Notice today of over 20% increase in rent?!

Michael D Not Higgins

Whatever about comparisons with other cities, I still find the percentage increase huge, and would doubt something like this should happen in a functioning marketplace. I had a 3% increase in my rent earlier this year and nothing the year before that. I do hope the government follow up with some cap on the rental increases in line with the CPI.

quadrifoglio verde

JoeCole26 wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but dont know why Nama didnt allocate a certain % of apartments for sale to the general public rather than selling the entire blocks to "professional landlords" or REITS. I understand NAMA is set up to be as profitable as possible, but this is a massive oversight on the Governments behalf.

For example, Wyckham Point in Dundrum, was sold in Hibernia REIT. 280 apartments. If 50 of these were put on general sale at a reasonable market price then it would help people get on the property ladder and help stabilise rent in that area.

Granted, im probably dreaming that something like this would ever be considered, but its so frustrating the way things are going.

namas function is to return as much money as possible to tax payer, not give 50 people cheaper housing. It works out cheaper for Nama to sell the entire lot in one go, than sell the lots individually. As well as that putting that many units in the one development on the market could have a negative affect on values.

gaius c

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

namas function is to return as much money as possible to tax payer, not give 50 people cheaper housing. It works out cheaper for Nama to sell the entire lot in one go, than sell the lots individually. As well as that putting that many units in the one development on the market could have a negative affect on values.

And we can't have that because Michael Noonan "needs prices a bit higher".

MysticalRain

gaius c wrote: »

And we can't have that because Michael Noonan "needs prices a bit higher".

This from the party that expects turkeys like us to vote for Christmas (higher property prices) at the next election. It's really no wonder independents and Sinn Fein are riding high in the polls these days.

Tarzana2

Beaner1 wrote: »

Do you actually think Dublin is a bigger player than Manchester?

Yes, easily.

SeanSouth

I fully understand that people are upset about rising rents especially 20% rising rents !!. Nonetheless i feel that people have gone way off track in this discussion.

Rents have always been set with reference to general house prices. If house prices rise by 20% in a year then many commentators will agree that rents should rise at the same pace. Gross rents as a % of property value is referred to as the gross yield. Traditionally, landlods have sought yields in the region of 7%/8%. Who can blame them. Landlords need to recoup a % yield on their investment, otherwise it wouldnt be worth their while "staying in business" In 2008 when property prices were falling off a cliff. rents did likewise. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. One might easily conclude that rent levels are just now returning to their correct level. One way of assessing this in your own situation is to calculate the landlords rent yield. If the rent yield is 7% or less, its hard to argue that the rent is excessive.

Michael D Not Higgins

SeanSouth wrote: »

I fully understand that people are upset about rising rents especially 20% rising rents !!. Nonetheless i feel that people have gone way off track in this discussion.

Rents have always been set with reference to general house prices. If house prices rise by 20% in a year then many commentators will agree that rents should rise at the same pace. Gross rents as a % of property value is referred to as the gross yield. Traditionally, landlods have sought yields in the region of 7%/8%. Who can blame them. Landlords need to recoup a % yield on their investment, otherwise it wouldnt be worth their while "staying in business" In 2008 when property prices were falling off a cliff. rents did likewise. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. One might easily conclude that rent levels are just now returning to their correct level. One way of assessing this in your own situation is to calculate the landlords rent yield. If the rent yield is 7% or less, its hard to argue that the rent is excessive.

75 apartments at Lansdowne Gate, €20.2m, average €270k each. Let's say €300k for the 3 beds and 250 for the 2-beds for the round numbers.

(1350*11)/250,000= 6% yield based on 11 months occupancy.

jmayo

D12resident wrote: »

People Before Profit were very supportive of my case and offered help in setting up a residents association to fight our proposed increase.

Have you been able to galvanise enough renters into a block ?

The reason why PBP and SF, etc are gaining in polls is they are actually out there at ground level.

pwurple wrote: »

Firstly, there is no "Landlord Class" here. Landlords these days are people who bought a flat before they got married, and then moved into their spouses place.

Did you ever care to look at our public representatives' register of interests ?

Not everyone who is a landlord either got stung by the recession nor became a landlord because they moved in with their missus/hubbie.

There are a big chunk of long term landlords who you will find have been building portfolios over the years.
A fair few builders, auctioneers, etc were investing in property for years and it wasn't because they hooked up with someone in a biblical sense.
And hands up anyone who has had an ex Garda as their landlord ?

pwurple wrote: »

Secondly, landlords have been bent over and screwed the last few years with increased charges coming down from the current regime. Rent is taxable, at eye-watering rates, but now the rent also has to pay PRSI... ya know, in case the flat ever goes on the dole. Oh, and USC of course. PRTB, NPPR, LPT... all bills landing in landlords laps. Don't even get me started on the mortgage interest swizz.

People paying tax on their investment income ?
And whoever heard that property owners have to pay property taxes.

Landlords may not be as protected or cushioned as they once were, but do you remember all those section 23/50 grants that were put in place and worse still kept in place during a bubble.
All those grants were aimed at landlords basically offsetting their tax on other property income.

pwurple wrote: »

So I don't know where on earth you get the notion that landlords are some sheltered bunch of people. 70-100% of your rent isn't going near their pockets, it's going into the taxman and the bank. A boat load of landlords are even topping up the rent to make the mortgage.

Before you lecture us about landlords being protected would you mind explaining why in god's name we have a sizable amount of buy to let landlords in arrears and yet they have not had their property repossessed ?
One can cry foul of family homes being repossessed, but buy to lets ?

Anyway this is off topic and doesn't help the OP.

Even a landlord would surely agree that a 20% hike in a charge over a year is damm hard to take.

Beaner1

SeanSouth wrote: »

I fully understand that people are upset about rising rents especially 20% rising rents !!. Nonetheless i feel that people have gone way off track in this discussion.

Rents have always been set with reference to general house prices. If house prices rise by 20% in a year then many commentators will agree that rents should rise at the same pace. Gross rents as a % of property value is referred to as the gross yield. Traditionally, landlods have sought yields in the region of 7%/8%. Who can blame them. Landlords need to recoup a % yield on their investment, otherwise it wouldnt be worth their while "staying in business" In 2008 when property prices were falling off a cliff. rents did likewise. Now we are seeing the reverse of that. One might easily conclude that rent levels are just now returning to their correct level. One way of assessing this in your own situation is to calculate the landlords rent yield. If the rent yield is 7% or less, its hard to argue that the rent is excessive.

Rents are not sent in relation to house prices. Not in Ireland. They are set by the market.

pwurple

[QUOTE=jmayo;93292979Even a landlord would surely agree that a 20% hike in a charge over a year is damm hard to take.[/QUOTE]

I'd totally agree 20% is hard to take. Think hard about all the landlords who are sucking up their 20% hike in taxes and fees recently. My property related expenses have rocketed. Of course landlords pass it on, what are they, a charity?

Part of the reason rents are rocketing is because it makes less and less sense to be a landlord anymore. It's frikken expensive, and one arsehole tenant can cost you thousands in the blink of an eye, with virtually no recourse. People are getting away from it where they can, leaving a shortage of rentable properties, in a time of increased demand.

SeanSouth

Well I can tell you from any professional landlord's perspective, that the most important criteria for rental investment is yield. Any normal rental market cannot function unless basic acceptable levels of yield are met. If market rents are so low as to make the yield uninteresting to landlords, then supply of rental properties will dry up. As supply of rental properties dries up, rents will rise to restore the equilibrium. It's all about yield.

Beaner1

SeanSouth wrote: »

Well I can tell you from any professional landlord's perspective, that the most important criteria for rental investment is yield. Any normal rental market cannot function unless basic acceptable levels of yield are met. If market rents are so low as to make the yield uninteresting to landlords, then supply of rental properties will dry up. As supply of rental properties dries up, rents will rise to restore the equilibrium. It's all about yield.

Yields were below 3% for most of the boom. Rents are still down on 2000 levels sure.

oflahero

pwurple wrote: »

A boat load of landlords are even topping up the rent to make the mortgage.

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

anonyanony

oflahero wrote: »

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

Some landlords had to take a 30% reduction in rent when the bubble burst in one go, I know people renting for less the what they payed in 2007 that had a 20% hike this year. When the bubble burst they had no pitty for the landlord and got huge reductions bragging about it down the pub, they now complain about the raises being so unfair now even though they are still paying less then when they first moved in.

The ball being in the LL or Tenant court will change all the time and both will be forced to accept things they don't want to, atm LL is king a few years ago it was tenant

The Spider

oflahero wrote: »

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

Yes so to follow through on this point the Landlord should raise the rent to the maximum possible to ensure the biggest return on his investment, when the market allows. That way they can overpay on the mortgage to cover the possibility of future drops in rents.

Would you agree as that's the point you're making.

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

Some landlords had to take a 30% reduction in rent when the bubble burst in one go, I know people renting for less the what they payed in 2007 that had a 20% hike this year.

If landlords had to accept a reduced rent when markets are soft (as they were) it follows that they are entitled to a higher rent when markets are good. Its the payoff for accepting risk.

Many people speak of paper profits from capital appreciation from rental houses, but the 30% capital gains tax and lack of any inflation indexing ensures that most rental houses will never be sold.

oflahero

The Spider wrote: »

Yes so to follow through on this point the Landlord should raise the rent to the maximum possible to ensure the biggest return on his investment, when the market allows. That way they can overpay on the mortgage to cover the possibility of future drops in rents.

Would you agree as that's the point you're making.

I'm not querying the landlord's decision to change the rent being charged. After all, ability to pay/demand sets the rate. The point I'm making is to highlight the common assumption that rent should AT LEAST cover the mortgage on a property investment. Why should it? A landlord's outgoings does not determine market rent - market rent does.

The Spider

oflahero wrote: »

I'm not querying the landlord's decision to change the rent being charged. After all, ability to pay/demand sets the rate. The point I'm making is to highlight the common assumption that rent should AT LEAST cover the mortgage on a property investment. Why should it? A landlord's outgoings does not determine market rent - market rent does.

Well for the same reason that guests staying in a hotel should cover the costs of running the hotel, otherwise it's a loss making business.

I think the point you're getting at is that if an investor bought a property for 1 million say in an area that the majority of similar properties cost 500'000, but then tried to rent it out to cover his mortgage at a higher rate than the surrounding property, well those guys are idiots.

I think you'll find in general that landlords take the going rate, tenants are very aware of the going rate and won't overpay, unless there's a lack of supply and a bidding war starts and the lease goes to the highest bidder.

worded

borderlinemeath wrote: »

That's a great way to get a good reference from the estate agency/landlord :rolleyes:. Good references are all the more important when tenants have to compete with multiple viewings and people offering on the spot deposits and excellent references.

Yeah tenant, bend over or you get no reference.
You have paid on time for 5+ years and now the LL wants to shaft you, smile or no reference?

How patronising

Reference / smeference. Get a friend to be your LL for a private let reference.
Rented a place for 10 years and our LL hiked the rent year on year and rode us on the final year as we stupidly said this was out final year on rent review.
It was at market rate and he attempted a 30% hike!

Oh yeah LL, we need your reference, charge us anything, don't think so.

Arbiter of Good Taste

worded wrote: »

Reference / smeference. Get a friend to be your LL for a private let reference.

And this is why private references aren't worth the paper they are written on and why more and more landlords will be looking for deposits equivalent to 2-3 months rent. Well done

pwurple

oflahero wrote: »

This sentiment is oddly pervasive in Ireland and seems here to be used to justify such as the 20% rent increase referred to by the OP. Poor landlord! Imagine not having a risk-free investment! The horror implied by having to 'top up' the rent is ridiculous. What other investment class is risk free? Where is it written that property investment ought to be a guaranteed shoe-in? Why would anyone invest in stocks or commodities if that were the case?

I'm glad we agree... losses can and are made, and are balanced out when the market rises.

Or are you one of those who just thinks that everyone else should pay for your stuff.

borderlinemeath

worded wrote: »

Yeah tenant, bend over or you get no reference.
You have paid on time for 5+ years and now the LL wants to shaft you, smile or no reference?

How patronising

Reference / smeference. Get a friend to be your LL for a private let reference.
Rented a place for 10 years and our LL hiked the rent year on year and rode us on the final year as we stupidly said this was out final year on rent review.
It was at market rate and he attempted a 30% hike!

Oh yeah LL, we need your reference, charge us anything, don't think so.

Being a dick, as the post I replied to suggested, is one sure way of getting a landlord or an estate agent against you. Yes there are some shoddy landlords that will try and keep deposits for the slightest thing, but that is what the PRTB is there for. Landlords have far less protection from tenants, the most a tenant can lose is their deposit, a landlord could lose 10 times that and more if a tenant decides to refuse to move or wreck the property.

Is it any wonder some tenants get shafted when they falsify references, stand in the way of viewings if they have relinquished their lease, and generally behave like a child when the contract they signed is ending and they refuse to take responsibility for any damages caused? Tenants like yourself give the good ones a bad reputation.

jmayo

pwurple wrote: »

I'd totally agree 20% is hard to take. Think hard about all the landlords who are sucking up their 20% hike in taxes and fees recently. My property related expenses have rocketed. Of course landlords pass it on, what are they, a charity?

Part of the reason rents are rocketing is because it makes less and less sense to be a landlord anymore. It's frikken expensive, and one arsehole tenant can cost you thousands in the blink of an eye, with virtually no recourse. People are getting away from it where they can, leaving a shortage of rentable properties, in a time of increased demand.

As much as I have a go at landlords I can't understand how come some tenants can get away with acting the dick with no long term sanctions and how very bad tenants can not be turfed out without hoops being jumped through over a long timeframe.

SeanSouth wrote: »

Well I can tell you from any professional landlord's perspective, that the most important criteria for rental investment is yield. Any normal rental market cannot function unless basic acceptable levels of yield are met. If market rents are so low as to make the yield uninteresting to landlords, then supply of rental properties will dry up. As supply of rental properties dries up, rents will rise to restore the equilibrium. It's all about yield.

I notice you (and pwurple) are singing from a similar hymm sheet and forecasting doom that if it becomes uneconomical for some landlords to continue as landlords then hey presto rental properties disappear.

But what happens to those properties ?
Ok they will probably be sold which means they are either bought by another landlord or a new homeowner.
Maybe the properties get bought up by bigger landlords who have lower overheads and thus can work with lower yields.
Either way the property does not disappear off the housing market, or else the landlord has pretty good cash reserves to able to stockpile property without using it.

Then again this is Ireland where people can hang onto things without paying for them and normal laws of eocnomics don't always apply. :rolleyes:


Ok if bought by homeowner then less people may be living in it, but that leads on to the following point.

There will always be a rental market and if there is a market then as sure as hell they will be suppliers.

And if there are fewer properties for rent, prices increase, yields increase and landlords are tempted back into the market.

It is like any business. If a small business can't survive it can end up being sold and the service is provided by another player.

Deleted User wrote: »

If landlords had to accept a reduced rent when markets are soft (as they were) it follows that they are entitled to a higher rent when markets are good. Its the payoff for accepting risk.

Not meaning to muddy the debate, but does anyone recall the kerfuffle about commerical rentals/leases and upward only rent reviews even though it often meant the tenants going bust and the property being left empty.

And people speak of capitalism. :rolleyes:

Anyway back to OP.
Has the OP had any luck with forming a block of affected renters who are willing to fight the rent hike ?

Tarzana2

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

And this is why private references aren't worth the paper they are written on and why more and more landlords will be looking for deposits equivalent to 2-3 months rent. Well done

Well done? If a bad reference is given for petty reasons, can you blame tenants for fabricating them?

D12resident

jmayo wrote: »

Have you been able to galvanise enough renters into a block ?

The reason why PBP and SF, etc are gaining in polls is they are actually out there at ground level.

jmayo wrote: »

Anyway back to OP.
Has the OP had any luck with forming a block of affected renters who are willing to fight the rent hike ?

I've been doing some research and compiling PRTB and Daft.ie Property Report info and compliled it into a letter I intend to put in all residents post boxes. First step in gathering support in the block in asking for a realistic increase!

The_Morrigan

D12resident wrote: »

I've been doing some research and compiling PRTB and Daft.ie Property Report info and compliled it into a letter I intend to put in all residents post boxes. First step in gathering support in the block in asking for a realistic increase!

Just out of interest.
If you were looking to rent one of these properties now and saw the ad on daft for the increased price, would you consider it too much?


I can understand the frustration of having a massive jump from existing to new rental prices (I had the same with my mortgage was on a variable rate), but looking at it from purely a market rate. Is it a realistic one?

Be honest now....

Arbiter of Good Taste

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Well done? If a bad reference is given for petty reasons, can you blame tenants for fabricating them?

So, stating a tenant was difficult because, let's see, the tenant was difficult, justifies falsifying a document? Interesting.

Anyway, it's not my problem as I do not accept references from private landlords

Beaner1

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

So, stating a tenant was difficult because, let's see, the tenant was difficult, justifies falsifying a document? Interesting.

Anyway, it's not my problem as I do not accept references from private landlords

You won't be getting market rate In that case. Smart move.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Beaner1 wrote: »

You won't be getting market rate In that case. Smart move.

How so? Plenty of renters go through agencies. Mine did. I got work references and references from the previous letting agency.

Also, it's pretty naive to think that in a lanlords market, stipulating a proper reference means I'm not going to get market rent. :rolleyes:

The Spider

Beaner1 wrote: »

You won't be getting market rate In that case. Smart move.

Silly comment, Landlords market, landlords can pick and choose who they want so safe to say they'll get market rate and above.

Beaner1

The Spider wrote: »

Silly comment, Landlords market, landlords can pick and choose who they want so safe to say they'll get market rate and above.

If you exclude a part of the market then you naturally won't get a market rate.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Beaner1 wrote: »

If you exclude a part of the market then you naturally won't get a market rate.

Are you being serious?

There are people queuing up to view apartments, offering above asking price without even viewing, ready to hand over rent and deposit then and there, and ready with their references. Don't worry about me, I think I'll be fine.

pwurple

jmayo wrote: »

I notice you (and pwurple) are singing from a similar hymm sheet and forecasting doom that if it becomes uneconomical for some landlords to continue as landlords then hey presto rental properties disappear.

I'm not forcasting doom at all. I'm only noting the point in the current cycle.

-Everyone thinks being a landlord is easy money (2000's)- market gets flooded, rent drops.

-Market changes, people sell off and do something else... rental unit shortage, rents go up.

-Some time later, people think being a landlord MUST be easy money afterall - loads of rental units appear on the market, rent drops.

Rinse-repeat. It's as valid for retail and commercial as it is for the domestic market. And happily also works for nearly every commodity known to man over the history of economic time.

Tarzana2

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

So, stating a tenant was difficult because, let's see, the tenant was difficult, justifies falsifying a document? Interesting.

Well, define difficult. That's the issue. A good tenant might irk a landlord somehow and end up with a bad reference. It's a flawed system.

worded

Hopefully none of my tips will back fire on me.
I'm just doing my best

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Just out of interest.
If you were looking to rent one of these properties now and saw the ad on daft for the increased price, would you consider it too much?


I can understand the frustration of having a massive jump from existing to new rental prices (I had the same with my mortgage was on a variable rate), but looking at it from purely a market rate. Is it a realistic one?

Be honest now....

Hmmm, good question. And I've actually spent the last half hour looking for a conclusive example to say no. But for each no I see there's a contradicting one.

http://www.daft.ie/lettings/herbertonst-james-walk-rialto-dublin/1494850/

These are a couple miles down the road closer to town. Lansdowne Gate is a better complex though. There are 3 beds advertised for 1600, 1900, 2000 which is ridiculous.

These prices match daft.ie's rent report figures for Dublin 8 though (€1657 for a 3-bed). Dublin 12 on the same report shows rent for a 3-bed to be €1322.

But Lansdowne is a high spec apartment block in the middle of nowhere...so I don't know.

In terms of market/demand here - for the past six months even I've been on the lookout for any apartments in this complex coming up for rent, as ours is North Facing and doesn't get any sunshine. I've seen absolutely none come on the market. This new company knows that the complex is relatively settled and are not likely to want to move, so they feel they can do what they like to the 224 apartments here that they own. That is close to a thousand people being hit with a rent increase that, for a 2-bed, at 28% is twice the market increase.

The_Morrigan

D12resident wrote: »

Hmmm, good question. And I've actually spent the last half hour looking for a conclusive example to say no. But for each no I see there's a contradicting one.

http://www.daft.ie/lettings/herbertonst-james-walk-rialto-dublin/1494850/

These are a couple miles down the road closer to town. Lansdowne Gate is a better complex though. There are 3 beds advertised for 1600, 1900, 2000 which is ridiculous.

These prices match daft.ie's rent report figures for Dublin 8 though (€1657 for a 3-bed). Dublin 12 on the same report shows rent for a 3-bed to be €1322.

But Lansdowne is a high spec apartment block in the middle of nowhere...so I don't know.

In terms of market/demand here - for the past six months even I've been on the lookout for any apartments in this complex coming up for rent, as ours is North Facing and doesn't get any sunshine. I've seen absolutely none come on the market. This new company knows that the complex is relatively settled and are not likely to want to move, so they feel they can do what they like to the 224 apartments here that they own. That is close to a thousand people being hit with a rent increase that, for a 2-bed, at 28% is twice the market increase.

Here in lies the problem - it sounds like the market around you is supporting the increase and that is all that the PRTB will be looking for the EA to prove and you to disprove.

I know it's a harsh reality, but sometimes you have to step back from your involved stance and look at it from another angle. If you can't find sufficient proof of it being above market rates, the alternative is to try negotiate a middle ground with the EA.


Oh and I fixed your link!

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Here in lies the problem - it sounds like the market around you is supporting the increase and that is all that the PRTB will be looking for the EA to prove and you to disprove.

I know it's a harsh reality, but sometimes you have to step back from your involved stance and look at it from another angle. If you can't find sufficient proof of it being above market rates, the alternative is to try negotiate a middle ground with the EA.


Oh and I fixed your link!

I know. If I was a lawyer I would pull my hair out at the vagueness of how to justify market value.

Some numbers for any logical minded people:

According to Daft.ie, the current average rents in Dublin 12* in Q4 2014 for one, two, and three bed rentals are:
One-Bed - €905 pm
2-Bed - €1,157 pm
Three-Bed - €1,322 pm

According to the PRTB (Private Residential Tenancies Board) average monthly rent report**, rents in Dublin 12 in Q2 2014 are:
One-Bed - €814 pm
2-Bed - €1,054 pm
Three-Bed - €1,291 pm

The current average rents (with rent increases having being applied last year to match the market value at the time) in Lansdowne Gate*** are:
One-Bed - €900 pm
2-Bed - €1,075 pm
Three-Bed - €1,305 pm

I-RES REIT is issuing notices now to increase all leases up for review this year to:
One-Bed - €1,150 pm
2-Bed - €1,250 pm
Three-Bed - €1,600 pm

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Here in lies the problem - it sounds like the market around you is supporting the increase and that is all that the PRTB will be looking for the EA to prove and you to disprove.

I know it's a harsh reality, but sometimes you have to step back from your involved stance and look at it from another angle. If you can't find sufficient proof of it being above market rates, the alternative is to try negotiate a middle ground with the EA.


Oh and I fixed your link!

Haha, just caught the link fix. Thanks!

The_Morrigan

Lansdowne Gate is also being advertised at those rates at the minute - so if the EA can show that people rented the apartments at those rates in the last month or so, that is then the market rate as people are willing to pay that money for the rental.

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Lansdowne Gate is also being advertised at those rates at the minute - so if the EA can show that people rented the apartments at those rates in the last month or so, that is then the market rate as people are willing to pay that money for the rental.

That's what I fear, but this company has only been here since start of October. So maybe not much time for people to accept crazy rents.

Also, another point I think should be mentioned again is that these are not fully furnished apartments. No cutlery, plates, pans, TV, etc. All had to be bought by me. Any other apartment you see advertised will be fully furnished (correct me if I'm wrong, I've been renting for 7 years and Lansdowne is the only location that has been like this).

In fact I wanted to move here 5 years ago, but turned it down because I didn't want to fork out (excuse the pun) for that stuff, since I wouldn't need it in another apartment.

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Lansdowne Gate is also being advertised at those rates at the minute - so if the EA can show that people rented the apartments at those rates in the last month or so, that is then the market rate as people are willing to pay that money for the rental.

I think the PRTB really needs to set out their process for determining market value. If an apartment is rented out next week to some fool with more money than sense for €1800, does that become the market value?

The_Morrigan

D12resident wrote: »

That's what I fear, but this company has only been here since start of October. So maybe not much time for people to accept crazy rents.

Also, another point I think should be mentioned again is that these are not fully furnished apartments. No cutlery, plates, pans, TV, etc. All had to be bought by me. Any other apartment you see advertised will be fully furnished (correct me if I'm wrong, I've been renting for 7 years and Lansdowne is the only location that has been like this).

In fact I wanted to move here 5 years ago, but turned it down because I didn't want to fork out (excuse the pun) for that stuff, since I wouldn't need it in another apartment.

The minimum standards for renting in Ireland do not include any of that stuff, they would not be considered valid reasons to charge less than market rent.
Fully furnished, just means everything on the list below and furniture like beds/sofa/kitchen table & chairs.

Details of minimum standards

For each apartment, flat or house being rented as a separate unit, the landlord must ensure that the rental property is in a proper state of structural repair. The Regulations require the landlord to maintain the property in a sound state, inside and out. They specify that roofs, roofing tiles, slates, windows, floors, ceilings, walls, stairs, doors, skirting boards, fascias, tiles on any floor, ceiling and wall, gutters, down pipes, fittings, furnishings, gardens and common areas must be maintained in good condition and repair. They must not be defective due to dampness or otherwise.

The landlord must ensure that electricity or gas supplies are safe and in good repair, and that every room has adequate ventilation and both natural and artificial lighting.

The landlord must provide:

A sink with hot and cold water
A separate room, for the exclusive use of each rented unit, with a toilet, a washbasin and a fixed bath or shower with hot and cold water
A fixed heating appliance in each room, which is capable of providing effective heating and which the tenant can control
Facilities for cooking and for the hygienic storage of food, for example, a 4-ring hob with oven and grill, fridge-freezer and microwave oven
Access to a washing machine
Access to a clothes-dryer if the rented unit does not have a private garden or yard
A fire blanket and smoke alarms
Access to vermin-proof and pest-proof refuse storage facilities
In multi-unit buildings, the landlord must provide each unit with a mains-wired smoke alarm; a fire blanket; and an emergency evacuation plan. There must also be emergency lighting in common areas.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/repairs_maintenance_and_minimum_physical_standards.html

The_Morrigan

D12resident wrote: »

I think the PRTB really needs to set out their process for determining market value. If an apartment is rented out next week to some fool with more money than sense for €1800, does that become the market value?

Nope, but if a few properties are rented for that price then that will influence the market rate as it's based on averages.

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

The minimum standards for renting in Ireland do not include any of that stuff, they would not be considered valid reasons to charge less than market rent.
Fully furnished, just means everything on the list below and furniture like beds/sofa/kitchen table & chairs.

I know, my point is just when comparing market values other apartments provide more than in Lansdowne...I am aware this will not convince them to knock hundreds of euros off my rent

The_Morrigan

D12resident wrote: »

I know, my point is just when comparing market values other apartments provide more than in Lansdowne...I am aware this will not convince them to knock hundreds of euros off my rent

It's not a factor though.
If your landlord provided the minimum standards and basic furniture then your apartment is furnished, the lack of kitchen utensils has absolutely no bearing on it at all. A landlord is not required to provide crockery, utensils, bedding, towels etc - that you would find in serviced apartments - which are substantially more expensive again.

If you went into the PRTB hearing and declared that your landlord didn't provide a kettle and the market rent should reflect that, there would be a very awkward silence, and possibly sniggering.

D12resident

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's not a factor though.
If your landlord provided the minimum standards and basic furniture then your apartment is furnished, the lack of kitchen utensils has absolutely no bearing on it at all. A landlord is not required to provide crockery, utensils, bedding, towels etc - that you would find in serviced apartments - which are substantially more expensive again.

If you went into the PRTB hearing and declared that your landlord didn't provide a kettle and the market rent should reflect that, there would be a very awkward silence, and possibly sniggering.

Haha, don't worry, our kettle or lack thereof will not be brought up at the hearing.

JoeCole26

D12resident wrote: »

I know. If I was a lawyer I would pull my hair out at the vagueness of how to justify market value.

Some numbers for any logical minded people:

According to Daft.ie, the current average rents in Dublin 12* in Q4 2014 for one, two, and three bed rentals are:
One-Bed - €905 pm
2-Bed - €1,157 pm
Three-Bed - €1,322 pm

According to the PRTB (Private Residential Tenancies Board) average monthly rent report**, rents in Dublin 12 in Q2 2014 are:
One-Bed - €814 pm
2-Bed - €1,054 pm
Three-Bed - €1,291 pm

The current average rents (with rent increases having being applied last year to match the market value at the time) in Lansdowne Gate*** are:
One-Bed - €900 pm
2-Bed - €1,075 pm
Three-Bed - €1,305 pm

I-RES REIT is issuing notices now to increase all leases up for review this year to:
One-Bed - €1,150 pm
2-Bed - €1,250 pm
Three-Bed - €1,600 pm

So based on above figures, €1,500 for a 2 bedroom in D18 is not the market price and PRTB would probably agree?? (obviously not trying to second guess PRTB but in people opinions)

D12resident

JoeCole26 wrote: »

So based on above figures, €1,500 for a 2 bedroom in D18 is not the market price and PRTB would probably agree?? (obviously not trying to second guess PRTB but in people opinions)

Figure above are for Dublin 12. Dublin 18 rents are in general a couple of hundred euros higher.

gaius c

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Well, define difficult. That's the issue. A good tenant might irk a landlord somehow and end up with a bad reference. It's a flawed system.

Apparently, insisting on your legal rights being respected is "being a difficult tenant".