigned- technically, the property *may* (and its on dodgy ground) qualify for an exemption (until such time as a new tenancy commences).

A lease is not null and void- and anyone who wants to go down this road- is opening a whole lot of pain for themselves. A lease is a civil contract between 2 parties- and is subject to civil law. With respect of a residential tenancy- a lease cannot take from those rights granted under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- it can clarify or grant rights in addition to those under the Act- but it cannot take from them. The 2004 Act- does not elucidate on BER certs- its covered elsewhere.

As alluded to above- all new tenancies after the 1st of January 2009, require the furnishment of a BER certificate to a prospective tenant. The landlord could possibly be trying to argue that the property has not been vacant since that date, and tenants leases have simply been reassigned from the outgoing tenant to the incoming one- and so on, ad nauseum. Whether or not this was deemed acceptable, were it to be challenged- your guess is as good as mine.