Making me agree to rent increase in advance?

gizmo555

runawaybishop wrote: »

Just as a point the landlord is also under no obligation to give the tenant 7 days to think about it or to allow negotiation, they can just issue a valid notice that the rent will rise from Jan and as long as that is market rate then going to the PTRB will not have any effect.

First of all, notice of a rent increase saying that it must be accepted within 7 days or that will in turn be taken as notice to quit is invalid. The landlord is clearly trying to hustle the tenant to beat the new legislation.

Secondly, going to the PRTB will have the effect of delaying the increase until their decision on what is a fair market rent is given.

The landlord could refuse to negotiate, but he would be very short sighted to do so.

runawaybishop

gizmo555 wrote: »

First of all, notice of a rent increase saying that it must be accepted within 7 days or that will in turn be taken as notice to quit is invalid. The landlord is clearly trying to hustle the tenant to beat the new legislation.

Secondly, going to the PRTB will have the effect of delaying the increase until their decision on what is a fair market rent is given.

The landlord could refuse to negotiate, but he would be very short sighted to do so.

I didn't say the notice was valid (in fact i mentioned i was picking up on a point), i said the LL could issue a valid notice and there is no obligation to give the tenant a heads up. Going to the PTRB just kicks the can down the road (assuming market rate) and achieves nothing except wasting peoples time.

Del2005

The 7 days for the reply to me sounds like the LL will issue eviction notice for when the OP comes out of Part 4 in February. They have to give 84 days notice of eviction, so no reply from the OP in 7 days is very close to the legal notice time required from the LL.

D3PO

Gatling wrote: »

Tell your landlord you'll discuss any proposed increase in January and not before

and then in Jan complain that he hasn't given you notice of the increase and therefore make him wait to be able to apply it :rolleyes:

The LL may or may not be trying to beat rent control measures, however irrespective of that point the LL must give tenants notice of their increase in rent. Which of course there is a minimum period of but there is no maximum period.


The LL is by the letter of the law following tenancy obligations, i.e giving enough notice, doing so in writing, not increasing beyond market rent, not increasing rent twice in a 12 month period.

Any rent certainty loophole exploit discussions are beyond any of our levels of expertise as no legal ammendments to the RTA or any other act have actually been written into law.

Based on this and I accept its a very narrow view but is solely based on the here and now the LL is acting perfectly within the law (outside of the fact you do not have to agree within 7 days)

Rubberchikken

it doesn't sound very professional or fair, for that matter, to me.
is it a case of a greedy management company just getting greedier? op, you sound like a great tenant. people who treat good people in this way generally find it comes back on them. the next tenant may not be as carefula tenant as you seem to be.

runawaybishop

Rubberchikken wrote: »

it doesn't sound very professional or fair, for that matter, to me.
is it a case of a greedy management company just getting greedier? op, you sound like a great tenant. people who treat good people in this way generally find it comes back on them. the next tenant may not be as carefula tenant as you seem to be.

Greedy? Its a business and this is being forced on landlords by stupid decisions from the minister. This is a business transaction, take the emotion out of it.

April 73

runawaybishop wrote: »

Just as a point the landlord is also under no obligation to give the tenant 7 days to think about it or to allow negotiation, they can just issue a valid notice that the rent will rise from Jan and as long as that is market rate then going to the PTRB will not have any effect.

Yes I agree with that. 28 days notice has to be given & if it is valid then the increase stands. Hopefully within that period they might reach agreement though - sometimes meeting half-way is the best result. The tenant mightn't have to pay the full increase & the landlord doesn't have the trouble of finding a new tenant who may or may not be a decent one!

D3PO

Rubberchikken wrote: »

it doesn't sound very professional or fair, for that matter, to me.
is it a case of a greedy management company just getting greedier? op, you sound like a great tenant. people who treat good people in this way generally find it comes back on them. the next tenant may not be as carefula tenant as you seem to be.

what exactly is unfair ?

• An increase 12 months after the last one (allowed as current laws exist)
• An increase that's inline with market rents
• An increase that provides ample notice to the tenant to allow them reflect upon it and mange their circumstances accordingly ?

There's actually nothing unfair about what's occurring. Yes its likely they LL / MC are trying to be clever to avoid rent certainty changes but that's not unfair that's actually good business sense on their part.

Unfortunately this half baked plan by the govt. will actually artificially cause rent increases in the short term as LLs act to protect their investment. Its not the LLs fault that they are going to be pushed to act in ways they otherwise may not have done.

FWIW I'm not an LL or a tenant so my perspective is purely unemotive based on business conditions and ultimately this is what this is a business transaction. Somebody selling a service and somebody purchasing that service.

gizmo555

D3PO wrote: »

what exactly is unfair ?

The landlord trying to pressure the tenant to agree to the increase in a timeframe which is just a quarter of the 28 days allowed, to try to avoid getting caught out by the new legislation.

He obviously fears that if he gives the tenant his entitlement to the full 28 day period to respond which the current law provides for, that he'll be prevented by the coming legislation from raising the rent at all.

runawaybishop

gizmo555 wrote: »

The landlord trying to pressure the tenant to agree to the increase in a timeframe which is just a quarter of the 28 days allowed, to try to avoid getting caught out by the new legislation.

He obviously fears that if he gives the tenant his entitlement to the full 28 day period to respond which the current law provides for, that he'll be prevented by the coming legislation from raising the rent at all.

The tenant needs a min of 28 days notice - this isn't 28 days for the tenant to agree. The LL can issue the notice of the new rent right now if he wanted.

wenbo

"The increase in the rent review period will mean that anybody whose rent has been increased this year will not face another hike until 2017. This 24-month review period will be in place for four years before it reverts back to 12 months."
So in OP's case, it was increased in Jan, which is this year.

handlemaster

gizmo555 wrote: »

First of all, notice of a rent increase saying that it must be accepted within 7 days or that will in turn be taken as notice to quit is invalid. The landlord is clearly trying to hustle the tenant to beat the new legislation.

Secondly, going to the PRTB will have the effect of delaying the increase until their decision on what is a fair market rent is given.

The landlord could refuse to negotiate, but he would be very short sighted to do so.

The increase has to be paid while this is going through the prtb or thé tenant would be in arrears

handlemaster

Gatling wrote: »

Tell your landlord you'll discuss any proposed increase in January and not before and if he's looking for an increase in the deposit paid 4 years ago ,
You already paid a deposit 4 years ago and it's not open for discussion

As pointed out if the increase is to the market rate the landlord just gives the notice period and then the rent is up. No negotiation needed.

gizmo555

runawaybishop wrote: »

The tenant needs a min of 28 days notice - this isn't 28 days for the tenant to agree. The LL can issue the notice of the new rent right now if he wanted.

He can, but Ministers Kelly and Noonan have promised to change the law within that 28 day notice period so that the OP and anyone else who has had a rent increase in 2015 will not have to pay another increase until 2017.

This is precisely why the landlord is trying force the OP to agree to an increase within a seven day period. He's trying - with no legal basis - to force agreement before the new legislation takes effect.

gizmo555

handlemaster wrote: »

The increase has to be paid while this is going through the prtb or thé tenant would be in arrears

It doesn't. However, if the PRTB eventually finds in the landlord's favour, the tenant has to pay the increase, backdated to when it should have come into effect.

If the landlord has served you with a valid written notice of rent increase, you must submit your application to the PRTB before the new rent is to have effect or before the expiry of the 28 days notice from the tenant receiving that notice. Please note that you must continue to pay your rent at the existing rent for the tenancy, unless both parties agree otherwise, until your case is determined.

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/disputes/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/what-to-do-if-the-rent-is-in-excess-of-market-rate-

knockoutned

"I rented for many years in a country which has a very mature rental market, with strong protections in place for both the landlord and the tenant, as indeed did many other people who I would have known. Rent increases after the duration of the current lease could of course be expected, but I have never once heard of a case where a landlord would look to increase the deposit.

It's totally unacceptable in my opinion to expect the deposit to be 'topped-up', and at the risk of using a phrase which I normally shy away from, it sounds very Irish"

I currently live in a country which has a very mature rental market, with strong protection in place for both the landlord and the tenant. Every time my rent increased, I also had to top up my deposit so it equaled the new monthly amount.

I know no one wants to pay more money to a landlord, as there is always a chance you will not get it back when you move out. But if the rent increases, you are entering into a new contract. When you moved in initially you agreed to one month rent as a deposit, why would you expect this to change?

Micky Dolenz

wenbo wrote: »

"The increase in the rent review period will mean that anybody whose rent has been increased this year will not face another hike until 2017. This 24-month review period will be in place for four years before it reverts back to 12 months."
So in OP's case, it was increased in Jan, which is this year.

OP, get onto Threshold as soon as you can.

Interesting article here and Department of Environment news here.

Personally I would be holding tough. The 7 day notice thing is nonsense and the deposit increase is bordering on extortion.

MadDog76

wenbo wrote: »

"The increase in the rent review period will mean that anybody whose rent has been increased this year will not face another hike until 2017. This 24-month review period will be in place for four years before it reverts back to 12 months."
So in OP's case, it was increased in Jan, which is this year.

gizmo555 wrote: »

He can, but Ministers Kelly and Noonan have promised to change the law within that 28 day notice period so that the OP and anyone else who has had a rent increase in 2015 will not have to pay another increase until 2017.

This is precisely why the landlord is trying force the OP to agree to an increase within a seven day period. He's trying - with no legal basis - to force agreement before the new legislation takes effect.

I'm surprised it took 3 pages and 40+ posts before this was pointed out ......... the Management Company is trying to pull a fast one, simple as that.

skallywag

knockoutned wrote: »

Every time my rent increased, I also had to top up my deposit so it equaled the new monthly amount

May I ask you where you referring to? My own experience is limited to German speaking countries.

The same said deposit would normally be much more than a single months rent, with 3 being the norm.

knockoutned wrote: »

When you moved in initially you agreed to one month rent as a deposit, why would you expect this to change?

Quite simply because one is agreeing to a deposit which has a monetary value of one months rent at the time when the initial contract is being entered into. I see no genuine scope whatsoever to renegotiate on this.

the world wonders

handlemaster wrote: »

The increase has to be paid while this is going through the prtb or thé tenant would be in arrears

Wrong. Residential Tenancies Act 2004 Section 86:

86.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), pending the determination of a dispute that has been referred to the Board (but subject to that determination when it is made)—


(a) the rent payable under the tenancy concerned and the rent payable under any sub-tenancy arising out of it shall continue to be payable,


(b) if the dispute relates to the amount of rent payable, no increase in the amount of the rent may be made, and
...

D3PO wrote: »

what exactly is unfair ?

• An increase 12 months after the last one (allowed as current laws exist)

Wrong. Residential Tenancies Act 2004 Section 20:

20.—(1) Subject to subsection (3), a review of the rent under the tenancy of a dwelling may not occur—


(a) more frequently than once in each period of 12 months, nor
...

and section 24:

(2) References in this Part to a review of a rent include references to—


(a) any procedure (however it is described) for determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction or increase in the amount of the rent for the time being payable under the tenancy concerned ought to have effect, and


(b) the effect of the operation of a provision of a lease or tenancy agreement providing that, by reference to any formula, happening of any event or other matter whatsoever (and whether any act, decision or exercise of discretion on the part of any person is involved or not), such a reduction or increase shall have effect,


and, in the case of a provision of the kind referred to in paragraph (b), any prohibition under this Part on a review of rent occurring is to be read as a prohibition on the provision operating to have the foregoing effect.

tl;dr: the nameless civil servants who drafted the bill saw this chancer coming a mile off, tell him he can stick his rent increase up his hole till January.

Also people seriously need to stop posting about what the law says without actually reading it.

handlemaster

the world wonders wrote: »

Wrong. Residential Tenancies Act 2004 Section 86:

Wrong. Residential Tenancies Act 2004 Section 20:and section 24:tl;dr: the nameless civil servants who drafted the bill saw this chancer coming a mile off, tell him he can stick his rent increase up his hole till January.

Also people seriously need to stop posting about what the law says without actually reading it.

People need to stop telling tenants to tell the person who provides them with a roof over their heads to stick it... Its not very polite and will most likely end up with a bad business relationship and a tenant starting another misery thread on how they have now no where to live .

the world wonders

handlemaster wrote: »

People need to stop telling tenants to tell the person who provides them with a roof over their heads to stick it... Its not very polite and will most likely end up with a bad business relationship and a tenant starting another misery thread on how they have now no where to live .

Yes and printing out the rent increase and inserting it up his rear end could cause internal injuries, maybe the OP should reconsider my advice :rolleyes:

Del2005

the world wonders wrote: »

Wrong. Residential Tenancies Act 2004 Section 86:

Wrong. Residential Tenancies Act 2004 Section 20:and section 24:tl;dr: the nameless civil servants who drafted the bill saw this chancer coming a mile off, tell him he can stick his rent increase up his hole till January.

Also people seriously need to stop posting about what the law says without actually reading it.

If the OP doesn't respond in 7 days they will be getting their 84 days notice of eviction not a notice of rent increase, they run out of Part 4 in February. The LL is offering the OP the chance to stay and pay more in January or move out in February, when market rate will be even higher due to the government intervention.

FrStone

handlemaster wrote: »

People need to stop telling tenants to tell the person who provides them with a roof over their heads to stick it... Its not very polite and will most likely end up with a bad business relationship and a tenant starting another misery thread on how they have now no where to live .

Its a business, landlords are providing a service for consideration. Lets not pretends they are doing a charitable act.

Gatling

Did Alan Kelly say earlier that raising rents now to beat the new legislation would be illegal.

"Minister Kelly said it will be illegal for landlords to increase rent between now and the introduction of the legislation unless a rent review is due or, if under the terms of the tenancy, the rent has not been increased in the last year or two and a rent review is due"

Link


http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/1111/741041-rent-legislation/

knockoutned

skallywag wrote: »

May I ask you where you referring to? My own experience is limited to German speaking countries.

United States

skallywag wrote: »

Quite simply because one is agreeing to a deposit which has a monetary value of one months rent at the time when the initial contract is being entered into. I see no genuine scope whatsoever to renegotiate on this.

But when you renew your lease and agree to increase the rent you are entering into a new contract with your landlord which now supersedes the initial contract. It is pretty standard that a deposit be one months rent. If the rent increase, is it not reasonable to expect the deposit to increase in line with this.

You could argue in your case that by having paid three months as a deposit, the landlord is already covered.

I know it's not the norm in Ireland for this happen, but I just wanted to say it is in other areas.

dori_dormer

It should be normal to increase the deposit to match one months rent if that's what you agreed to when you move in. The landlord is just covering themselves. Too many people think they can just use the deposit as lasts months rent and skip out. If the deposit doesn't match, the land lord is out both some rent and any possible damages. It makes complete sense. If the deposit was 2 months rent say, I'd see no reason to Increase the deposit with a rental increase unless rent went up drastically over a number of years.

About he actual rent increase, I think the 7 day agreement is legal although harsh as you are being given 6 weeks notice of the increase. I'm not sure though with the new rules coming in if it is legal anymore though.

Contact threshold or the prtb, although I'd say they will likely be as confused as everyone else about the new rules

delahuntv

Seems the letter is worded badly, but nothing very wrong in it.

Simple solution - negotiate.

Sell yourself to the LL - stable tenant, kept house well, always paid rent, never any ssues. The perfect tenant for many LL.

Offer what you think is a fair rent that is little below mid point of similar properties and also price other properties that may be near enough for you to consider that will be similar price.

Remember the LL will need to advertise the property. Possibly replace some furntiure and also a new tenant may not be the best of tenants.

So use your own selling points and accept that possibly the LL MAY get an extra €100/month, but at the risk of a tenant that will move out in a year, or a tenat that will not look after the propoerty well or a tenant that may be troublesome with payment on time, or a tenant that will want the LL to do minor tasks ona regular basis.

If I were a LL, a good tenant paying on time and never having an issue is well worth a €100 discount on market rent.

If you negotiate well you will have advantage of that rent for 2 years and at that stage there should be a much stronger supply coming on stream to cap further rises.

conorhal

delahuntv wrote: »

Seems the letter is worded badly, but nothing very wrong in it.

Simple solution - negotiate.

Sell yourself to the LL - stable tenant, kept house well, always paid rent, never any ssues. The perfect tenant for many LL.

The problem is, by the sounds of it, he's not dealing with a landord, he's dealing with a management company.
For all the complaining about, and short-comings of, the accidental and amateur landlords, they can at least be negociated with. If you only own one or two rental properties you very quickly learn the value of a good tenent because a bad one can cost you the property.
Management companies are a different kettle of fish, they don't differentiate or negociate, they work on averages and in the current market are probably disinclined to cut deals. I suspect the OP's only option is to say no to the bullying tactics regards notice and the deposit request, both of which are unreasonable. The rent increece is something however he will simply have to descide to either pony up for or move I'm afraid.

handlemaster

FrStone wrote: »

Its a business, landlords are providing a service for consideration. Lets not pretends they are doing a charitable act.

Lets stop expecting rent at below market rate so.