Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

House landlord is selling magically appears for rent at a higher price

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lux23 wrote: »
    So what would be the point in including it then?

    So that you could break the lease and issue notice under part 4 rules.

    For example you give a years lease to a tenant, 3 months in you suddenly need to move in yourself. If you don't put a break clause then you have to wait for for the full year then issue notice under part 4 (notice duration depending on time in property).

    If you have a break clause you can end the lease immediately and issue notice under the part 4 rules thus you can be back in your property much quicker.


  • Options
    #93
    Giblet
    Registered Users Posts: 11,980 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    edit: not relevant, I saw earlier post.


  • Options
    #94
    Butters1979
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    jcd5971 wrote: »
    I know that it's now illegal to do this and I feel for you buddy I really do, but I also feel for the landlord like 350 a month Is a lot to have to give up just to have the pleasure of seeing your mug every month as you can't afford it.

    It's a hard one all round, however your deposit is bull **** should have got that right back. Maybe even a few quid for painting if he was decent

    I don't think you understand how this works. The landlord recently reviewed the rent and agreed with the tenant how much it should be. No one forced the LL into the agreed amount. If they wanted more they should have asked for more during the rent review, instead of signing a contract, then lying to get out of said contract.


  • Options
    #95
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    jcd5971 wrote: »
    I know that it's now illegal to do this and I feel for you buddy I really do, but I also feel for the landlord like 350 a month Is a lot to have to give up just to have the pleasure of seeing your mug every month as you can't afford it.

    It's a hard one all round, however your deposit is bull **** should have got that right back. Maybe even a few quid for painting if he was decent

    Is it worth maybe getting crap tenants in.... OP sounds like he was a good tenant so would it all be worth if the new tenants were crap for that €350.Plus why didn't the LL just say this rather than misleading the OP


  • Options
    #96
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Milly33 wrote: »
    jcd5971 wrote: »
    I know that it's now illegal to do this and I feel for you buddy I really do, but I also feel for the landlord like 350 a month Is a lot to have to give up just to have the pleasure of seeing your mug every month as you can't afford it.

    It's a hard one all round, however your deposit is bull **** should have got that right back. Maybe even a few quid for painting if he was decent

    Is it worth maybe getting crap tenants in.... OP sounds like he was a good tenant so would it all be worth if the new tenants were crap for that 350.Plus why didn't the LL just say this rather than misleading the OP
    Add your reply here.


    So you think the LL should take 4300 less because he has a tenant that pays his rent. So let's turn it the other way the tenant should pay 4300 extra over market rate because he has a good landlord. On top of the LL paying a high rate of tax he should be great full that a tenant pays his /her rent the logic of the poor irish man can turn any situation into the poor mouth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    jcd5971 wrote: »
    I know that it's now illegal to do this and I feel for you buddy I really do, but I also feel for the landlord like 350 a month Is a lot to have to give up just to have the pleasure of seeing your mug every month as you can't afford it.

    You feel for the landlord who broke the law, lied and is holding the deposit all because he/she didn't want to abide by a lease voluntarily entered into. What would the landlord have to do for to have no sympathy with them?


  • Options
    #98
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Oh handlemaster!!! Where you getting these figures from can I ask?

    I have seen both sides, bad tenants and good landlords and good tenants with bad landlords and to be honest yes the landlord should be grateful that he has good tenants.

    You have tenants who make complete crap of a place and who could not pay their last months or few months rent so they get away with not needing the deposit back.

    You could have tenants who bug the landlord for every little thing that goes wrong...

    Could have squatters lots of stuff... So having good tenants is worth it believe me..


  • Options
    #99
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Milly33 wrote: »
    Oh handlemaster!!! Where you getting these figures from can I ask?

    I have seen both sides, bad tenants and good landlords and good tenants with bad landlords and to be honest yes the landlord should be grateful that he has good tenants.

    You have tenants who make complete crap of a place and who could not pay their last months or few months rent so they get away with not needing the deposit back.

    You could have tenants who bug the landlord for every little thing that goes wrong...

    Could have squatters lots of stuff... So having good tenants is worth it believe me..
    Add your reply here.

    350 to bring rent up to market rate X 12 . 4200. Running loss with the OP.


  • Options
    #100
    tuisginideach
    Registered Users Posts: 2,067 ✭✭✭tuisginideach


    We are good landlords. Our tenants had been with us between 1.5 and 9 yrs - no increase in rent for long term tenants in prob 7 years! (we had invested in a small no. of apartments). However bank insisted we sell. Gave tenants valid notice (more than required in terms of time) and offered them 1st option to buy. All regretted they were not in a position to buy. Tried selling in bulk - offer below what bank would accept. Have one sale agreed but nothing happening on others. All empty since late 2015. Surely we do not have to keep them empty indefinitely until they sell? Surely we can rent some out in order to be able to continue paying something to bank? And as long term tenants hadn't had an increase in 7 years, surely we can now charge the going rate?


  • Options
    #101
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Patww79 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Signed a lease for the amount with the tenant so, basically he can ram his market rate. Hopefully he ends up being even more out of pocket after all this is seen through.[/quote]


    The reply was to a post saying good tenants should get a discount on rent. I suggested its a big loss for a LL to take in this case 4200 per year. If a discount should be given for a good tenant the tenant should also be prepared to pay over the market rate for a good LL. It works both ways...


  • Options
    #103
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    handlemaster wrote: »
    The reply was to a post saying good tenants should get a discount on rent. I suggested its a big loss for a LL to take in this case 4200 per year. If a discount should be given for a good tenant the tenant should also be prepared to pay over the market rate for a good LL. It works both ways...

    If a good tenant gets a discount, it's at the discretion of the landlord, just like his electrician might give him a discount because he pays on time, handy work, isn't a dick on the phone or whatever.
    Most business people reward their long term customers with discounts because they've been loyal. A landlord doing the same is no different.
    If he is happy to charge 4300 less per year then what harm.

    The fact that he then went and illegally evicted the tenant can't be justified by him because he charged a lower rate


  • Options
    #104
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    There is no discount handlemaster the Landlord lied to the OP about the suituation thats the issue and withheld the deposit..

    As such tuisginideach your suitution is complelty differant to what the op says is going on


  • Options
    #105
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    jcd5971 wrote: »
    I know that it's now illegal to do this and I feel for you buddy I really do, but I also feel for the landlord like 350 a month Is a lot to have to give up just to have the pleasure of seeing your mug every month as you can't afford it.

    It's a hard one all round, however your deposit is bull **** should have got that right back. Maybe even a few quid for painting if he was decent

    Might I just state that I have absolutely no problem with someone making money, I have no problem with anyone asking market value for a place, that's how things should be.

    However you are forgetting that I had a conversation re rental cost a mere 4/5 months ago. The figure agreed at was suggested by the landlord, and I agreed to that figure. Had he felt that he was getting far too little he simply had to say it and negotiate. Would I have continued to rent at a higher cost I can't say for sure, I would certainly have considered it, but this wasn't an option.

    In my opinion he got greedy, after getting a rent increase he thought afterwards that it should be more. Insead of coming to me to explain his loss of earning, or that he simple believed it was worth more he opted instead to get us out under false pretences. That to me is not fair. I doubt I am alone in thinking that this is not how business should be conducted.

    Incidently I checked and the house is now no longer for sale, but is for rent for minimum 1 year.


  • Options
    #106
    Frankly my dear
    Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭Frankly my dear


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Add your reply here.


    So you think the LL should take 4300 less because he has a tenant that pays his rent. So let's turn it the other way the tenant should pay 4300 extra over market rate because he has a good landlord. On top of the LL paying a high rate of tax he should be great full that a tenant pays his /her rent the logic of the poor irish man can turn any situation into the poor mouth.


    The LL should take 4300 less because that's the lease agreement that he agreed to sign. It's really not that difficult to grasp.


  • Options
    #107
    American Pie
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭American Pie


    I have just seen this thread and had a slightly similar experience to the OP a few years back. I am glad to see the OP has put a complaint against the Landlord. In my case it was outside of Rep of Ireland, so different laws in place too.

    Our landlord was living in Australia and all dealings had been through the agency renting the house. We discovered after moving in that the house was up for sale. None of this was mentioned during the signing of the lease, but sure enough a couple of months into living there the viewings started. There were only a few from what I remember which wasn't too bad, but we obviously knew we would be out if the house got sold.

    After about 9-10 months we got a call to say the landlord had decided to move back from Australia and that we would need to leave a month later. I can't remember the terms of the lease exactly, but I think it may have been month to month after a certain amount of time which means there was probably nothing necessarily wrong with asking us to move out. I had to call to the house a week or two after moving out as an important letter had been sent to the address and I met the landlord, so I figured he had indeed moved back in. He didn't come across as the nicest guy however and basically said he would leave any mail of ours into agent. I took that to mean, "don't come back".

    Fast forward another two or three weeks with no mail being left with he agent, I had to call back to the house again to ask for the letter. This time however I met a new tenant, who had already been there a week or two by that stage and was quite a nice guy. During that conversation I learned the rent had gone up from what we had paid, the landlord had insisted the new tenant pay 6 months rent up front before moving in and he had now gone back to Australia. The whole thing just seemed strange. I was able to look the landlord up since and he is still living and working in Australia so he obviously had no intention of moving back.

    The deposit was the main issue though. We had just over a third of it retained for a few things including "carpet cleaning" and "house cleaning". The carpet had been steam cleaned about two months after moving in what had been promised when signing the lease and I cleaned the house myself so I was pretty confident that it was OK. It all got the ok after the inspection by the agent on moving out too. I just couldn't help bu feel that the landlord either used the money to prepare the house for the next tenant, or took the money to pay for any steam cleaning / house cleaning that was done before we moved in. It took about two months to get the remainder of the deposits back and we never got any receipts or communication from the landlord after.

    There are bad landlords out there, so it's important to take action whenever one takes unfair advantage of a situation. We were lucky in some ways that our guy wasn't the worst, but the situation was still annoying and quite strange. I don't know for certain if the house ever was sold, but I assume it was. I did find a listing from a few years ago which showed the house for sale for at least £100,000 less than I know the landlord paid for it. I guess he probably lost quite a lot of money because of it and the money we lost to him is nothing compared to that amount.


  • Options
    #108
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Frankly my dear wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    Add your reply here.




    So you think the LL should take 4300 less because he has a tenant that pays his rent. So let's turn it the other way the tenant should pay 4300 extra over market rate because he has a good landlord. On top of the LL paying a high rate of tax he should be great full that a tenant pays his /her rent the logic of the poor irish man can turn any situation into the poor mouth.


    The LL should take 4300 less because that's the lease agreement that he agreed to sign. It's really not that difficult to grasp.
    Add your reply here.

    The discussion had moved on... You should really keep up... a poster stated all LL should charge less for good tenants to which I said it also works the other way...


  • Options
    #109
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    It hasnt moved on handlemaster it is still the same topic, sorry but you seem to just want to prove how much money the landlord is loosing out on. But this doesnt really matter in the case, the landlord lied and was dishonest when as it sounds like there was no need to be... You should delete the old Add Reply Here bit too, it just brings it up to show you where to reply but you dont need it to come out on the posts, well unless you want to


  • Options
    #110
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Milly33 wrote: »
    It hasnt moved on handlemaster it is still the same topic, sorry but you seem to just want to prove how much money the landlord is loosing out one. But this doesnt really matter in the case, the landlord lied and was dishonest when as it sounds like there was no need to be... You should delete the old Add Reply Here bit too, it just brings it up to show you where to reply but you dont need it to come out on the posts, well unless you want to
    Add your reply here.


    Dont disagree that the LL is in the wrong. Again I replied to a poster who stated tenants who are good should get a discount and I pointed out that is that is the case Landlords should get more for been good also. That would be based on the same logic . AGAIN no issue with LL been wrong by claiming to sell and r advertised the property for let. As regards the add your rely here issue... You will have to email boards on this... normally such text cancels when a poster starts typing but it doesnt... I dont intend to delete text on every reply..


  • Options
    #111
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,457 ✭✭✭weisses


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Add your reply here.


    Dont disagree that the LL is in the wrong. Again I replied to a poster who stated tenants who are good should get a discount and I pointed out that is that is the case Landlords should get more for been good also. That would be based on the same logic . AGAIN no issue with LL been wrong by claiming to sell and r advertised the property for let. As regards the add your rely here issue... You will have to email boards on this... normally such text cancels when a poster starts typing but it doesnt... I dont intend to delete text on every reply..

    Define good.

    How good does a landlord need to be making a tenant needing to fork out an extra 4000 euro a year ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    weisses wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    Add your reply here.


    Dont disagree that the LL is in the wrong. Again I replied to a poster who stated tenants who are good should get a discount and I pointed out that is that is the case Landlords should get more for been good also. That would be based on the same logic . AGAIN no issue with LL been wrong by claiming to sell and r advertised the property for let. As regards the add your rely here issue... You will have to email boards on this... normally such text cancels when a poster starts typing but it doesnt... I dont intend to delete text on every reply..

    Define good.

    How good does a landlord need to be making a tenant needing to fork out an extra 4000 euro a year ?
    Add your reply here.
    weisses wrote: »
    handlemaster wrote: »
    Add your reply here.


    Dont disagree that the LL is in the wrong. Again I replied to a poster who stated tenants who are good should get a discount and I pointed out that is that is the case Landlords should get more for been good also. That would be based on the same logic . AGAIN no issue with LL been wrong by claiming to sell and r advertised the property for let. As regards the add your rely here issue... You will have to email boards on this... normally such text cancels when a poster starts typing but it doesnt... I dont intend to delete text on every reply..

    Define good.

    How good does a landlord need to be making a tenant needing to fork out an extra 4000 euro a year ?
    Add your reply here.

    How good does a tenant need to be to warrant for a landlord to not charge market rate ? Again charging less for a good tenant was not my idea. I suggested of this opinion applies to a tenant why not a Landlord?


  • Options
    #113
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users Posts: 29,362 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Add your reply here.

    Add your reply here.

    How good does a tenant need to be to warrant for a landlord to not charge market rate ? Again charging less for a good tenant was not my idea. I suggested of this opinion applies to a tenant why not a Landlord?
    Christ.

    Maybe because the landlord is the one providing the service, therefore s/he is the one to set the price?

    The tenant merely decides whether to avail of said service at the price offered.


  • Options
    #114
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- cop the hell on.
    Quit sniping at one another- by all means discuss the topic at hand- but the next person who pens an abusive comment towards another poster gets an infraction.


  • Options
    #115
    RealJohn
    Registered Users Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    I'm just curious to know how this turns out. Seems like the landlord doesn't have a leg to stand on but I'm interested to know the outcome. Any progress OP?


  • Options
    #116
    KrakityJones
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭KrakityJones


    In case anyone is still following this I will have an update shortly. The case is still on-going and I have reason to suspect the landlord has seen this thread so have been unwilling to say anything until it's all sorted out.


  • Options
    #117
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Thanks for updating.


  • Options
    #118
    burkey2k0
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭burkey2k0


    Rodgeb wrote: »
    Well done on reporting to the PRTB OP.

    I just went through something similar and come out the other end.

    Last August we were told by the letting agent that the landlords son was moving back to Ireland and needed the apartment.
    No more than 20 minutes after we handed over the keys the apartment was up on daft for 150 more rent...


    I followed up with a complaint to the PRTB against the landlord and a complaint to the PSRA against the agent.

    About 6 six weeks after submitting the complaint there was an adjudication hearing. Its a private hearing with you, the landlord and one representative from the PRTB in an office. It lasted about 20 minutes where you both tell your side of the story and we got the decision about 2 weeks later.

    I won and they found it was an illegal eviction.

    I decided to appeal as some facts were wrong in the report and had a tribunal about 2 months later. This is open to the public and there is 3 PRTB representatives with everything recorded. The tribunal hearing itself went on for an hour and a half. The report of this will be published on the PRTB website.

    It took about 2 months to get the report back from this (I only got it last week) but it told the full story which will be on public record.

    Turns out the landlords son was living with the landlord the whole time and never had any intention of moving in. They admitted everything and the only defense they had was it wasn't really a big deal... It was all worthwhile though to see them squirm under cross examination.

    The landlord did get fined however to be honest not nearly enough to act as a deterrent considering the chances of getting caught and reported. Id say this type of thing will become more and more frequent as landlords try to get around rent certainty.

    Still no word at all from the PSRA about the agent though...

    Thanks for the post.

    Can you give an idea of the fine the landlord had to pay?

    To play Devil's advocate here, It would be interesting to see if you did the maths if illegally evicting a tenant is a good decision financially.

    In this case the landlord is looking to gain an extra 2,580 a year into his pocket (only based on the 4,300 figure minus tax at 40%, not to mention PRTB registration of the next tenant, and any required maintenance). If he's risking being fined let's say 5,000, it's not really worth it. But if he's only being fined 2,000, could that risk to benefit make an unscrupulous man go ahead and illegally evict?


  • Options
    #119
    Milly33
    Registered Users Posts: 8,651 ✭✭✭Milly33


    Looking forward to hearing how it turned out


  • Options
    #120
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- this is not a soap opera.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,995 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    burkey2k0 wrote: »
    Thanks for the post.

    Can you give an idea of the fine the landlord had to pay?

    To play Devil's advocate here, It would be interesting to see if you did the maths if illegally evicting a tenant is a good decision financially.

    In this case the landlord is looking to gain an extra 2,580 a year into his pocket (only based on the 4,300 figure minus tax at 40%, not to mention PRTB registration of the next tenant, and any required maintenance). If he's risking being fined let's say 5,000, it's not really worth it. But if he's only being fined 2,000, could that risk to benefit make an unscrupulous man go ahead and illegally evict?

    You can view cases on PRTB's website. I have seen fines from 2k up to 20k for illegal evictions. It depends on how out of pocket the person who was evicted was and the manner in which it was done. For example, if the OP had a 2 year lease, their rent is now 300 a month more expensive and it cost them significant money to both get a new deposit due to withholding and moving, then they would be awarded the difference.


Advertisement