Rent and housing measures to go before Cabinet

Del007

Interesting article here

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1106/739988-rent-control-talks/

Does anyone know if these come into effect then would be be immediate?

L1011

Del007 wrote: »

Does anyone know if these come into effect then would be be immediate?

Its likely each component would be commenced separately. The two year rent review would have to be immediate to be of any use - even then, landlords who haven't had a review in the past two years will likely do one immediately. Some of the other bits in relation to building could easily be sat on and never commenced or at least held off until after an election.

Del007

My rent was put up last year and now the landlord wants to put it up again. Does this mean that they don't have the right to do so until next year?

Any idea when they will officially announce this?

MayBea

We should probably expect some lag in implementation (... and subsequent rent hikes before it commences).

L1011

Del007 wrote: »

My rent was put up last year and now the landlord wants to put it up again. Does this mean that they don't have the right to do so until next year?

If you're already over a year since the last and they've already asked I suspect its too late for anything to push it out.

Michael D Not Higgins

Del007 wrote: »

My rent was put up last year and now the landlord wants to put it up again. Does this mean that they don't have the right to do so until next year?

Any idea when they will officially announce this?

They had a guy from Threshold on Newstalk this morning. He said if they don't want landlords taking advantage in the meantime, they should get it in in a week.

Realistically though, a lot of landlords will be following this and putting the rent up over the next week for anyone who hasn't had an increase in the last year.

He was also a bit light on the facts. He suggested that people should bring a dispute to the PRTB if they feel the landlord is front loading increases to the rent without mentioning whether the increase was in line with market rates or not. I don't have a lot of time for Threshold after hearing they advised people to overhold when the landlord gave them valid notices of termination.

The other measure put forward is increasing the tax deductible against mortgage interest from 75% to 100% for any landlord with a tenant on rent supplement. Seeing as the rent supplement is so far below market rent I don't see it having any effect on landlords taking rent supplement tenants.

Del007

Thanks for your replies.

The landlord is stating that the rent increase is due on 1st of December 2015. I've tried to negotiate with them but they have only budged a little bit. Can I hold off and wait until this agreement comes into effect?

L1011

Del007 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies.

The landlord is stating that the rent increase is due on 1st of December 2015. I've tried to negotiate with them but they have only budged a little bit. Can I hold off and wait until this agreement comes into effect?

I would expect not.

Mr McBoatface

Details are a bit low at the moment but I can see this making things worse for families renting ..... IF the increase is limited to every two years per tenancy surely a lot of landlords especially in high demand areas will not renew a tenancy after the first 12 months ????

Del007

L1011 wrote: »

I would expect not.

If it's been less than 2 years since a rent increase then why not?

L1011

Del007 wrote: »

If it's been less than 2 years since a rent increase then why not?

Because its already over a year and the review has already happened.

the groutch

all this will do is kick the can down the road a bit.
you'll have a significant number of landlords exiting the market, restricting supply.
then in two years time tenants will be faced with huge increases, which the remaining landlords know they can get away with due to limited supply.

Michael D Not Higgins

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Details are a bit low at the moment but I can see this making things worse for families renting ..... IF the increase is limited to every two years per tenancy surely a lot of landlords especially in high demand areas will not renew a tenancy after the first 12 months ????

You get part 4 tenancy rights after 6 months though. The landlord can't just kick out a tenant after 12 months without applying the reasons within the RTA2004.

Del007

L1011 wrote: »

Because its already over a year and the review has already happened.

The landlord has sent a review but it has not been agreed upon. It seems to be a grey area which is all too common in this country

L1011

Del007 wrote: »

The landlord has sent a review but it has not been agreed upon. It seems to be a grey area which is all too common in this country

You've not referred it to the PRTB and you've a date set for the first higher payment - that's pretty much agreed upon.

Michael D Not Higgins

Del007 wrote: »

The landlord has sent a review but it has not been agreed upon. It seems to be a grey area which is all too common in this country

These proposals aren't part of law yet. The landlord has sent a valid review under the current law. There's no way the new law will be retroactive to already in process reviews.

Del007

L1011 wrote: »

You've not referred it to the PRTB and you've a date set for the first higher payment - that's pretty much agreed upon.

I have 28 days to refer it to the PRTB, that date has not yet passed. Correct me if I'm wrong though

Michael D Not Higgins

Del007 wrote: »

I have 28 days to refer it to the PRTB, that date has not yet passed. Correct me if I'm wrong though

The rent review predates the introduction to law of the new proposals. When you refer it to the PRTB is not the relevant date.

L1011

Del007 wrote: »

I have 28 days to refer it to the PRTB, that date has not yet passed. Correct me if I'm wrong though

Referring to the PRTB doesn't stop you having to pay the higher rent until such time as they (possibly) judge it to be an above market rate increase though.

There's some clutching at straws here. Your rent review has already happened.

Del007

Cheers for all your replies, it's much appreciated.

I'll hand on until Tuesday and see what's announced, you never know what will happen

Lux23

I think the two year thing could stop some landlords from gouging their tenants. I have a friend who lives in Victorian cottages attached to a college in Dublin city centre. There is no mortgage associated with the buildings and the rent is pure profit for the company that own the buildings but they are putting the rent up 25% every year. In the area there would be two bedroom new build apartments going for over €2,000 a month so the PRTB say they are within their rights despite the buildings being much older and very expensive to heat in the winter months.

handlemaster

Lux23 wrote: »

I think the two year thing could stop some landlords from gouging their tenants. I have a friend who lives in Victorian cottages attached to a college in Dublin city centre. There is no mortgage associated with the buildings and the rent is pure profit for the company that own the buildings but they are putting the rent up 25% every year. In the area there would be two bedroom new build apartments going for over €2,000 a month so the PRTB say they are within their rights despite the buildings being much older and very expensive to heat in the winter months.

Tenants dont have to live there if they are not happy

Lux23

handlemaster wrote: »

Tenants dont have to live there if they are not happy

Of course not, but is there any real reason for a landlord to increase rent by 25% if the cost base is remaining the same? Other than profiteering of course.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

Of course not, but is there any real reason for a landlord to increase rent by 25% if the cost base is remaining the same? Other than profiteering of course.

Why should they not increase it? How do you know the cost base is the same? Older places require more maintenance and while the market is buoyant is the perfect time to be topping up a sinking fund for an eventuality of repairs.

handlemaster

Lux23 wrote: »

Of course not, but is there any real reason for a landlord to increase rent by 25% if the cost base is remaining the same? Other than profiteering of course.

How do you know what the cost basis is ? What difference does it make. With that logic the landlords with massive mortgage payments from buying in the boom times should be allowed to increase rents beyond market rate.

Gasherbraun

Lux23 wrote: »

Of course not, but is there any real reason for a landlord to increase rent by 25% if the cost base is remaining the same? Other than profiteering of course.

In fairness making a profit is what businesses try to do and if profits can be increased then that is what they will do.

A Shaved Duck?

You really have to wonder how the various powers that be come up with these proposals as i see it they have potentially made a situation worse for tenants and are claiming its helping them.

Landlords with a property coming to market yet to rent will frontload the increase.

Tenants in a current contract can all but garauntee it wont be renewed so landlords can get new tenants in at the higher rent on a new contract

imitation

Doesnt seem like this will help the situation much, property prices seem to be at the core of the issue, and no government wants to do anything whatso ever to affect them. At least you get an extra years security I suppose, but if you get a huge hike after 2 years you have the same issue.

Michael D Not Higgins

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

You really have to wonder how the various powers that be come up with these proposals as i see it they have potentially made a situation worse for tenants and are claiming its helping them.

Landlords with a property coming to market yet to rent will frontload the increase.

Tenants in a current contract can all but garauntee it wont be renewed so landlords can get new tenants in at the higher rent on a new contract

Again, with Part 4 tenancy rights, the landlord can't just kick out current tenants even if a lease runs out unless there's a valid reason in line with the RTA2004.

Lux23

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Why should they not increase it? How do you know the cost base is the same? Older places require more maintenance and while the market is buoyant is the perfect time to be topping up a sinking fund for an eventuality of repairs.

I understand the need for a contingency for repairs, however older buildings require more maintenance on behalf of the tenant too. Light bulbs blowing every week, heating bills of over €500 in Winter for what is a small cottage with four rooms in total. And we know that there is no mortgage relating to the building and insurance increases would not account for upping the rent by €400 a month twice in two years. It's blatant profiteering.

Lux23

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Again, with Part 4 tenancy rights, the landlord can't just kick out current tenants even if a lease runs out unless there's a valid reason in line with the RTA2004.

I was evicted by two landlords who used the family clause as an excuse, both had new tenants in a few weeks later. If you think tenants are genuinely protected by that then you are really naive. I know that we were asked to leave because we were looking for much needed repairs.

A Shaved Duck?

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Again, with Part 4 tenancy rights, the landlord can't just kick out current tenants even if a lease runs out unless there's a valid reason in line with the RTA2004.

When has that ever stopped landlords trying? the vagueness of the details is scary, rent freeze for two years..in what context.. all rents from a certain date or is it new contracts?..will this proposal overrule current contract laws etc.

This goverment had better get the details right on this or they could find themselves facing court preceedings from the plethora of hedge/pension funds that have thousands of apartments rented and also the funds to pursue this.

matrim

Lux23 wrote: »

I was evicted by two landlords who used the family clause as an excuse, both had new tenants in a few weeks later. If you think tenants are genuinely protected by that then you are really naive. I know that we were asked to leave because we were looking for much needed repairs.

If you had proof of that you should have taken them to the PRTB for illegal eviction

Lux23

matrim wrote: »

If you had proof of that you should have taken them to the PRTB for illegal eviction

Well I caught them out the first time, but the same letting agency had found us a flat in the same block for the same price (because they knew well they could get in trouble!). The second time I contacted the PRTB and its still ongoing 15 months later. What good is that to me now? It is not something you can establish until after you leave.

runawaybishop

Locking rent for 2 years, great idea for the tenant - when rents are rising. When rents drop will he then tell tenants they cant move out and to keep paying the landlord over market rate for 2 years? Does he actually want people to quit the market or something.

matrim

Lux23 wrote: »

Well I caught them out the first time, but the same letting agency had found us a flat in the same block for the same price (because they knew well they could get in trouble!). The second time I contacted the PRTB and its still ongoing 15 months later. What good is that to me now? It is not something you can establish until after you leave.

The long waits are the problem with the PRTB (for both sides). And while I agree that you can only bring a case afterwards, I really hope that the PRTB find in your favour and give the landlord a large fine. People bring the case like that are the only thing that will make landlords stop doing it

A Shaved Duck?

runawaybishop wrote: »

Locking rent for 2 years, great idea for the tenant - when rents are rising. When rents drop will he then tell tenants they cant move out and to keep paying the landlord over market rate for 2 years? Does he actually want people to quit the market or something.

Its kite flying and a vote harvesting exercise imo the classic appear to be doing something but the real consequences are pushed out 2 years.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

I was evicted by two landlords who used the family clause as an excuse, both had new tenants in a few weeks later. If you think tenants are genuinely protected by that then you are really naive. I know that we were asked to leave because we were looking for much needed repairs.

Then you should have opened a dispute with the PRTB.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

Well I caught them out the first time, but the same letting agency had found us a flat in the same block for the same price (because they knew well they could get in trouble!). The second time I contacted the PRTB and its still ongoing 15 months later. What good is that to me now? It is not something you can establish until after you leave.

This is entirely the wrong attitude. We need to prosecute the dodgy landlords under the established laws. Sure the system isn't perfect but until it's reformed, we need to keep landlords in check from abusing their power.

Lux23

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is entirely the wrong attitude. We need to prosecute the dodgy landlords under the established laws. Sure the system isn't perfect but until it's reformed, we need to keep landlords in check from abusing their power.

But I have used the system, there is nothing wrong with my attitude either, I am just pointing out that the system was of no use to me when I really needed it.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

But I have used the system, there is nothing wrong with my attitude either, I am just pointing out that the system was of no use to me when I really needed it.

Yes you have used the system, but you've given up on it. If everyone gives up on the system, then it doesn't do anything and landlords are never prosecuted/fined and their behaviour goes unchecked.

Just because some abuse the system doesn't mean they should and doesn't mean we should get lethargic and let them get away with it.

tunney

Del007 wrote: »

The landlord has sent a review but it has not been agreed upon. It seems to be a grey area which is all too common in this country

Its not really grey. You just don't want to hear the answer you have been given.

DulchieLaois

is this not a bit dangerous as rents could decrease like they did during the recession ?

But keeping them at a price, tis all upwards from now onwards

keane2097

DulchieLaois wrote: »

is this not a bit dangerous as rents could decrease like they did during the recession ?

But keeping them at a price, tis all upwards from now onwards

If prices drop you can move to a better place for the same money, a similar place for less money or ask your landlord to adjust.

Del2005

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Yes you have used the system, but you've given up on it. If everyone gives up on the system, then it doesn't do anything and landlords are never prosecuted/fined and their behaviour goes unchecked.

Just because some abuse the system doesn't mean they should and doesn't mean we should get lethargic and let them get away with it.

They haven't given up the case, they are waiting 15 months for the outcome of a potential illegal eviction. What good is a ruling to them now?

You'd swear that there was something happening next year that the government wants to try and keep everyone happy, but end up making an even bigger mess. All the 2 year freeze will mean is that instead of getting a 10% increase this year there will be a 25% increase in 2 years as zero has been announced about solving the real issue which is supply of property.

murphaph

When a landlord agrees x rent with an RS tenant and the economy tanks just after the review, will the state continue paying the agreed rent or try to strongarm landlords into reductions like last time?!

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

When a landlord agrees x rent with an RS tenant and the economy tanks just after the review, will the state continue paying the agreed rent or try to strongarm landlords into reductions like last time?!

I think we all know the answer to that one!

The bottom line is the State (more accurately a handful of vote-hungry politicians) should only "interfere" enough to ensure that there are minimum standards for rental properties, legally-binding obligations on both sides, and a swift and independent appeals process in the event of a dispute.

What they've done here (as usual with this current Government) is take a half-assed, not fully thought out, sledgehammer approach to the current rental/homelessness problem, the real effects of which won't be really felt for another 2 years.... but which are likely to exacerbate the problem!

... but that's OK, because the real point is to try and convince the electorate that they've done SOMETHING so that it'll get them a few more votes, and you have to admit "rents to be frozen for 2 years" is a nice populist headline, and the hope is we'll forget that they've done nothing about the problem for the last 4 years!

pc7

Even the changes to interest you can claim wouldn't encourage me to take on a RA tenant again. I know not all RA are bad but I've had a bad experience and won't go there again. If the mortgage interest is say 4K you can currently offset 3k (75%), being able to offset the extra 1k is not enough of an incentive to risk RA tenants again.

quadrifoglio verde

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think we all know the answer to that one!

The bottom line is the State (more accurately a handful of vote-hungry politicians) should only "interfere" enough to ensure that there are minimum standards for rental properties, legally-binding obligations on both sides, and a swift and independent appeals process in the event of a dispute.

What they've done here (as usual with this current Government) is take a half-assed, not fully thought out, sledgehammer approach to the current rental/homelessness problem, the real effects of which won't be really felt for another 2 years.... but which are likely to exacerbate the problem!

... but that's OK, because the real point is to try and convince the electorate that they've done SOMETHING so that it'll get them a few more votes, and you have to admit "rents to be frozen for 2 years" is a nice populist headline, and the hope is we'll forget that they've done nothing about the problem for the last 4 years!

I agree, when Labour go door to door they can say they've increased rent certainty.
When fg go door to door and knock on their target abc1s they can say they've prevented long term rent control

jetfiremuck

Kelly stepped in it and spooked the landlords. The mindset is fixed and no walking it back. These measures will reduce availability to RA tenants. The daily rant of' talk to your landlord' that went on including the reduction in the RA allowance has skewed an already out of balance rental market. All they are doing is wallpapering over the cracks. I've heard of quite a lot(volume) of rental increases Going to tenants. The base now is the highest last rental...and up from there.

handlemaster

RA are going to get a surprise with new rentals . The rents will be higher than ever.