Rent Review and Notice

_Kaiser_

So, let's sum up..

Moved in April 2015.

(a) Does the rent review take place in January 2017, or April 2017?
(b) Does a rent increase take effect from April 2017 if the former, or July 2017 if the latter?

Common sense would seem to be the first scenario, but the legislation suggests the second?

Why can't we do anything right in this country?!

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But it doesn't clearly say this. Example 2 shows 24 months between reviews but 26 months between rent increases.

I agree the examples and use of review and notice of review, etc. are extremely confusing and why we are having this discussion but from interrogating the examples, it can be seen that there are two stages, the review and the rent change. The review takes place first which identifies the new rent, a notice is then sent with the 90 day notice period to let the tenant know the new rent.

True, even more confusing, the second example seems to partly contradict the first due to the change in notice periods required. You would think there would be someone in the RTB who would sit down and consider these different scenarios and clarify the situation. I was informed on a different thread that an invalid review is still a review and can't be reissued for another two years, landlords and tenants are at odds because of a lack of clear direction by the RTB.

Michael D Not Higgins

ted1 wrote: »

No it says "once every 24 months". At month 21 it will have never been reviewed so it can be reviewed, there after it'll be every 24 months.

Additional to that is another clause in the RTA which prevents a review in the first 24 months.

Edit: if your interpretation were true, the rent could be reviewed at the first month since there hadn't been a review yet.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

True, even more confusing, the second example seems to partly contradict the first due to the change in notice periods required. You would think there would be someone in the RTB who would sit down and consider these different scenarios and clarify the situation. I was informed on a different thread that an invalid review is still a review and can't be reissued for another two years, landlords and tenants are at odds because of a lack of clear direction by the RTB.

There isn't a contradiction if you accept the review and the change in rent as separate items. The review is what is spaced out by 24 months, the change in rent happens after the review with whatever the prevailing notice period is at the time.

Michael D Not Higgins

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So, let's sum up..

Moved in April 2015.

(a) Does the rent review take place in January 2017, or April 2017?
(b) Does a rent increase take effect from April 2017 if the former, or July 2017 if the latter?

Common sense would seem to be the first scenario, but the legislation suggests the second?

Why can't we do anything right in this country?!

The review can take place in April 2017, as this is 24 months after the start of the tenancy.

If an increase is determined at the review, it must be notified to the tenant with the appropriate notice, i.e. 90 days. This will come in in July 2017 which is 90 days after the review in April.

tradingwizz

I don't understand why there is so much confusion here The RTB have absolutely determined that there is a minimum 2 years gap from rent review to rent review. This is key. Now that the review period is 90 days instead of 28 days, it means now you have to add another 2 months before implementing the rental rise compared to previously.

So if the first rent review was say 1st January 2015, then the review can be served on the tenant on 1st January 2017. There is then a further 90 days from the review date to when the rent is increased.

I'm adding this edit: The RTB say that if the First Rental is say from 1st January 2015, then the first rental increase can be from 1st January 2017. In this unique case, it means the rent review must be sent at least 90 days prior to 1st January 2017.

April 73

The whole thing is just a big ball of confusion.
As an example:

Tenancy commenced August 2012.

First tent review issued on 05.11.14. Rent increased on 01.01.15 (longer notice than the 28 days required then)

I interpreted this as no rent review until at least 06.11.16 with 90 days notice added.

I gave a rent review to my tenant yesterday (yes I'm a bad landlord trying to get my increase in before the new legislation) with the increase due to start on April 1st 2017.

I have no idea if I am right or wrong within the legislation. The RTB gives quite contradictory examples.

ted1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Additional to that is another clause in the RTA which prevents a review in the first 24 months.

Edit: if your interpretation were true, the rent could be reviewed at the first month since there hadn't been a review yet.

It could but only increased at 24 months

tradingwizz

April 73 wrote: »

I gave a rent review to my tenant yesterday (yes I'm a bad landlord trying to get my increase in before the new legislation) with the increase due to start on April 1st 2017.

I have no idea if I am right or wrong within the legislation. The RTB gives quite contradictory examples.

I'm going to do the same. I'm locked into a very low rent and I don't know what to do now. I was sitting out the 2 year rule until this 4% ruling came along. All I'm looking to get is an average rent and I would be happy.

athtrasna

April 73 wrote: »

The whole thing is just a big ball of confusion.
As an example:

Tenancy commenced August 2012.

First tent review issued on 05.11.14. Rent increased on 01.01.15 (longer notice than the 28 days required then)

I interpreted this as no rent review until at least 06.11.16 with 90 days notice added.

I gave a rent review to my tenant yesterday (yes I'm a bad landlord trying to get my increase in before the new legislation) with the increase due to start on April 1st 2017.

I have no idea if I am right or wrong within the legislation. The RTB gives quite contradictory examples.

The risk you're taking by doing that is that if the RTB determine that notice period to be invalid, you're stuck at the current rent for at least another year

April 73

athtrasna wrote: »

The risk you're taking by doing that is that if the RTB determine that notice period to be invalid, you're stuck at the current rent for at least another year

Why would the notice period be invalid though? Isn't it a minimum of 90 days notice which I've complied with? #runs off to check RTB website yet again.

April 73

Now I'm really annoyed at myself. I gave 106 days notice of the increase so that it would tie in with the payment on the 1st of April. I possibly should have let the increase kick in in exactly 90 days instead.

Michael D Not Higgins

tradingwizz wrote: »

I'm adding this edit: The RTB say that if the First Rental is say from 1st January 2015, then the first rental increase can be from 1st January 2017. In this unique case, it means the rent review must be sent at least 90 days prior to 1st January 2017.

Where do they say this?

Michael D Not Higgins

April 73 wrote: »

Now I'm really annoyed at myself. I gave 106 days notice of the increase so that it would tie in with the payment on the 1st of April. I possibly should have let the increase kick in in exactly 90 days instead.

You'll be fine, you've done everything by the book. The Act says "at least" 90 days notice.

Shaungoater

I feel like this new bill is going to come back to bite me. I rented out my house. The going rate was 1150 at the time, I trusted the tenant, they had a small family and work in retail and I didn't want to see them stuck. So i only charged them 1000. The going rate now is more like 1400, so i was going to put it up in april to 1100 if they wanted to stay. But now i can only put it up 48?

pobber1

Shaungoater wrote: »

I feel like this new bill is going to come back to bite me. I rented out my house. The going rate was 1150 at the time, I trusted the tenant, they had a small family and work in retail and I didn't want to see them stuck. So i only charged them 1000. The going rate now is more like 1400, so i was going to put it up in april to 1100 if they wanted to stay. But now i can only put it up 48?

This is is almost precisely my situation except I "own" an apartment. It's currently in €120,000 of negative equity, the new legislation makes it worth less again. Although at €120k of NE what's another 5 of 10k sure? Sigh.

.......

This post has been deleted.

April 73

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You'll be fine, you've done everything by the book. The Act says "at least" 90 days notice.

That's good. Thank you. If the Act says "at least" I should be fine as everything else is by the book.
I've had no response from the tenants so far but I'm not surprised. If I were them is be waiting to see what the new legislation actually says.
I suspect this prospective change has spurred a lot of landlords who had been holding fire on rent rises or charging below market rates, into action.

April 73

Shaungoater wrote: »

I feel like this new bill is going to come back to bite me. I rented out my house. The going rate was 1150 at the time, I trusted the tenant, they had a small family and work in retail and I didn't want to see them stuck. So i only charged them 1000. The going rate now is more like 1400, so i was going to put it up in april to 1100 if they wanted to stay. But now i can only put it up 48?

Worse. You can put it up by maximum of €40 to €1040.
The LL currently charging €1400 can put it up to €1456.
You will always be behind now with no way of catching up to the market rate.
(Assuming that this isn't going to end in three years time)

mrsWhippy

April 73 wrote: »

That's good. Thank you. If the Act says "at least" I should be fine as everything else is by the book.
I've had no response from the tenants so far but I'm not surprised. If I were them is be waiting to see what the new legislation actually says.
I suspect this prospective change has spurred a lot of landlords who had been holding fire on rent rises or charging below market rates, into action.

My landlord served me 9 months notice! By your reckoning, this should be ok too?

Dont you have to include sample rents from a comparable area that are no more than 90 days old though?

Edited to add, this is so confusing.

So its OK to give 90 days notice of the *actual increase* once the "notice of the intent to increase' was given at least 24 months after the last one?

davindub

So its OK to give 90 days notice of the *actual increase* once the "notice of the intent to increase' was given at least 24 months after the last one?

Forget about rent increases when dealing with this.

The RTB act states rent reviews are to be at least 24 months apart. A rent review is the process of comparing rents of similar properties in the area to establish the market rent. There is no notice period involved in a rent review as the tenant is not actually involved in the process. That's all you need to consider when timing rent reviews. i.e. when you actually go about setting the rent for the next period needs to be 24 months after the last one (including reviews which were invalid). The timing of this review is obviously relevant to LL's in a rising market, more so to a tenant in a falling market as a couple of months either way will affect the market pricing, unless something is changing in the market, which has, only a 4% increase can now be applied.

Ok. So if you have conducted a successful rent review and determined what the market rent is for the area. You need to serve notice if you want to change the rent charged. There are no restrictions on the frequency of changing the rent except it must be preceded by a rent review and be notified with the proper notice, so it is linked to the rent review in that sense, but is not relevant to later rent review processes.

April 73

mrsWhippy wrote: »

My landlord served me 9 months notice! By your reckoning, this should be ok too?

Dont you have to include sample rents from a comparable area that are no more than 90 days old though?

Edited to add, this is so confusing.

So its OK to give 90 days notice of the *actual increase* once the "notice of the intent to increase' was given at least 24 months after the last one?

There is a difference between my situation and yours.
I am legally allowed to issue a rent review and notification of an increase as it is over 24 months since the last rent review (Nov 5th 2014)

In your case the rent last increased in Sept 2015 so assuming your last rent review was sometime in 2015 (90 days before the rent increase in Sept 2015?), your LL cannot issue his rent review until 24 months have passed.

I've commented on your other thread - but your situation & mine are different.

SteoL

Erika Massive Wood wrote: »

The common sense use of review to me would be that it refers to the increase as that's how I would use the term.

My pay being reviewed means my pay has been increased for example. I still think there is misinterpretation happening as it just doesn't make any sense that the rent cant be increased on the 24 month anniversary of the tenancy which would mean giving notice 3 months previously. The wording should have been "rent cannot be changed for 24 months" this would have taken away any confusion.

If it is proven to be true its absolutely idiotic imo as its not 24 months (as stated by the rule) between increases its 27.

In my place we have our pay review in November but our actual pay increase doesn't happen until Jan therefore I think Michael D is correct. I would interpret rent review and increase the same way.

stickysit

I havent reviewed my tenants rent since mid-November 2014, that was effective from January 2015. Can I issue them with 90 days rent increase notice, 3 examples and bring them up to market rent? It has been over 24 months since they got a rent review

April 73

stickysit wrote: »

I havent reviewed my tenants rent since mid-November 2014, that was effective from January 2015. Can I issue them with 90 days rent increase notice, 3 examples and bring them up to market rent? It has been over 24 months since they got a rent review

As of right now I think you can. You can get the correct wording on what you need to include in a rent review from the RTB website.

slynchy1

Can anyone advise me on this one:

- My lease is up for renewal in Feb 2017
- My landlord gave me 90 days notice of rent increase (27% hike) in 2016
- I have not had an increase in the past two years as per prior legislation.

If this new legislation comes in before Feb (i.e. max 4% increase), can my landlord still put up the rent by 27% (to be fair, it is the going rate in the area) or are they now limited to 4%?

Does the fact that my landlord gave me 90 days notice mitigate that?

Thanks to any advice!

April 73

What date was your last rent review and what date was your last rent increase?

slynchy1

Last increase was Feb 2015. (frozen since for two years as per new rules)
Last review would have been before that (Oct/Nov 2014)

I've been in the apt going on 5 years.

Landlord is on the level when it comes to notice periods and documentation etc.

April 73

slynchy1 wrote: »

Last increase was Feb 2015. (frozen since for two years as per new rules)
Last review would have been before that (Oct/Nov 2014)

I've been in the apt going on 5 years.

Landlord is on the level when it comes to notice periods and documentation etc.

As long as it is more than 24 months since the last rent review then your landlord can issue a rent review notice with 90 days notice. That is allowed under the current legislation.

Try & verify when the last rent notice came in. Before Alan Kelly's changes came in it was only 28 days notice for a rent increase. If your rent went up on the 1st of Feb, it's possible that you only received the rent review in Dec 2014 or Jan 2015.

If you can be sure of the rent review date it could be advantageous to you. If it really was Oct/Nov 2014, then the rent review notice just issued is legit.