Rent Review

axcel

Hi Folks,

I seem to be at a dead end to find the definitive answer to this. But what constitutes a rent review?

For our example, we moved into an apartment in 2014 and signed a year lease, we received a letter before our lease expired in 2015 stating it was up and rent would stay the same, if we wanted to stay on, please let the agency know. We wrote back confirming we would stay. From investigation, this seems to mean we are on a Tenancy part 4 now, I think?

This year we received a notice of a rent increase. Query is did the end of the lease in 2015, and letter confirming rent was unchanged if we wished to stay on constitute a rent review or not?
Spoke with Threshold and unfortunately were no help, said we would have to go to PRTB and lodge a dispute, they couldn't say if it was or not, such an unusual query?? I find it hard to believe no one has had his query since the new rules??

Anyway we don't want to lodge a dispute as would be unfair on the landlord. We literally just want to know our rights, and find out if this is ok under the new legislation or not.

Thanks for your help!

TheChizler

Seems legit, if two years has passed since you first started the tenancy.

Sad Professor

I assume a rent review is only a rent review if the rent changes. Since it has remained unchanged for 2 years I guess they are entitled to ask for an increase now.

The_Conductor

I'd concur with the guys.
The tenancy rolled over- as per a mutual agreement- however, the rent was not reviewed.
Seems entirely legit to me.

axcel

Great stuff, will just have to build a bridge. Thanks for your help!

Giblet

Lizcent wrote: »

Great stuff, will just have to build a bridge. Thanks for your help!

They would have an obligation to give you 3 months notice of an increase though.

RTB wrote:

If your landlord is reviewing the rent, they must now give you at least 90 days’ written notification (increased from 28 days)
Since 9 May 2016, a notice of new rent must contain certain information. For example, the landlord must state their opinion that the new rent is not greater than the market rent – see below. They must also provide 3 examples of rent amounts for similar dwellings being advertised in the area.

axcel

Luckily they did give the correct notice, as we would have been really caught out otherwise. They didn't provide the 3 examples of rent amounts in similar areas, or notice of our rights to contact PRTB within 28 days. But we aren't going to dispute at this stage.

Although the rent is a sickening 16% increase, there's nothing out there for us. It's crazy really, I've been renting in Dublin for 12 years, and although cost could be an issue at different times especially in the boom, supply now is the main issue. Daft is throwing me back nothing. This will be the most I've ever paid for rent but rant over, will just need to get the head down.

Sad Professor

Giblet wrote: »

They would have an obligation to give you 3 months notice of an increase though.

Re: the 3 months notice, what happens if the tenant refuses/disputes the increase and chooses to leave, but is on a part 4 and is entitled to more than 3 months notice? Can they work that notice out at the previously agreed rent?

newacc2015

Lizcent wrote: »

Luckily they did give the correct notice, as we would have been really caught out otherwise. They didn't provide the 3 examples of rent amounts in similar areas, or notice of our rights to contact PRTB within 28 days. But we aren't going to dispute at this stage.

Although the rent is a sickening 16% increase, there's nothing out there for us. It's crazy really, I've been renting in Dublin for 12 years, and although cost could be an issue at different times especially in the boom, supply now is the main issue. Daft is throwing me back nothing. This will be the most I've ever paid for rent but rant over, will just need to get the head down.

IMO they similar properties in the area rule is totally ridiculous in a city like Dublin. Look at the likes of around Sheriff St. You have ultra luxury apartments beside shoe box apartments next store to some of the worst social housing in the city. Dublin is not like a post war German city where literally the properties in the area are identical.

You dont have to be informed that you can contact the RTB within 28 days for rent increases. That is only for evictions. Some websites incorrectly state that it is the same for rent increases

Cost is the main issue now. Who do you think is paying for your LL's mortgage interest relief being capped at 75%, the USC and PRSI put on their rental income and the variety of other taxes like LPT etc? LL's might be getting rents like it is 2007. But their after tax income is ridiculously low.

axcel

See below how a rent review must be done, and RTB has provided an example also. I didn't make the rules of what's to be included, and as above I'm not trying to dispute this. I know myself from Daft that you actually can't even find 3 properties in my area.

Also I don't need to be schooled on the costs to the landlords. I've in noway blamed any individual for this, merely stating an opinion that the whole situation in Dublin in general is crazy - which I'm sure landlords would agree with also. I'm all for the Govt getting their act together and providing relief to landlords but I suppose I didn't start this thread for that topic.


Notice of rent review
The notice of new rent must comply with the provisions of Section 26 of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015. The notice must:

State the amount of new rent and the date from which is to have effect
Include a statement that any dispute about the setting of the rent must be referred to the RTB before the date the new rent takes effect, or within 28 days from the date that the tenant gets the notice, whichever is the later
Include a statement by the landlord that, in their opinion, the new rent is not greater than the market rent, having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to letting values of dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area
Specify the rent amount being asked for 3 dwellings of a similar size, type and character and in a comparable area, which have been advertised for rent in the 4-week period immediately before the notice
Be signed by the landlord or their authorised agent and include the date on which it was signed
The RTB has published a sample notice of rent review (pdf).

prtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

runawaybishop

Lizcent wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I seem to be at a dead end to find the definitive answer to this. But what constitutes a rent review?

For our example, we moved into an apartment in 2014 and signed a year lease, we received a letter before our lease expired in 2015 stating it was up and rent would stay the same, if we wanted to stay on, please let the agency know. We wrote back confirming we would stay. From investigation, this seems to mean we are on a Tenancy part 4 now, I think?

This year we received a notice of a rent increase. Query is did the end of the lease in 2015, and letter confirming rent was unchanged if we wished to stay on constitute a rent review or not?
Spoke with Threshold and unfortunately were no help, said we would have to go to PRTB and lodge a dispute, they couldn't say if it was or not, such an unusual query?? I find it hard to believe no one has had his query since the new rules??

Anyway we don't want to lodge a dispute as would be unfair on the landlord. We literally just want to know our rights, and find out if this is ok under the new legislation or not.

Thanks for your help!

You received a letter with the rental amount set out? That's a review for sure. Might be better to accept the increase now though given how rents are rising.

athtrasna

Lizcent wrote: »

Also I don't need to be schooled on the costs to the landlords. I've in noway blamed any individual for this, merely stating an opinion that the whole situation in Dublin in general is crazy - which I'm sure landlords would agree with also. I'm all for the Govt getting their act together and providing relief to landlords but I suppose I didn't start this thread for that topic.

Please appreciate that posters have taken the time to reply to your thread. I realise you're an infrequent poster on here but we do ask that posters remain civil and also that you leave the modding to the mods.

Thanks

axcel

runawaybishop wrote: »

You received a letter with the rental amount set out? That's a review for sure. Might be better to accept the increase now though given how rents are rising.

Yes we received a letter, and then spoke to the agency who sent out a renewal of lease which we signed for another 12 months. I know the lease renewal doesn't constitute a review but getting differing opinions on the letter.

We actually are in the first stages of trying to buy a house and commute so saving every penny now would really help at this stage. It's very confusing as my partner was actually onto the PRTB yesterday before I realized, and they confirmed to him that it does constitute a rent review. However he didn't give all the info at the time, he only advised about he letter and didn't say we signed a renewal of the lease as I only found that document today confirming terms of original lease were unchanged

Sad Professor

Do you still have the letter? What was the wording re: the rent?

This seems like a grey area. Obviously the agent didn't intend for that to be a rent review, but a tenant could certainly argue that that was their understanding.

I don't see how this 2 year rent review is good for tenants in the current market. The smart ones will spend the second year bracing themselves for the increase. The dumb ones won't and might not be able to pay the 250+ extra per month. At least with yearly rent review the increases will be a bit more gradual.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd concur with the guys.
The tenancy rolled over- as per a mutual agreement- however, the rent was not reviewed.
Seems entirely legit to me.

I have to say that I cannot agree that the rent was not reviewed; a letter confirming the continuation of the tenancy combined with a statement that the rent is to remain unchanged is de facto (and I suspect de jure) a review. Had the arrangement simply moved into a part 4 without any comment as to the rent I would believe that it had not been reviewed. A statement that the rent was to remain unchanged with a statement that no review had occurred or fixing a date for a review would be different.

That being said, I would be happy to have had the 12 months without a review and would suck it up now.

Sad Professor

Marcusm wrote: »

I have to say that I cannot agree that the rent was not reviewed; a letter confirming the continuation of the tenancy combined with a statement that the rent is to remain unchanged is de facto (and I suspect de jure) a review. Had the arrangement simply moved into a part 4 without any comment as to the rent I would believe that it had not been reviewed. A statement that the rent was to remain unchanged with a statement that no review had occurred or fixing a date for a review would be different.

I agree with this, but if I understand the OP correctly, another 12 month lease was signed. In which case the letter from the agent was probably just asking if they wanted their lease renewed. I think it depends on the wording of the letter.

Marcusm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I agree with this, but if I understand the OP correctly, another 12 month lease was signed. In which case the letter from the agent was probably just asking if they wanted their lease renewed. I think it depends on the wording of the letter.

I can rely only on the statement in the original post that there was a statement in the letter that the rent was to remain unchanged.

TheChizler

If a letter after twelve months saying rent is unchanged constitutes a review surely it would be illegal as two years had not passed since the start of the tenancy?

The_Conductor

TheChizler wrote: »

If a letter after twelve months saying rent is unchanged constitutes a review surely it would be illegal as two years had not passed since the start of the tenancy?

The law, as it stood, allowed for an annual rent review up to the 31st of December 2015. The 2 year rule commenced on the 1st Jan 2016.

TheChizler

The_Conductor wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

If a letter after twelve months saying rent is unchanged constitutes a review surely it would be illegal as two years had not passed since the start of the tenancy?

The law, as it stood, allowed for an annual rent review up to the 31st of December 2015. The 2 year rule commenced on the 1st Jan 2016.

I get that I'm asking in general terms. It's a pretty standard letter/email to get.

The_Conductor

TheChizler wrote: »

I get that I'm asking in general terms. It's a pretty standard letter/email to get.

It would be a perfectly acceptable letter under the new 2 year regime. The tenant has a 1 year tenancy agreement (lease). On the elapse of the lease- the tenant has the option of signing a subsequent lease (12 months hence- or further down the line) at the same rent- as it does not constitute a rent review. Were the rent reviewed at the same time- it would be illegal. So- under current rules- the letter would be viewed solely as a renewal of a lease- not a rent review- which would in fact be illegal under the act.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

It would be a perfectly acceptable letter under the new 2 year regime. The tenant has a 1 year tenancy agreement (lease). On the elapse of the lease- the tenant has the option of signing a subsequent lease (12 months hence- or further down the line) at the same rent- as it does not constitute a rent review. Were the rent reviewed at the same time- it would be illegal. So- under current rules- the letter would be viewed solely as a renewal of a lease- not a rent review- which would in fact be illegal under the act.

Honestly, I cannot see how you can so clearly state that a communication in writing stating that the rent is to remain unchanged can not be regarded as a review. If the communication is silent on the point I can see how it could be argued that no review had been undertaken. However, an explicit statement that the rent is to remain unchanged implies that consideration had been given and thus, in my opinion, the 24 months period would run from the date of that letter and not from the earlier lease inception point. A review does not necessarily involve a change but an opportunity to consider whether there is to be a change. A statement that it is to be unchanged implies that consideration has been given with respect to a change, ipso facto a review.

The_Conductor

Marcusm wrote: »

Honestly, I cannot see how you can so clearly state that a communication in writing stating that the rent is to remain unchanged can not be regarded as a review. If the communication is silent on the point I can see how it could be argued that no review had been undertaken. However, an explicit statement that the rent is to remain unchanged implies that consideration had been given and thus, in my opinion, the 24 months period would run from the date of that letter and not from the earlier lease inception point. A review does not necessarily involve a change but an opportunity to consider whether there is to be a change. A statement that it is to be unchanged implies that consideration has been given with respect to a change, ipso facto a review.

A statement of such- where a landlord is legally not entitled to conduct such a review is viewed as 'a statement of comfort' for the tenant- and has no meaning in law. That is the point I was making.

A landlord is not entitled to conduct an annual rent review any longer. He/she is however, entitled to issue an annual lease- which must- as a rule- dictate what the rent is to be.

The statement that there is no change in the rent- would, if conducted now, be viewed simply as a statement of fact- there is no change- because legally the landlord is not entitled to make a change.

Perhaps if the practice of issuing 1 year leases was quietly dropped- and changed to a 2 year lease- to run for a similar period to a rent review- it would put these ambiguities to bed for once and for all......?

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

A statement of such- where a landlord is legally not entitled to conduct such a review is viewed as 'a statement of comfort' for the tenant- and has no meaning in law. That is the point I was making.

A landlord is not entitled to conduct an annual rent review any longer. He/she is however, entitled to issue an annual lease- which must- as a rule- dictate what the rent is to be.

The statement that there is no change in the rent- would, if conducted now, be viewed simply as a statement of fact- there is no change- because legally the landlord is not entitled to make a change.

Perhaps if the practice of issuing 1 year leases was quietly dropped- and changed to a 2 year lease- to run for a similar period to a rent review- it would put these ambiguities to bed for once and for all......?

I am talking about the facts of the original post; I read your responses as impying that the letter issued in 2015 at the end of the original lease did not constitute a review such that the landlord is now permitted to conduct a review (being 24 months since the original occupation) which is a position with which I cannot agree based on the stated facts.

The term review is more or less intended to mean increased or decreased. I can't see how no change can constitute a review. All the letter was doing was confirming the rent was staying the same, surely a LL should be indicating to the tenant the situation with the cost of the rent for the following year without a fear of it meaning it's considered a "review". I can't see anyone in the RTB etc finding in favour of the op in this as I cannot see myself how people are considering the letter as the type of review which is meant in the rules.

I don't know why LLs are messing around with leases anyway I woundn't even give a 1 year lease at the start of a tenancy were I letting a place never mind keep renewing it every year.

The_Conductor

Marcusm wrote: »

I am talking about the facts of the original post; I read your responses as impying that the letter issued in 2015 at the end of the original lease did not constitute a review such that the landlord is now permitted to conduct a review (being 24 months since the original occupation) which is a position with which I cannot agree based on the stated facts.

Based on the stated facts- were it to go to Tribunal- honestly- I'd have zero confidence it would go in any particular direction- it would be totally at the whim of the adjudicator, it could go either way.

Personally- in the current market- were I offered a review in the manner in the OP is suggesting- I'd accept- after trying to bargain them down- they've been damn lucky not have an increase in 2 years thus far.......... I'd definitely try to get any proposed increase reduced- by negotiation with the landlord- I wouldn't have any confidence that disputing the raise would be successful- and it would burn any good will the tenant may have with the landlord.

runawaybishop

Isaias Limited Bologna wrote: »

The term review is more or less intended to mean increased or decreased. I can't see how no change can constitute a review. All the letter was doing was confirming the rent was staying the same, surely a LL should be indicating to the tenant the situation with the cost of the rent for the following year without a fear of it meaning it's considered a "review". I can't see anyone in the RTB etc finding in favour of the op in this as I cannot see myself how people are considering the letter as the type of review which is meant in the rules.

I don't know why LLs are messing around with leases anyway I woundn't even give a 1 year lease at the start of a tenancy were I letting a place never mind keep renewing it every year.

Of course no change can constitute a review, how else could it be interpreted.

TheChizler

The_Conductor wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

I get that I'm asking in general terms. It's a pretty standard letter/email to get.

It would be a perfectly acceptable letter under the new 2 year regime. The tenant has a 1 year tenancy agreement (lease). On the elapse of the lease- the tenant has the option of signing a subsequent lease (12 months hence- or further down the line) at the same rent- as it does not constitute a rent review. Were the rent reviewed at the same time- it would be illegal. So- under current rules- the letter would be viewed solely as a renewal of a lease- not a rent review- which would in fact be illegal under the act.

That's what I'm getting at; if acknowledging the rent being unchanged at the end of a lease constituted a review then acknowledging the end of a lease less than 2 years would surely be illegal. Which is obviously not the case. Therefore, if the law follows logic (something I wouldn't always be confident on) rent being unchanged cannot constitute a review.

TheChizler

runawaybishop wrote: »

Isaias Limited Bologna wrote: »

The term review is more or less intended to mean increased or decreased. I can't see how no change can constitute a review. All the letter was doing was confirming the rent was staying the same, surely a LL should be indicating to the tenant the situation with the cost of the rent for the following year without a fear of it meaning it's considered a "review". I can't see anyone in the RTB etc finding in favour of the op in this as I cannot see myself how people are considering the letter as the type of review which is meant in the rules.

I don't know why LLs are messing around with leases anyway I woundn't even give a 1 year lease at the start of a tenancy were I letting a place never mind keep renewing it every year.

Of course no change can constitute a review, how else could it be interpreted.

Because currently no review can occur within two years of the start date, therefore no change (if as you say is a review) would be illegal. The alternative to that, change the rent, would definitely be a review, which is also illegal. You can't have a situation where all options result in illegal activity, therefore our assumption that no change constitutes a review must be incorrect.

Edit: Also this:

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/rent-reviews

[font=proxima-nova-n4, proxima-nova, sans-serif]If a landlord intends reviewing the rent, they must inform you, in writing, of any review in rent, 90 days before the new revised rent is due to take effect. A valid notice served by the landlord must be in the prescribed form (see sample notice below). [/font]

[font=proxima-nova-n4, proxima-nova, sans-serif][*]It must state the amount of new rent and the date from which is to have effect.
[*]It must include a statement that a dispute must be referred to the Board on the expiry of 28 days from the receipt by the tenant of that notice or the date the new rent takes effect.
[*]It must include a statement by the landlord that it is their opinion that the new rent is not greater than market rent having regard to
[*]The other terms of the tenancy
[*]Letting values of dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area
[*]It must specify the rent amount for three comparable dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area
[*]It must include the date on which the notice is signed
[*]It must be signed by the landlord or his/her authorised agent
[/font]

Missing any of those: not a rent review.

runawaybishop

TheChizler wrote: »

Because currently no review can occur within two years of the start date, therefore no change (if as you say is a review) would be illegal. The alternative to that, change the rent, would definitely be a review, which is also illegal. You can't have a situation where all options result in illegal activity, therefore our assumption that no change constitutes a review must be incorrect.

Edit: Also this:

http://www.prtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/the-three-stages-of-a-tenancy/rent-reviews

[font=proxima-nova-n4, proxima-nova, sans-serif]If a landlord intends reviewing the rent, they must inform you, in writing, of any review in rent, 90 days before the new revised rent is due to take effect. A valid notice served by the landlord must be in the prescribed form (see sample notice below). [/font]

Missing any of those: not a rent review.

Nope, the tenant can choose to agree that its a rent review. Keeping the rent as it was is still a review, rent is locked for 2 years until 2017.

edit: i am specifically referring to the agreement reached in 2015 here, not the letter the op just received.

TheChizler

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nope, the tenant can choose to agree that its a rent review. Keeping the rent as it was is still a review, rent is locked for 2 years until 2017.

edit: i am specifically referring to the agreement reached in 2015 here, not the letter the op just received.

Have you a source for that? And if the landlord doesn't agree with the tenant that it was a rent review?