Rent increase

guest5689

Hi, I have a question.
I am renting now since December 2014 and our Landlord appoached me now with an rent increase. I did not sign a new lease last December but told him I would like to stay.
I know that you can not review the rent before 24 month but he said it would only if we had a renewed lease but as I understand it this is not correct.
Do any of you have some advise?
By the way it would be more than 20 procent.

Michael D Not Higgins

He can't raise the rent until 24 months after the start of a tenancy.

guest5689

Thank you for your answer and
I told him that but he stated that he can do it anyway as we have no lease since December.

athtrasna

guest5689 wrote: »

Thank you for your answer and
I told him that but he stated that he can do it anyway as we have no lease since December.

You are on a part four tenancy as you are there over 6 months and informed your landlord that you wished to stay. He can try but it would be illegal for him to increase your rent at this time.

Paulw

guest5689 wrote: »

I told him that but he stated that he can do it anyway as we have no lease since December.

Tell him that you will lodge a complaint with the PRTB, since the regulations on rent increases are clear - lease or not.

jimmycrackcorm

From citizensinformation.ie

A rent review can result in an increase or reduction of the rent. With effect from 4 December 2015, your landlord has the right to review the rent once every 2 years (increased from 1 year). Unless the accommodation has changed substantially, it cannot be reviewed more often than this.

Under the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015, the following rules apply from 4 December 2015:

Your rent cannot be increased until 24 months after the start of your tenancyIf your rent was reviewed at any time in the last 24 months, it cannot be reviewed again until 24 months after the date of the last review

kifi

To the OP. I agree with the other posters. You are fine. No rent increase allowed until after 24 months, lease or no lease. Also, you can't be asked to vacate, unless you breach obligations of 2004 ACT (ie not paying rent, anti social behaviour etc).

Don't be worried. Just continue to pay rent at the current rate, keep the place well and give the required amount of notice when you are ready to leave.

guest5689

Thank you all very much for your answers. That is a great relief.
I am still a bit worried as he told me yesterday on the phone that because of his grace, yes he really used the word grace, we are allowed to have pets. Can he just now decide that we are not allowed to keep them anymore?
The reason for the rent increase is to maintain the house like cleaning the gutters and fixing them and fixing a big manhole in the garden with is only covered with a thin piece of ply. There is water on the ground and if my son would fall in, which could easily happen, there is no chance I would get him out of there alive but still after nearly 1,5 years and constant complain nothing happened.
The same for one of the showers which is not working since we moved in, his point of view yesterday was that we have two more showers so we dont need this one as well and therefore no need to fix it.
We keep the place clean,pay our rent on time, maintain the garden, fixed a good view issues ourself, even got a lawn mower, as no one was here, and a power washer to clean the footpaths and now after he saw the state of the house ( red alge, gutters full of grass and leaking down the wall) he wants us to pay for it. I think this is very unfair.
Sorry for the rant but that really hit a nerve.

Graham

Don't mix multiple issues when you're talking to anyone about an illegal rent increase, particularly maintenance issues which aren't relevant in this context.

The long and short of it, your landlord is not entitled to raise the rent. If he is insisting it's going to happen, talk to the PRTB today.

When you have explained the issue to the PRTB, then it may be worth mentioning that your landlord is threatening to use the presence of your previously agreed pets as a pretext for forcing the rent increase.

Mrs OBumble

People are right - but likely your LL doesn't know about the law change. Print out the page from Citizens Information and give it to him.

What does your lease say about pets, though? If it says no pets but you have one because of a verbal agreement, then he may be able to act against you based on this.

therightangle

I have a question on the quoted text above from the Citizens Advice:
"Your rent cannot be increased until 24 months after the start of your tenancy. If your rent was reviewed at any time in the last 24 months, it cannot be reviewed again until 24 months after the date of the last review"

Based on the above, if a rent increase was made in year 3 of a Part 4 tenancy, and none can be made in year 1 & 2 of a "Further Part 4" tenancy if it is considered a new tenancy, therefore none can be made again until the start of year 3 of the "Further Part 4" tenancy. I wonder is the advice above true, as it seems to give 4 years between increases depending on the timing....?

davo10

therightangle wrote: »

I have a question on the quoted text above from the Citizens Advice:
"Your rent cannot be increased until 24 months after the start of your tenancy. If your rent was reviewed at any time in the last 24 months, it cannot be reviewed again until 24 months after the date of the last review"

Based on the above, if a rent increase was made in year 3 of a Part 4 tenancy, and none can be made in year 1 & 2 of a "Further Part 4" tenancy if it is considered a new tenancy, therefore none can be made again until the start of year 3 of the "Further Part 4" tenancy. I wonder is the advice above true, as it seems to give 4 years between increases depending on the timing....?

No. It is not a new tenancy, it is a continuation of the old tenancy with a new cycle of part 4 rights. Rent can be increased every 2 years.

Pkiernan

davo10 wrote: »

No. It is not a new tenancy, it is a continuation of the old tenancy with a new cycle of part 4 rights. Rent can be increased every 2 years.

Tenancies end after 4 years.
In fact the RTB require registration of a new tenancy after 4 years.

davo10

Pkiernan wrote: »

Tenancies end after 4 years.
In fact the RTB require registration of a new tenancy after 4 years.

Sorry, I should have phrased my post better, it relates only to the time period between rental increases.

For the purposes of rent increase question asked by therightangle they do not, the LL cannot raise the rent three and a half years after the tenancy was initiated, then raise it again 6 months later when a new tenancy begins. There must be 2 years between increases irrespective of whether a new 4 year tenancy cycle begins. The answer to the therightangles question is that no, the LL does not have to wait 4 years to raise rent just because a new cycle begins.

yqtwqxqm

guest5689 wrote: »

Thank you all very much for your answers. That is a great relief.
I am still a bit worried as he told me yesterday on the phone that because of his grace, yes he really used the word grace, we are allowed to have pets. Can he just now decide that we are not allowed to keep them anymore?
The reason for the rent increase is to maintain the house like cleaning the gutters and fixing them and fixing a big manhole in the garden with is only covered with a thin piece of ply. There is water on the ground and if my son would fall in, which could easily happen, there is no chance I would get him out of there alive but still after nearly 1,5 years and constant complain nothing happened.
The same for one of the showers which is not working since we moved in, his point of view yesterday was that we have two more showers so we dont need this one as well and therefore no need to fix it.
We keep the place clean,pay our rent on time, maintain the garden, fixed a good view issues ourself, even got a lawn mower, as no one was here, and a power washer to clean the footpaths and now after he saw the state of the house ( red alge, gutters full of grass and leaking down the wall) he wants us to pay for it. I think this is very unfair.
Sorry for the rant but that really hit a nerve.

Bad landlord or not, why would anyone even stay there with a situation like this.
I wouldnt wait 5 minutes to have this fixed. I would be gone if I thought my children were at risk.

pc7

I agree with the other poster, print page and show him. Check out market rates as come December he's likely to hit you at the top end. But really based on the other issues you are having I'd look to leave.

Michael D Not Higgins

Pkiernan wrote: »

Tenancies end after 4 years.
In fact the RTB require registration of a new tenancy after 4 years.

This is correct. However, I have already seen a case that went to court where they did not take the further Part 4 tenancy as a new tenancy (although this wasn't the central point of law that was being discussed).

Most of the time the RTB will rule in the spirit of the law rather than the letter, so expect that to read "24 months from the start of a new tenancy not including a further Part 4".

yqtwqxqm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is correct. However, I have already seen a case that went to court where they did not take the further Part 4 tenancy as a new tenancy (although this wasn't the central point of law that was being discussed).

Most of the time the RTB will rule in the spirit of the law rather than the letter, so expect that to read "24 months from the start of a new tenancy not including a further Part 4".

What case is this?

Michael D Not Higgins

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

What case is this?

It's this case http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68. The case was over the validity of the notice of termination which should have a written notice with reason for terminating according to the RTA2004 except during the first 6 months of a new tenancy.

We discussed the case in this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=99615103.

yqtwqxqm

Its nearly sounding now that what all landlords should do as a matter procedure is to End a tenancy always after the 4 years are up and seek a new tenant. Regardless of whether the tenant was good or not.
Perhaps insert into the initial agreement that the tenancy is for 4 years and that i will be terminated after 4 years.

Its just a matter of getting some sort of control back of their own property.

Thats if they arent already leaving the market as it is.

Im sure the majority are already upping the rent to the max every two years now even if before that rule they would have left the tenants rent ride for a while.

Over on irish landlords now they are advising landlords to push the rent to the max and a little more if the property is better than the average property in the area at every opportunity.

therightangle

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is correct. However, I have already seen a case that went to court where they did not take the further Part 4 tenancy as a new tenancy (although this wasn't the central point of law that was being discussed).

Most of the time the RTB will rule in the spirit of the law rather than the letter, so expect that to read "24 months from the start of a new tenancy not including a further Part 4".

Thanks, I hope you are right. The form for registering a tenancy PRTB1 doesnt ask when rent was last reviewed though. If rent is increased 1 year into a Further Part 4, and then disputed, does a landlord have a defence?

Also, Im not sure whether the original Part 4 was registered, as it was a different landlord. The exact address isnt on the PRTB registered list, though it could fit under another address on the list.

Michael D Not Higgins

therightangle wrote: »

Thanks, I hope you are right. The form for registering a tenancy PRTB1 doesnt ask when rent was last reviewed though. If rent is increased 1 year into a Further Part 4, and then disputed, does a landlord have a defence?

Also, Im not sure whether the original Part 4 was registered, as it was a different landlord. The exact address isnt on the PRTB registered list, though it could fit under another address on the list.

That would be a matter for the arbitrator/tribunal hearing. It really is an interpretation of the law and it is only clarified by these precedent setting cases.