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

Rent Review and Notice

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    It would be challenged in front of the RTB and they'd side with their own advice and the legislation as written. If it went to court on a point of law then it could go through more thorough scrutiny but no one is likely to do that for the sake of a couple of months difference in the notice. Please provide your own interpretation of the law as written so I can refute it.

    The intention of the rule was to stop the rent being increased more often than once every 24 months. Commonsense would dictate that review = increase as otherwise the rule is wrong and it should state rent can only be increased after 27 months.

    The wording is terrible as using the term review = notice is completely against the spirit of what was supposed to happen with the rule. It's either been badly written by people not understanding English or on purpose in order to get people to interpret it the way the RTB are thus sneakily giving an extra 3 months before rent can be increased.

    What is needed is a clear statement from the people who wrote the rule stating its intention as this will clear up all interpretations.


  • Options
    #33
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Erika Massive Wood wrote: »
    What is needed is a clear statement from the people who wrote the rule stating its intention as this will clear up all interpretations.

    Unfortunately, the intention is irrelevant if something else was enacted into legislation


  • Options
    #34
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #35
    Colking
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭Colking


    Erika Massive Wood wrote: »
    The intention of the rule was to stop the rent being increased more often than once every 24 months. Commonsense would dictate that review = increase as otherwise the rule is wrong and it should state rent can only be increased after 27 months.

    The wording is terrible as using the term review = notice is completely against the spirit of what was supposed to happen with the rule. It's either been badly written by people not understanding English or on purpose in order to get people to interpret it the way the RTB are thus sneakily giving an extra 3 months before rent can be increased.

    What is needed is a clear statement from the people who wrote the rule stating its intention as this will clear up all interpretations.

    True, but the RTB have given very clear examples and as Michael D says they'd be the ones it would be appealed to and would invariable be upheld. I think they've covered just about every possible scenario below :

    1. A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review indicating that the change will take effect from the 1st April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days Notice prior to the change taking effect.

    2. A landlord has reviewed the rent of a dwelling on 3 December 2015 (prior to the commencement of the new legislative changes), and served a 28 day notice that the rent was to increase on 1 January 2016. The next rent review notice can not issue until 3 December 2017 and would additionally have to provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking effect, which would be 4 March 2018.

    3. Deirdre and Anthony, a young couple with two children, renting a 3 bed house in Dublin, signed a lease in April 2014, at a rate of €1,200 per month. The landlord may increase the rent every 12 months, so in April 2015, the landlord increased the rent to €1,300 per month. Deirdre and Anthony are worried that the landlord will increase the rent again in April 2016. The landlord had planned on increasing the rent to €1,400 per month. With this change, the landlord cannot increase the rent until April 2017. Deirdre and Anthony's rent is frozen for 2016 at €1,300.

    4. Rachel, a lone parent with one child renting a 2 bed apartment in Galway, signed a lease in December 2014, at a rate of €800 per month. Rachel is worried that the landlord will increase their rent in December 2015. The landlord planned on increasing the rent to €875 per month but, with the enactment of these measures, cannot increase the rent until December 2016. The rent is frozen until December 2016.

    5. Michael and Stephen, a couple renting a 2 bed house in Cork, signed a lease in March 2015, at a rate of €900 per month. Michael and Stephen were worried that their landlord would increase the rent in March 2016 to €1,000 per month. Now, Michael and Stephen do not need to worry about a rent increase until March 2017.

    6. Larry and Mary, a couple living in Dublin, with their 3 children, rent their 3 bed house for €1,300 per month. Their last rent review was in September 2013. Upon enactment, Larry and Mary's landlord can initiate a rent review at any time, as it is more than two years since their last rent review.


    To get back to the OP's point though. Can the LL legally issue a rent review in advance of 90 days ? It seems that they can as 90 was set as a minimum guideline.

    Will the review still be valid once new legislation comes into place ? No, I don't think so. The LL is transparently attempting to circumvent the enactment of new legislation which will in turn supersede the existing legislation.

    OP I wouldn't be too worried. You have up until the day before the new rent comes into play to dispute anyway.

    Any dispute in relation to the setting of a rent pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy must be referred to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 before-

    (i) [insert date from which the new rent is to have effect]
    or
    (ii) the expiry of 28 days from the receipt by you of this notice,
    whichever is the later.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Graham wrote: »
    Unfortunately, the intention is irrelevant if something else was enacted into legislation

    But the meaning of the legislation can be clarified with its not clear which is why I mean. The minister can confirm that it's one way or the other.

    If it's confirm that the notice can be give at 21 months then the RTB's interpretation has to go in the bin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Your argument isn't about common sense, it's about how you feel about it being 27 months the first time around. That's a terrible argument and is not supported by the legislation as written nor the RTB examples.

    Occam's razor doesn't apply since there are no additional assumptions. All of this is verbatim from the law.


  • Options
    #38
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #39
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Stated, but not supported, either with references to the legislation itself nor the examples as provided by the RTB.


  • Options
    #40
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Any opinion that's at odds with the RTB is largely irrelevant anyway unless/until there is somebody with the time/inclination and money to challenge the RTB interpretation.


  • Options
    #41
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Thread split to new thread to allow OP of original thread continue to get advice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    It's in black and white on the RTB website, review instigated on 1 Jan 2016 and rent goes up in April 2016. Next review on 1 Jan 2018 and rent goes up in April, therefore you can't give notice three months prior to 1 Jan 2018.


  • Options
    #43
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Lux23 wrote: »
    It's in black and white on the RTB website, review instigated on 1 Jan 2016 and rent goes up in April 2016. Next review on 1 Jan 2018 and rent goes up in April, therefore you can't give notice three months prior to 1 Jan 2018.

    The legislation makes the distinction between review and notice of new rent, as well as the RTB examples. I don't see another way to interpret it except by ignoring that evidence.


  • Options
    #44
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,535 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Lux23 wrote: »
    Example:
    A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review
    indicating that the change will take effect from the 1 April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review
    can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking
    effect

    This sounds to me that the rent review can't take place until the two years is up while also providing a further 90 days notice. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

    http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

    Rent review 1 Jan 2016
    Rent increase 1 April 2016

    Rent review 1 Jan 2018
    Rent increase 1 April 2018


    Fairly straightforward


    With regards the first review. The lease started with no review it was just set. So therefore it can be reviewed after 21 months and Increased at 24


  • Options
    #45
    davindub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,447 ✭✭✭davindub


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You should not attempt to interpret the legislation yourself, read case law to get the courts interpretation which is what will be used.


  • Options
    #46
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    ted1 wrote: »
    Rent review 1 Jan 2016
    Rent increase 1 April 2016

    Rent review 1 Jan 2018
    Rent increase 1 April 2018


    Fairly straightforward


    With regards the first review. The lease started with no review it was just set. So therefore it can be reviewed after 21 months and Increased at 24

    You're so close Ted! You accept the rent review is separate from the increase, so then the law says you can't have a review in the first 24 months. Where does 21 months then come from?


  • Options
    #47
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,535 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    You're so close Ted! You accept the rent review is separate from the increase, so then the law says you can't have a review in the first 24 months. Where does 21 months then come from?

    When you move in you don't t have a review. The rent is set. So the first review can happen at 21 months as you have not had a review, which can only be 24 months apart


  • Options
    #48
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    ted1 wrote: »
    When you move in you don't t have a review. The rent is set. So the first review can happen at 21 months as you have not had a review, which can only be 24 months apart

    No, the law says you can't have a review for the first 24 months of a tenancy, so it can't happen at 21 months.


  • Options
    #49
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    No, the law says you can't have a review for the first 24 months of a tenancy, so it can't happen at 21 months.

    It seems that this is a very common argument on boards and only fact seems to be that no one knows for sure. This is the fault of the RTB, surely they must know by now that there is confusion over this type of situation. If their website was clearer and had more examples than the ones they recently put up, both land lords and tenants would know exactly where they stand. I would take it as well that there is no review for a new tenancy but there is a fixed date, the day the rent came into effect. Given that the RTB site clearly says a rent increase can come into effect exactly two years to the day that the last rent increase, then a rent increase can be effected two years to the day after the lease started, with 90 days notice.


  • Options
    #50
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    davo10 wrote: »
    It seems that this is a very common argument on boards and only fact seems to be that no one knows for sure. This is the fault of the RTB, surely they must know by now that there is confusion over this type of situation. If their website was clearer and had more examples than the ones they recently put up, both land lords and tenants would know exactly where they stand. I would take it as well that there is no review for a new tenancy but there is a fixed date, the day the rent came into effect. Given that the RTB site clearly says a rent increase can come into effect exactly two years to the day that the last rent increase, then a rent increase can be effected two years to the day after the lease started, with 90 days notice.

    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.


  • Options
    #51
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,535 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    No, the law says you can't have a review for the first 24 months of a tenancy, so it can't happen at 21 months.


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,867 ✭✭✭✭_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?!


  • Options
    #53
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #54
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #55
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #56
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #57
    tradingwizz
    Registered Users Posts: 41 ✭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.


  • Options
    #58
    April 73
    Registered Users Posts: 846 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #59
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,535 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #60
    tradingwizz
    Registered Users Posts: 41 ✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭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


Advertisement