Rent review notice question

_kookie

Another question here.

I have several rental properties, but this is the first one where I have had to put up the rent after the new rules.

I have a rental property that the tenants moved into on 10 May 2015.
They have had no rent reviews since.
The market value has gone up by over €200.
I intend to up the rent by €150.

The RTB site is very unclear with its examples.

Can I issue the notice at the beginning of January, which is more than 90 days notice for the rent to go up on 10 May 2017? On that date it will be 2 years since their rent was last set.

I am reading conflicting information. Some say that I cant issue the 90 Day notice until 10 May 2017, but that makes it 2 years plus 90 days since their rent was last set.

That doesnt sound right.

Can any landlords help?

davo10

_kookie wrote: »

Another question here.

I have several rental properties, but this is the first one where I have had to put up the rent after the new rules.

I have a rental property that the tenants moved into on 10 May 2015.
They have had no rent reviews since.
The market value has gone up by over €200.
I intend to up the rent by €150.

The RTB site is very unclear with its examples.

Can I issue the notice at the beginning of January, which is more than 90 days notice for the rent to go up on 10 May 2017? On that date it will be 2 years since their rent was last set.

I am reading conflicting information. Some say that I cant issue the 90 Day notice until 10 May 2017, but that makes it 2 years plus 90 days since their rent was last set.

That doesnt sound right.

Can any landlords help?

You can't increase until two years has elapsed since last increase so you can increase rent from 10 May 2017 and notify tenants 90 days before that date of impending increase on that date. Look at it another way, if the time limit began on the date the notice is sent, it would mean the 2 year period would begin from th date you sent the previous notice of increase two years ago, which in turn would have been 90 days prior to increase date (I know the new rules weren't in place 2 years ago, this is only an example for explanatory reasons).

Ms Doubtfire1

lol or in simple words: You letter needs to be issued in the first week of February, not earlier. Alos, one of the other things you need to include is properties of a similar value who are being let in the area and their rental amount in the LAST V$ WEEKS. so you can't really send the letter now as that data would be moot. Further more, rent may fluctuate yet again in the next few months and increasing it now might be shooting in your own foot.

Speedwell

The rent increase will take effect on or after (in this case 10 May 2017), two years after the last rent "incident" took effect. You can send the 90-day notice 90 days before the effective date of the rent increase, or you can choose to give more notice (so there's nothing legally preventing you from giving notice on 1 January of a rent increase that will take effect on 10 May, except that the 3 examples of market rent might not be applicable anymore).

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

_kookie

Thanks guys.
It was the timing of the increase I was wondering about and you have answered that for me.
I dont mind giving them extra notice, I was just unclear on the actual date of the increase from the RTBs samples.
So if I issue the notice any earlier than 90 days before 10th May im good to go.
If rents seem to be going up even more than they are at now, I will of course increase by more.
I might stay €50 below the market rate.
In the past I have always left the rent the same for sitting tenants and only increased if my costs went up, such as tax or maintenance increases. But now since if my costs go up after I have increased the rent i am tied for another 2 years, i will be increasing to near market or market value every two years no matter what, just in case.

Michael D Not Higgins

The RTA is worded to say the period is between rent reviews not between changes in the rent. My reading is you cannot give notice of rent change until the two years have elapsed.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The RTA is worded to say the period is between rent reviews not between changes in the rent. My reading is you cannot give notice of rent change until the two years have elapsed.

So if the rent as "reviewed" 3 months before the change in rent, are you saying that the new "review" comes two years after that date ie 3 months before the last increase comes into effect?

It's either one or the other, two years from when notice issued or two years from when the increase comes into effect. As the "review" can occur anytime longer than the 90 days minimum notice period, does that mean if the review was 6 months before it comes into effect, you take that date as the starting date for the 2 yr period.

Op, you can increase rent no sooner that 2 years after the last increase, if you chose to inform your tenants 6 months before that date, it's up to you as long as it is more than 90 days. The new increased rate can come into effect 2 years after the last increase, how far in advance you give the notice is your call, as long as it exceeds 90 days.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

So if the rent as "reviewed" 3 months before the change in rent, are you saying that the new "review" comes two years after that date ie 3 months before the last increase comes into effect?

It's either one or the other, two years from when notice issued or two years from when the increase comes into effect. As the "review" can occur anytime longer than the 90 days minimum notice period, does that mean if the review was 6 months before it comes into effect, you take that date as the starting date for the 2 yr period.

Op, you can increase rent no sooner that 2 years after the last increase, if you chose to inform your tenants 6 months before that date, it's up to you as long as it is more than 90 days. The new increased rate can come into effect 2 years after the last increase, how far in advance you give the notice is your call, as long as it exceeds 90 days.

According to the RTA, the rent review cannot occur within the first 24 months of a new tenancy. Notice of the new rent is the review, so it cannot happen until the two years have elapsed, then new rent comes in 90 days later. Subsequent reviews can happen 2 years after the last review (i.e. notice) and rent changes two years after last change (i.e. 90 days after notice). This is how the law is worded.

intheclouds

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

According to the RTA, the rent review cannot occur within the first 24 months of a new tenancy. Notice of the new rent is the review, so it cannot happen until the two years have elapsed, then new rent comes in 90 days later. Subsequent reviews can happen 2 years after the last review (i.e. notice) and rent changes two years after last change (i.e. 90 days after notice). This is how the law is worded.

I agree. This is my understanding of it also.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

According to the RTA, the rent review cannot occur within the first 24 months of a new tenancy. Notice of the new rent is the review, so it cannot happen until the two years have elapsed, then new rent comes in 90 days later. Subsequent reviews can happen 2 years after the last review (i.e. notice) and rent changes two years after last change (i.e. 90 days after notice). This is how the law is worded.

Sorry, ya, we are saying the same thing (I think, the RTA wording is ambiguous) the rent can change on the same date every two years, the review can begin on the same date every 2 years (the date the notice was served), the fact that the 90 day notice rule came in less than 2 years ago making it difficult to be sure.

But what I am convinced of, is that the new date for the higher rental rate to be paid is not two years plus 90 days since the first day on which the last increase began to be paid. There is no reference nor clarification in the Act that the first date the tenant begins to pay the new rate must be no earlier than two years plus 90 days since the first day of the last increase, it says two years.

From PRTB website:

Change: A Landlord (or Receiver) can only seek a review of the rent once in any 24 month period and cannot increase within 24 months of the commencement of the tenancy.

(This does not say 24 months plus 90 days between increases, it does say the LL has to give 3 months notice of increase)

Michael D Not Higgins

The first increase must be at least 2 years and 90 days since the review cannot happen until the first 24 months of a tenancy have elapsed. After that the next review is two years later and the new rent will be two years after the old rent (rather than 2+90 like the first time around). Hope that clears it up.

Edit: as an example, say you start a tenancy 1st January 2015. Two years later on 1st January 2017, the landlord can review the rent and send notice of the new rent to be paid 90 days later on 1st April 2017. The next rent review can happen 2 years after the last one on 1st January 2019 with new rent to be paid 1st April 2019.

_kookie

Ah, I see many share the same confusion as myself

I have taken the view that this is the first review. There have been no reviews at all, just the initial rent being set, so its one review in two years. As long as I only increase the rent after two years, then i thin im safe as long as i give them notice of it 90 days before the increase.

Im happy for them to challenge it if they want. I can twist those words even more ways than they even can im pretty sure.
Sure look how many interpretations of the one sentence even in just this thread.

Michael D Not Higgins

_kookie wrote: »

Ah, I see many share the same confusion as myself

I have taken the view that this is the first review. There have been no reviews at all, just the initial rent being set, so its one review in two years. As long as I only increase the rent after two years, then i thin im safe as long as i give them notice of it 90 days before the increase.

Im happy for them to challenge it if they want. I can twist those words even more ways than they even can im pretty sure.
Sure look how many interpretations of the one sentence even in just this thread.

That's not how the law is worded. It says the first review cannot take place within the first 24 months of the tenancy.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Edit: as an example, say you start a tenancy 1st January 2015. Two years later on 1st January 2017, the landlord can review the rent and send notice of the new rent to be paid 90 days later on 1st April 2017. The next rent review can happen 2 years after the last one on 1st January 2019 with new rent to be paid 1st April 2019.

Sorry, no, the increase can come into effect 24 months after the last one. The quote above from the PRTB website says rent can increase after 24 months so 1st of January in your example. The increase is the review, the 90 days is just the notice of that increase/review. It does not say anywhere on the website that I can see that the notice cannot be issued until the 24 months has elapsed, if you can find that, I'd appreciate you pointing it out because I'm not 100% myself about this, I thought it was a case that rent could be increased after 2 years, not 2 years and 90 days, maybe it does say that somewhere, I just can't find it.

Ms Doubtfire1

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

lol or in simple words: You letter needs to be issued in the first week of February, not earlier. Alos, one of the other things you need to include is properties of a similar value who are being let in the area and their rental amount in the LAST V$ WEEKS. so you can't really send the letter now as that data would be moot. Further more, rent may fluctuate yet again in the next few months and increasing it now might be shooting in your own foot.

There is no obligation to send this data, its up to the tenant to dispute the increase first before proof is required and even then its possible no place as recently gone up for rent so it might not be possible to get this info but that can't prevent the LL rising the rent if the market rent is much higher now than two years ago.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

According to the RTA, the rent review cannot occur within the first 24 months of a new tenancy. Notice of the new rent is the review, so it cannot happen until the two years have elapsed, then new rent comes in 90 days later. Subsequent reviews can happen 2 years after the last review (i.e. notice) and rent changes two years after last change (i.e. 90 days after notice). This is how the law is worded.

I can't see how this is the case, the review imo is the change in rent. The notice is notifying the tenant that their rent will be reviewed i.e. changed. LLs cant be expected to wait 2 years and 3 months before they can up the rent. I can't see any rule preventing the notice being given 3 months in advance of the two year anniversary and then the rent increases on the day the tenancy is 2 years old. That's how I see it and how I would proceed.

Even if it was this way all the LL has to say is he reviewed the rent 3 months in advance the last time too.

intheclouds

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Notice of the new rent is the review

davo10 wrote: »

The increase is the review

My understand is that the notice is the review. The increase is the increase.

Michael D Not Higgins

Callan Ambitious Boot wrote: »

There is no obligation to send this data, its up to the tenant to dispute the increase first before proof is required and even then its possible no place as recently gone up for rent so it might not be possible to get this info but that can't prevent the LL rising the rent if the market rent is much higher now than two years ago.

Since the 2015 amendment to RTA 2004, they do have to provide 3 comparable properties to establish market rent at the time of review.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Since the 2015 amendment to RTA 2004, they do have to provide 3 comparable properties to establish market rent at the time of review.

Only if challenged though I would imagine and what if there isn't 3 as everywhere in the area is let.

Michael D Not Higgins

intheclouds wrote: »

My understand is that the notice is the review. The increase is the increase.

This is the bit that people are arguing but I would say the notice is the review since that would be the meaning in the common meaning of the word review.

Review: "a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary."

Thus you review the rent at the two year mark, set the new level and notify the tenant of their 90 days until the new rent.

Edit: To bolster this, clause 22 of RTA says:

(1) The setting of a rent (the “new rent”) pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy of a dwelling and which is otherwise lawful under this Part shall not have effect unless and until the condition specified in subsection (2) is satisfied.

(2) That condition is that, at least 28 days before the date from which the new rent is to have effect, a notice in writing is served by the landlord on the tenant stating the amount of the new rent and the date from which it is to have effect.

The 28 days in (2) has been amended to 90 days.

Michael D Not Higgins

Callan Ambitious Boot wrote: »

Only if challenged though I would imagine and what if there isn't 3 as everywhere in the area is let.

It is not a legal notice of new rent without it. The law specifies similar size, type, character and comparable area. If there aren't 3 in the area you'd have to find a comparable area.

(c) include a statement by the landlord that in his or her opinion the
new rent is not greater than the market rent, having regard to—
(i) the other terms of the tenancy, and
(ii) letting values of dwellings—
(I) of a similar size, type and character to the dwelling that is
the subject of the tenancy, and
(II) situated in a comparable area to that in which the dwelling
the subject of the tenancy concerned is situated,

(d) specify, for the purposes of paragraph (d), and without prejudice to
the generality of that paragraph, the amount of rent sought for 3
dwellings—
(i) of a similar size, type and character to the dwelling that is the
subject of the tenancy, and
(ii) situated in a comparable area to that in which the dwelling the
subject of the tenancy concerned is situated,

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is the bit that people are arguing but I would say the notice is the review since that would be the meaning in the common meaning of the word review.

Review: "a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary."

I'm not so sure, I'd take the term review to also mean change. If you have your salary reviewed to me that means it been changed, if the price of something in a shop has been reviewed that would mean its changed already etc.

The wording is no doubt poor but if challenged I struggle to see the justification of not being able to change the rent for 2 years and 3 months, imo there is no justification for preventing notice being given 3 months in advance of the 2 years since the last rent change.

Essentially its notice that a review will occur that you are giving.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It is not a legal notice of new rent without it. The law specifies similar size, type, character and comparable area. If there aren't 3 in the area you'd have to find a comparable area.

Fair enough, I hadn't see this mentioned before. I had assumed the proof of similar properties was only something that had to be produced if the increase was challenged.

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

My understand is that the notice is the review. The increase is the increase.

You could be right, but notice is clearly defined in terms of how it must be presented to the tenant, surely the Act would have outlined that notice can only be given after 2 years if that was the case? Instead it says that the rent can be increased after 24 months. I am not aware of any other part of the RTA where "review" has the same meaning and effect as "notice" but again I could be wrong.

Michael D Not Higgins

Callan Ambitious Boot wrote: »

I'm not so sure, I'd take the term review to also mean change. If you have your salary reviewed to me that means it been changed, if the price of something in a shop has been reviewed that would mean its changed already etc.

The wording is no doubt poor but if challenged I struggle to see the justification of not being able to change the rent for 2 years and 3 months, imo there is no justification for preventing notice being given 3 months in advance of the 2 years since the last rent change.

Essentially its notice that a review will occur that you are giving.



Fair enough, I hadn't see this mentioned before. I had assumed the proof of similar properties was only something that had to be produced if the increase was challenged.

davo10 wrote: »

You could be right, but notice is clearly defined in terms of how it must be presented to the tenant, surely the Act would have outlined that notice can only be given after 2 years if that was the case? Instead it says that the rent can be increased after 24 months. I am not aware of any other part of the RTA where "review" has the same meaning and effect as "notice" but again I could be wrong.

As I quoted from the text of the RTA above, the review is the thing that happens before the setting of a new rent. You must notify your tenant of the new rent in writing with 90 days notice of this new rent. Thus the review is what the landlord does just prior to deciding the new rent and sending notice.

Other interpretation have been presented but the wording is very clear in the law.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is the bit that people are arguing but I would say the notice is the review since that would be the meaning in the common meaning of the word review.

Review: "a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary."

Thus you review the rent at the two year mark, set the new level and notify the tenant of their 90 days until the new rent.

Edit: To bolster this, clause 22 of RTA says:


The 28 days in (2) has been amended to 90 days.

I'm sorry again to disagree with you but in the quotes you have above, review would seem to be a consideration and notice a confirmation of that consideration. Again, the PRTB says that rent can increase after 24 months, the review a consideration of that increase, the notice gives it effect so can be sent 90 days before the reviewed increased is allowed to commence.

This seems to come down to interpretation, maybe op should query it with the PRTB, I don't know if there is a function on their website to ask for clarification, then perhaps post the answer on here.

It would be great if like other sections on boards if there was an employee of the PRTB who could answer queries and give definitive answers to questions like this.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

I'm sorry again to disagree with you but in the quotes you have above, review would seem to be a consideration and notice a confirmation of that consideration. Again, the PRTB says that rent can increase after 24 months, the review a consideration of that increase, the notice gives it effect so can be sent 90 days before the reviewed increased is allowed to commence.

Just as the rules of the road are not the law, nor is the RTB publication the law. The law is written in a way to be unambiguous. An explanation document to put it in plain English is much easier to twist the meaning of.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Just as the rules of the road are not the law, nor is the RTB publication the law. The law is written in a way to be unambiguous. An explanation document to put it in plain English is much easier to twist the meaning of.

So this is unambiguous in your view? Point to the part of the Act which states rent can only increase 2 years and 90 days after the last increase, that will clear this up sharpish.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

So this is unambiguous in your view?

If you read the law and not the guidance from the RTB it is. The law says you cannot do a rent review within the first 24 months of the tenancy. Next it says the setting of a new rent follows a review and can only take effect after notice of 90 days has been issued to the tenant in writing (with information on the 3 comparable properties to establish market rent).

That very clearly describes a process of 2 years after the start of the tenancy where a review takes place followed by 90 days notice. You cannot review the rent within those 24 months therefore you cannot issue notice before 24 months.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Point to the part of the Act which states rent can only increase 2 years and 90 days after the last increase, that will clear this up sharpish.

That's not what the Act says. On the second review it can be 24 months after the first review and following the same 90 days notice will take effect exactly 24 months after the rent was previously increased.

Sarn

If the legislation is followed exactly it becomes more complicated where the last review occurred 28 days before the rent change and now 90 days must be given.

_kookie

davo10 wrote: »

maybe op should query it with the PRTB

Have you ever tried it. I dont think there is anyone there

I'd ask no one to be honest and just issue notice of a rent increase 3 months in advance of the two year anniversary of the tenancy, the tenants will almost certainly just accept it or else only query the amount of the increase. Even if they read the rules in detail I would imagine they will interpret it the same as most people as meaning that the rent can be upped the date the tenancy is 2 years old or 2 years since the last review and not get into these complex interpretations of the meaning of the word review.