Rent Increase thread

Lux23

And yes I am disgruntled because I'm looking at spending an ever increasing amount of my wage on rent and I live in a country where vested lobby groups have all the control. If Germany can introduce even stricter rent controls, why can't we even look at it?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e682660-1019-11e5-bd70-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3rDVLsqMC

Ray Palmer

Lux23 wrote: »

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

You are simplifying something without thinking it all out. A home purchased tends to have less people than those rented. A house has 3 beds and bought by a couple making two less beds available because they leave a one bed apartment behind. When rentals are sold the rule is rental capacity goes down. I am only showing one simple example there.

housetypeb

Lux23 wrote: »

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

Bought by canny investors who know they can only maximize profit every two years while paying 52% tax for the privilege?

REXER

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

So from that can we take it that car jacking is not the only form of larceny that you approve of? :rolleyes:

borderlinemeath

Lux23 wrote: »

And yes I am disgruntled because I'm looking at spending an ever increasing amount of my wage on rent and I live in a country where vested lobby groups have all the control. If Germany can introduce even stricter rent controls, why can't we even look at it?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e682660-1019-11e5-bd70-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3rDVLsqMC

Link won't let me view as I'm not subscribed to the FT.

I'd be all on for renting an empty house without appliances, kitchen units or even a light bulb. And getting it back the way it was let, none of this "wear and tear" argument that is ambiguous in the regs. Unfortunately the legislation prevents this type of rental. Once again the government legislation, not landlord/contract issues.

REXER

housetypeb wrote: »

Bought by canny investors who know they can only maximize profit every two years while paying 52% tax for the privilege?

Stop whining, I pay the same to bring home my bacon as do lots of other folks!

housetypeb

REXER wrote: »

Stop whining, I pay the same to bring home my bacon as do lots of other folks!

You seem to be confusing a question with a whine.

4ensic15

Lux23 wrote: »

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

I know of situations where rural based landlords owned a property in Dublin. They stayed in hotels when in Dublin on business. Now, with new taxes on rents and general hassle and increasing hotel prices they are no longer letting out the Dublin properties and are staying in them when in Dublin. They estimate that the saving on hotel charges makes up as much as the profit they had from letting.

Silverbling

Briella Chubby Hockey wrote: »

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

If you really want stability you need to buy.

self employed single parents of a certain age can not get a mortgage, that is part of the problem

Beagle Boy

Beagle Boy wrote: »

Based on the details provided on the new rent controls (http://www.thejournal.ie/alan-kelly-rents-housing-2435446-Nov2015/) can anyone explain to me why landlords are rushing to iincrease rents before the legislation comes into affect (there are a few threads here already about recent increases).

If someone's rent has been reviewed already this year then the legislation will mean it cant be changed for 2 years rather than 1. If its over a year since rent has been reviewed then I'm not sure I understand why it matters whether that review happens before the legislation in enacted or after. The one reason I can see for it is that the new legislation indicates that a landlord must give 3 months notice so if a landlord did intent to increase the rent he misses out on two months of the inreasesd rate if he waits until after the legislation comes into affect.

Am I missing something obvious here?
BB

There is a lot of interesting commentary on here. However I haven't really seen anything that addresses my original question. If its over year since a tenant had a rent review/increase (for argument say its a year and a half) is there any reason why a landlord would rush to do it right now rather than just do it in the next few months. Is it down to the notice period being longer from January 2016 onward?

quadrifoglio verde

Beagle Boy wrote: »

There is a lot of interesting commentary on here. However I haven't really seen anything that addresses my original question. If its over year since a tenant had a rent review/increase (for argument say its a year and a half) is there any reason why a landlord would rush to do it right now rather than just do it in the next few months. Is it down to the notice period being longer from January 2016 onward?

Reading it, it says rent increase. They've had a rent increase in Jan 15, so I'd be going with they're not due an increase now until 2017.
I'd be waiting until the legislation is in in your case. If rent can be increased, happy days, if it can't, well you weren't going to lose out anyway.
We will know in the next few weeks exactly what's coming down the line

quadrifoglio verde

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

No it isn't. Are you honestly trying to say that a one bed shack rents that goes on the market the same time as a luxurious one bed studio will both go for the same rate?
No it won't.

What will happen is a certain amount of tenants will decide what the price for each one bed appartment is. Not the landlord.

What's your suggestion for rent control. That the market might be prepared to pay more, but aren't allowed? What happens to the person who wants to pay 1800 to live close to where they work, but because of rent control has to take a place 2 hours away from work....is that fair?

Well in that case you won't find either one property landlords or multinational companies rushing in to rent out properties leaving you with two options
Illegal tenancys and property ownership

Your only option to bring down rents, is increase supply. Nothing else will bring down rents and be fair for everyone

FrStone

housetypeb wrote: »

Bought by canny investors who know they can only maximize profit every two years while paying 52% tax for the privilege?

These investors have no problem making money in other countries with much stricter rent controls.

I suppose that unlike the one off landlord, they understand that while rent payments may not cover the loan repayment, in 25 years they will own the property while only paying a small amount of the loan themselves.

Beagle Boy

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Reading it, it says rent increase. They've had a rent increase in Jan 15, so I'd be going with they're not due an increase now until 2017.
I'd be waiting until the legislation is in in your case. If rent can be increased, happy days, if it can't, well you weren't going to lose out anyway.
We will know in the next few weeks exactly what's coming down the line

Not sure I'm following this. If a tenant hasn't had an increase in a year and a half its April 2014 since the had a review so the rule about not having a review until 2017 if they've reviewed in 2015 is irrelevant?

quadrifoglio verde

Beagle Boy wrote: »

Not sure I'm following this. If a tenant hasn't had an increase in a year and a half its April 2014 since the had a review so the rule about not having a review until 2017 if they've reviewed in 2015 is irrelevant?

No, we need clarity in the legislation as to whether it'll be a rent increase or a rent review.

I'm banking on it being a rent increase and not a rent review because if it's a review and tgevrent went down, then according to the legislation it can't be reviewed for two years. I can't see the gov going with that.

As it stands the rent can only be increased once in a twelve month period.
But this is talking about once every 24 months that it can be increased, not reviewed.

If the tenants last increase was I'm april 2014, then under current legislation and my understanding of what the legislation will be going forward, the rent can be increased today or in 2016. But if it increased on Jan 1st 2015 it won't be allowed be increased until Jan 1st 2017

Gatling

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

No, we need clarity in the legislation as to whether it'll be a rent increase or a rent review.

I'm banking on it being a rent increase and not a rent review because if it's a review and tgevrent went down, then according to the legislation it can't be reviewed for two years. I can't see the gov going with that.

As it stands the rent can only be increased once in a twelve month period.
But this is talking about once every 24 months that it can be increased, not reviewed.

If the tenants last increase was I'm april 2014, then under current legislation and my understanding of what the legislation will be going forward, the rent can be increased today or in 2016. But if it increased on Jan 1st 2015 it won't be allowed be increased until Jan 1st 2017

Posted this in the other thread .

"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/

Tarzana2

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?

Yeah, I somewhat agree. People need a roof over their heads, it's a basic need. So many people in Dublin now are paying more than a third of their wages in rent, that just seems so wrong. But, IMO, the thing that needs to happen more than anything else is that Dublin needs to build up rather than out. I'd happily live in an apartment long term if it was a decent size, I'd have no problem with it being on the tenth floor or whatever.

I agree though, many landlord do not treat it as a proper business.

murphaph

Beagle Boy wrote: »

There is a lot of interesting commentary on here. However I haven't really seen anything that addresses my original question. If its over year since a tenant had a rent review/increase (for argument say its a year and a half) is there any reason why a landlord would rush to do it right now rather than just do it in the next few months. Is it down to the notice period being longer from January 2016 onward?

Landlords are spooked. We genuinely don't know what's coming down the line. Too much kite flying by government and Kelly in particular. Too much uncertainty.

runawaybishop

Gatling wrote: »

Posted this in the other thread .

"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/

You can only increase rent when a review is due anyway.

Gatling

runawaybishop wrote: »

You can only increase rent when a review is due anyway.

But as we are seeing landlords are demanding increase agreements now .
I only signed an agreement in the middle of July if I get a call or email suggesting it's time to negotiate an increase .
I'll reply see you in July 2017

runawaybishop

Gatling wrote: »

But as we are seeing landlords are demanding increase agreements now .
I only signed an agreement in the middle of July if I get a call or email suggesting it's time to negotiate an increase .
I'll reply see you in July 2017

Read what he said again, he just reiterated that landlords can increase rents now if they are due.

Gatling

runawaybishop wrote: »

Read what he said again, he just reiterated that landlords can increase rents now if they are due.

If, is the word asking for an increase in November when your lease agreement isn't due to be up sometime in 2016 is been sly ,
We've had 4 increases in 4 years I'll be glad of a break of increases

runawaybishop

Gatling wrote: »

If, is the word asking for an increase in November when your lease agreement isn't due to be up sometime in 2016 is been sly ,
We've had 4 increases in 4 years I'll be glad of a break of increases

This rent control isn't a good thing, in the long run it will cost you more money.

handlemaster

There is going to be tears in two years time .... rent will go higher than ever before

keane2097

handlemaster wrote: »

There is going to be tears in two years time .... rent will go higher than ever before

You'd swear it wouldn't have regardless.

gizmo555

keane2097 wrote: »

You'd swear it wouldn't have regardless.

Rents will go higher than they otherwise would have because this legislation will make landlords fearful that further measures will be introduced, or that this measure won't be revoked in four years as promised.

After all, income tax was first introduced in 1798 as a temporary, emergency measure!

Silverbling

There is not enough supply but the problem is not the landlords wanting the best price but where does the money come from to pay the South Dublin rents before you start on bills and all the other living expenses.

If the rent is covering your mortgage and repairs why not take a decent long term tenant at under the market rate, surely it is a safer bet than someone desperately trying to make ends meet who at some point will end up defaulting and then getting into a situation where they need evicting

Wages have not gone up, we have done 7 years of hardship and I would love to know how single parent familes or even 2 average wages can manage to pay their way when the rent is 1.8k a month plus

I am in the middle ground here, I did have savings but stupidly used it to start a business to better our future but as we all know the self employed don't tick any boxes therefore should be left to fend for themselves, it used to be you told a landlord you were self employed and his face would light up...........now you mention the word and they go white and start quivering and muttering about audited accounts while legging it out of the front door

gizmo555

Silverbling wrote: »

If the rent is covering your mortgage and repairs why not take a decent long term tenant at under the market rate, surely it is a safer bet than someone desperately trying to make ends meet who at some point will end up defaulting and then getting into a situation where they need evicting

Many landlords, including myself, take this approach. The problem is that with the cack handed government interference just to be seen to be doing something, they fear they will in future be stuck unable to increase rents even if an increase is justified.

It's not for nothing that the nine most frightening words in the English language are said to be "We're from the government, and we're here to help!"

Lux23

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

No it isn't. Are you honestly trying to say that a one bed shack rents that goes on the market the same time as a luxurious one bed studio will both go for the same rate?
No it won't.

No, but when a landlord decides to increase the rent on the market rate, they can look on daft and say right, there are lots of one bedroom apartments going for €1,000 so this is what I am going to charge. Standards don't come into this at all. Perhaps if you complain to the PRTB they inspect the apartment and then other apartments in the area to make sure the €1,000 is right. I doubt they do though.

I think we need brackets in which properties will fall into if they reach certain standards, a bit like a BER rating. The landlords themselves can decide what they charge but tenants and say the PRTB could then challenge what a landlord is charging based on whatever bracket they fall into.

Granted the likelihood of the PRTB having the resources to do this is slim so maybe the only real workable solution is rent control.

gizmo555

Lux23 wrote: »

Standards don't come into this at all.

There is a well defined set of standards for rental accomodation.

Lux23 wrote: »

Granted the likelihood of the PRTB having the resources to do this is slim so maybe the only real workable solution is rent control.

And where would whatever body which had the task of setting and controlling rents get the resources?