Rent Increase thread

Selik

Giles wrote: »

I've been currently reviewing the rent with my tenants and proposed a modest increase while still keeping the rent below market, with the last review being in October 2014 with the rent changing in January 2015.

We've been back and forth over a few emails the last weeks with some haggling but not firm agreement as of yet. They are now asking if the rent freeze applies here to their current rent, which was agreed in October 2014 and came into effect in January 2015. I don't think it does and that the new agreed amount now that we're scheduling to come into effect in January 2016 will be the frozen amount. Is there anyway to clarify this definitively?

So my tenants are now saying that they will "wait" until the new law is enacted in a few weeks before doing anything else.... so I'm still not sure where either of us stand on this and there are so many questions.

I'm sure they will argue that the increase kicked in during January 2015 so nothing can be changed before then.

So much for always giving plenty of notice on previous increases, in hindsight it would've made more sense for them to have kicked in on 28 days.

pc7

AFAIK the prtb states if you are in dispute with your landlord over a rate increase you must pay the new requested rate until it is resolved. There is only 28 days to negotiate a rental increase from the first day of notice. Again open to correction but that is my understanding of it.

keane2097

I can't see why the notice would make any difference. It has repeatedly been stated by the Minister that anyone who got a rent increase in 2015 won't get another one till 2017.

You can inform them of whatever, but when the law comes in they'll be entitled to tell you your attempted increase is not allowed. I got an increase in May, my landlord can't just inform me of another one next May now and expect that to stick when the new rules come in.

gizmo555

pc7 wrote: »

AFAIK the prtb states if you are in dispute with your landlord over a rate increase you must pay the new requested rate until it is resolved. There is only 28 days to negotiate a rental increase from the first day of notice. Again open to correction but that is my understanding of it.

It doesn't, but if it finds in the landlord's favour, the tenant will have to pay the increase backdated to whenever it should originally have come into effect.

Selik

keane2097 wrote: »

I can't see why the notice would make any difference. It has repeatedly been stated by the Minister that anyone who got a rent increase in 2015 won't get another one till 2017.

You can inform them of whatever, but when the law comes in they'll be entitled to tell you your attempted increase is not allowed. I got an increase in May, my landlord can't just inform me of another one next May now and expect that to stick when the new rules come in.

So if that's the case then the next review would be for January 2017. If that's the case that's fine but it would be nice to have some actual clarity rather than all of the guessing and speculation.

As I also rent myself (agreed in April 2015) then that also means my rent will also be frozen until April 2017 (if we haven't moved out by then).

It may work out better for my tenants to go with the modest increase I'm currently proposing rather than a larger overall increase in January 2017.

keane2097

Giles wrote: »

So if that's the case then the next review would be for January 2017. If that's the case that's fine but it would be nice to have some actual clarity rather than all of the guessing and speculation.

As I also rent myself (agreed in April 2015) then that also means my rent will also be frozen until April 2017 (if we haven't moved out by then).

It may work out better for my tenants to go with the modest increase I'm currently proposing rather than a larger overall increase in January 2017.

It could possibly be alright, but bear in mind that then you won't be able to increase again until Jan 2018.

handlemaster

Giles wrote: »

I've been currently reviewing the rent with my tenants and proposed a modest increase while still keeping the rent below market, with the last review being in October 2014 with the rent changing in January 2015.

We've been back and forth over a few emails the last weeks with some haggling but not firm agreement as of yet. They are now asking if the rent freeze applies here to their current rent, which was agreed in October 2014 and came into effect in January 2015. I don't think it does and that the new agreed amount now that we're scheduling to come into effect in January 2016 will be the frozen amount. Is there anyway to clarify this definitively?

I would just give the 28 Day notice now . And put in thé New increase . Your Messing as is.

handlemaster

Lux23 wrote: »

Because some are greedy profiteering louts. The highest rents in 7 or 8 years yet they are still somehow the victims.

Well more than half of the gross rent goes back to the government. Its really the government you should be kicking out at .

Silverbling

murphaph wrote: »

Did you keep paying your LL the 2007 rate after the sh!t hit the fan or did you expect your rent to fall as demand for rental properties reduced?

I did keep paying the €1600 a month rent from 2008 until recently,on the basis is it was a long long term rental, after 6 years he wanted it back for a family member, I am now living in a tiny 1 room granny flat with my 2 kids because I can't afford the high rents

In 6 years it did not need painiting and I maintained it completely even though it had no BER, with hindsight I would have made a different choice

handlemaster

Silverbling wrote: »

I did keep paying the €1600 a month rent from 2008 until recently,on the basis is it was a long long term rental, after 6 years he wanted it back for a family member, I am now living in a tiny 1 room granny flat with my 2 kids because I can't afford the high rents

In 6 years it did not need painiting and I maintained it completely even though it had no BER, with hindsight I would have made a different choice

You kept to your contract .

Silverbling

handlemaster wrote: »

You kept to your contract .

It is a pity the landlord didn't!

handlemaster

Silverbling wrote: »

It is a pity the landlord didn't!

What did the landlord do ?

Silverbling

handlemaster wrote: »

What did the landlord do ?

Broke a verbal contract, the deal was if I paid the same rent during the dip and maintained the house and garden (apart from appliances) I paid for the boiler service, chimney sweep blocked gutters etc etc then I could stay there at the same rent for as long as I wanted

handlemaster

Silverbling wrote: »

Broke a verbal contract, the deal was if I paid the same rent during the dip and maintained the house and garden (apart from appliances) I paid for the boiler service, chimney sweep blocked gutters etc etc then I could stay there at the same rent for as long as I wanted

Sounds like a foolish deal on their behalf. Verbal agreement s can be misunderstood and are worth nothing.

Silverbling

Silverbling wrote: »

Broke a verbal contract, the deal was if I paid the same rent during the dip and maintained the house and garden (apart from appliances) I paid for the boiler service, chimney sweep blocked gutters etc etc then I could stay there at the same rent for as long as I wanted

Situations change though and he was obviously going to give priority to a family member.

If you really want stability you need to buy.

Silverbling

handlemaster wrote: »

Sounds like a foolish deal on their behalf. Verbal agreement s can be misunderstood and are worth nothing.

It was all going so well! I understand his reasons for wanting the house back but had I known at any point that it was a possibilty I would not have used my savings to start a business or made other life choices, instead it came as a total shock with 112 days notice and no contingency plan on my part

Selik

handlemaster wrote: »

I would just give the 28 Day notice now . And put in thé New increase . Your Messing as is.

But if the rent last changed in January I can't actually put through an increase in 28 days can I?

April 73

Silverbling wrote: »

It was all going so well! I understand his reasons for wanting the house back but had I known at any point that it was a possibilty I would not have used my savings to start a business or made other life choices, instead it came as a total shock with 112 days notice and no contingency plan on my part

That was shoddy of the LL.
The older I get the less I trust people!

Lux23

housetypeb wrote: »

Landlords are not charities, they are a business. They are entitled,like all business's, to charge as much as the market will bear at any given time.

Many are poorly run businesses, however the difference between being a landlord and many other businesses is that tenants have no choice but to pay the market rate because we need somewhere to live. We also have to pay for heat and electricity but these sectors have price control. Should the rental private sector be at the mercy of free market principles? I don't think so.

I see the free market argument on this forum a lot, but these principles aren't set in stone, the state can step in and regulate. A taxi driver has to charge the same amount as his competitor, why is the rental sector being protected?

pc7

"Lux23 wrote: »

I see the free market argument on this forum a lot, but these principles aren't set in stone, the state can step in and regulate. A taxi driver has to charge the same amount as his competitor, why is the rental sector being protected?

because the more they interfere the more those landlords that can will leave the market and what will happen then? Those that need accommodation. Most won't be able to get it. As soon as I can break even selling I'll be gone!

handlemaster

Giles wrote: »

But if the rent last changed in January I can't actually put through an increase in 28 days can I?

You can send out thé rent increase now to commence in January

Selik

handlemaster wrote: »

You can send out thé rent increase now to commence in January

This is where the main point of my confusion lies though - will this be valid if this freeze comes in? Although the letter would be current the actual increase wouldn't kick in until January 2016.

Lux23

pc7 wrote: »

because the more they interfere the more those landlords that can will leave the market and what will happen then? Those that need accommodation. Most won't be able to get it. As soon as I can break even selling I'll be gone!

And the properties they own, will they just evaporate into thin air?

car_jacker

pc7 wrote: »

Ive a good tenant a number of years now, never touched the rent as he was no hassle at all. I repaired, replaced and maintained everything he requested.
All the governments messing and talk of rents made me take a look, the rent is 50% below the market rate. I've just done up a notice that I'm increasing it by 20% from the new year, that it will stand at that for two years and that it is fair as it is still leaving it 30% below the market rate.
They should have left well enough alone and I wouldn't have even looked.

why anyone would charge 50% below the market rate is beyond me , if jesus was my tenant , i wouldnt charge him a cent below the market rate , good tenants are not that scarce

quadrifoglio verde

Lux23 wrote: »

And the properties they own, will they just evaporate into thin air?

No but you won't find too many rushing into being a landlord.
Less landlords generally means less supply.

The only way to solve the rent crisis is increase in supply.
Rents are controlled, they can only be set by the market, the market being what a tenant is willing to pay for it.
No tenant, the rent falls until there is a tenant willing to pay that price. And it works the other way.

Now if you want a long term solution, It involves the government building social housing and anyone who wants to live in them can at a certain percentage of their income. If you are single or have no children you can rent a 1 bed, if you have one child and are married you can rent a two bed.
If you're a snob and don't want to live in bawnogue with a single mother and two children on either side of you, well then you can get a mortgage and buy whatever the he'll you want.

borderlinemeath

Lux23 wrote: »

Many are poorly run businesses, however the difference between being a landlord and many other businesses is that tenants have no choice but to pay the market rate because we need somewhere to live. We also have to pay for heat and electricity but these sectors have price control. Should the rental private sector be at the mercy of free market principles? I don't think so.

I see the free market argument on this forum a lot, but these principles aren't set in stone, the state can step in and regulate. A taxi driver has to charge the same amount as his competitor, why is the rental sector being protected?

A taxi journey is the same as another, you're travelling to the same place in a motor vehicle. Utilities cannot differ, there is no "higher grade" electricity or gas. We haven't built communist style housing where all units are the same, every house differs, even 2 houses in the same estate will differ with furnishings and finishes. To have price controls the product must be the same, which they aren't, just as wages differ in different sectors ie someone working in McDonalds isn't paid the same as an accountant.

I get that you're a particularly disgruntled tenant, that is clear to see in your posts, but your anger is misdirected at landlords. The government have caused this particular housing crisis. The lack of social housing stock, the taxation burden put on landlords which causes either a/the landlord to pass on the taxation in the form of a rental increase or b/They sell up and decimate the rental pool. The latest measures by the government are only going to compound the problem, the landlord is going to have to futureproof his rental income in case of interest rate increases and further taxation from the government.

pc7

Lux23 wrote: »

And the properties they own, will they just evaporate into thin air?

No they will be bought by people who can get mortgages but that rules out those in need

Lux23

Rents are not controlled if they are set by the market rate, that's not control. I wouldn't even mind if the market was properly defined, it's not, a one bedroom apartment with new fittings and fixtures is the same as a one bed flat that hasn't see a lick of paint.

If 1,000s of landlords left the sector tomorrow there would be more affordable housing for those that want to buy freeing up more rental units. It's the one property landlords clogging up the system, the government needs to make it less attractive to them freeing up more properties for those that want to buy or for big property companies that actually know how to run a business.

pc7

car_jacker wrote: »

why anyone would charge 50% below the market rate is beyond me , if jesus was my tenant , i wouldnt charge him a cent below the market rate , good tenants are not that scarce

I had awful trouble with a previous tenant who happened to be RA. When new tenant moved in it was in and around market rate. He's been a dream so never checked as sometimes a good tenant will leave and you end up losing a month or twos rent replacing them so it's not cost affective for a few hundred euro a month. Also I already pay a **** load of tax so where's the point, as I said only checked cause of all the talk!

Lux23

pc7 wrote: »

No they will be bought by people who can get mortgages but that rules out those in need

Those in need may be able to rent the properties vacated by those who have bought?