Landlords, what have you decided to do about the new amendments?

mrslancaster

GGTrek wrote: »

With new tenancies you are free to put a clause where the tenant pays management fees or any kind of other legitimate charges (services that lanldord provides that were previously included in rent like small repairs, key copies, refuse collection, letting fees, ...), but with the current tenancies you cannot do this. Considering that with the new regulations in my opinion you cannot terminate anymore after 4 years without cause, you are basically stuck.

I thought I read somewhere on here that LL is not obliged to renew / grant a further part4 tenancy to an existing tenant? LL just has to give required notice & it does not have to be one of the particular causes, he just prefers not to do it so it is OK provided LL gives notice in enough time before the end of the current part4.
is my understanding correct?

jamesthepeach

mrslancaster wrote: »

I thought I read somewhere on here that LL is not obliged to renew / grant a further part4 tenancy to an existing tenant? LL just has to give required notice & it does not have to be one of the particular causes, he just prefers not to do it so it is OK provided LL gives notice in enough time before the end of the current part4.
is my understanding correct?

This is correct.

jamesthepeach

size5 wrote: »

I just sold my BTL in Dublin 8 why?--unfavourable regulation towards landlords BUT more importantly the market price. Apartment sold and deal done in 12 weeks. My tenants(whom were excellent) have had to move towards Lucan.

Where I live in the past 3 months a number of rented houses have gone on the market(these are family homes), and they have gone sale agreed very quickly. Again this is landlords getting out on the market putting more pressure existing rental market.

I think I might sell too. Apartment prices in Dublin are definitely increasing at pace at the moment. I might sell one and keep the other for myself for now and then do airbnb after I move out again. I didn't really want to sell but the new rules are not going to work for me and allow me to make a profit amd.aontain control over my own properties.

Lux23

The more landlords that do that - the more houses there will be for sale and that may increase supply.

Graham

Lux23 wrote: »

The more landlords that do that - the more houses there will be for sale and that may increase supply.

Increase supply of what?

Generally moving something from one owner to another doesn't increase anything other than the fees generated by the people organising the shuffling.

Baby01032012

Lux23 wrote: »

The more landlords that do that - the more houses there will be for sale and that may increase supply.

It increase supply for home owners but generally decreases  the volume of housing availability for renting.

The_Conductor

Baby01032012 wrote: »

It increase supply for home owners but generally decreases  the volume of housing availability for renting.

Volumes on the second hand market have apparently shrank in Dublin and Kildare (looking at newspaper headlines in Dunnes in Maynooth at lunchtime). No reason given for the collapse in supply in second hand properties. Any ideas whats happening?

Baby01032012

No idea...i normally rely on you to have the finger on the pulse....maybe supply has reached its peak,,,need new build supply...i know 50,000 promised but too slow...need more public built...not this public/private partnership...and incentivise older generation to downsize...thinking of my 80 year old next door neighbour on her own in 5 bedroom property..

The_Conductor

Baby01032012 wrote: »

No idea...i normally rely on you to have the finger on the pulse....maybe supply has reached its peak,,,need new build supply...i know 50,000 promised but too slow...need more public built...not this public/private partnership...and incentivise older generation to downsize...thinking of my 80 year old next door neighbour on her own in 5 bedroom property..

I'm not aware of any specific factors in North Kildare/West Dublin- that would cause a significant drop-off in supply- in the manner in which local newspaper headlines are suggesting. Will have a chat with a few people over the weekend.

hytrogen

The_Conductor wrote:

I'm not aware of any specific factors in North Kildare/West Dublin- that would cause a significant drop-off in supply- in the manner in which local newspaper headlines are suggesting. Will have a chat with a few people over the weekend.

Press pushing buyers towards the "vast amount of vacant properties" perhaps?

lcwill

I have increased rents in my properties for the first time in 3 years. I had planned to only increase rent every 4 years but was worried about below market rents affecting property value. Still below market rent though.

I'd say plenty of tenants will be holding tight to their below market rents now so will reduce tenant turnover, probably no good for letting agents who get a lot of their fees from new lettings.

Jayesdiem

I was renting out my place for 25% below market rate but was lucky enough to get all the paperwork signed off three days before the introduction of the new legislation. It has been a lifesaver for me though I have heard that Coveney has at least acknowledged the stupidity of the rule in that generous landlords were the most harshly penalised. I was almost one of them.

jamesthepeach

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I was renting out my place for 25% below market rate but was lucky enough to get all the paperwork signed off three days before the introduction of the new legislation. It has been a lifesaver for me though I have heard that Coveney has at least acknowledged the stupidity of the rule in that generous landlords were the most harshly penalised. I was almost one of them.

Well God love Coveny. Pity he wouldnt do something about it and allow people to charge market rates and then stick to 4% increases after that.
<mod snip>

You are ok if you are an investor who was already charged market rates and you are ok if you a a renter who doesnt intend leaving where you rent.
But if an investor is forced to sell or end part 4s then renters will have to move and may find they cant find anywhere or where they do find is far more expensive.

Unless they are a dishonest tenant. Sure they could even make a profit and have free rent for a few years.

Ill tell you what though. If I had a property outside a rent pressure zone it would be time to hike u the rent to market rate, even for the best tenants, <mod snip>

The landlord where im renting was effected and is ending my part 4 to do short term lets instead. Hes getting out. Ive had to ask a tenant in one of my rentals to move too because I have to move back there as I wont get anywhere else that suits for the moment. Its really not ideal at all. Im thinking very hard about selling one of mine. im definitely going to do short term lets instead when they are ready to let again.

Jayesdiem

I can't sustain the instability of short term rents. I need the mortgage in my lenders account every month.

4ensic15

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I can't sustain the instability of short term rents. I need the mortgage in my lenders account every month.

If you have a defaulting long term tenant you may have no rent for months or even years.

jamesthepeach

4ensic15 wrote: »

If you have a defaulting long term tenant you may have no rent for months or even years.

That's the biggest worry.
And then when you get them out after two years you can only raise the rent 4% above what your tenant wasn't paying. How could you ever make it back. It's like you are permanently condemned to a loss, unless you can make short term rental work for you instead. Then at least you control the sweet spot between rent amount and days of letting.
So to answer the question in the op, it Itooks like there are other two ways out of this trap to me. Short term renting or selling.

I have a lot to think about.

rossmores

mrslancaster wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

With new tenancies you are free to put a clause where the tenant pays management fees or any kind of other legitimate charges (services that lanldord provides that were previously included in rent like small repairs, key copies, refuse collection, letting fees, ...), but with the current tenancies you cannot do this. Considering that with the new regulations in my opinion you cannot terminate anymore after 4 years without cause, you are basically stuck.

I thought I read somewhere on here that LL is not obliged to renew / grant a further part4 tenancy to an existing tenant? LL just has to give required notice & it does not have to be one of the particular causes, he just prefers not to do it so it is OK provided LL gives notice in enough time before the end of the current part4.
is my understanding correct?

[justify]Where a Part 4 tenancy is in place, regardless of the expiry of a fixed term lease, the tenancy may only be terminated by the landlord pursuant to Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act (as amended) for the below listed reasons: [/justify]
[justify]1.       The tenant has failed to comply with the obligations of the tenancy (having first been notified, in writing, of the failure, and given an opportunity to remedy it.)[/justify]
[justify]2.       The landlord intends to sell the dwelling within the next 3 months[/justify]
[justify]3.       The dwelling is no longer suited to the needs of the occupying household [/justify]
[justify]4.       The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation (not applicable to Approved Housing Bodies)[/justify]
[justify]5.       Vacant possession is required for substantial refurbishment of the dwelling[/justify]
[justify]6.       The landlord intends to change the use of the dwelling[/justify]
Currently in the process of ending all Part4's as they come to end making it six years, rent capping and double notice periods this type of letting contract does not suit me any more staying in the business but only short time lets

mrslancaster

This was the information I read - the section towards the end about Preventing a further Part 4 tenancy.


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


part 4 tenancies run in either 4 year or 6 year cycles depending on when they started. if a 4 year cycle started in May 2015 then according to above it looks like a further part 4 can be prevented if correct notice + days is given before the original 4years ends

I'm a bit confused tbh...

GGTrek

mrslancaster wrote: »

This was the information I read - the section towards the end about Preventing a further Part 4 tenancy.


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


part 4 tenancies run in either 4 year or 6 year cycles depending on when they started. if a 4 year cycle started in May 2015 then according to above it looks like a further part 4 can be prevented if correct notice + days is given before the original 4years ends

I'm a bit confused tbh...

You are perfectly right that a tenancy can indeed be terminated before a further part 4 tenancy starts. The reason does not need to be one of the reasons stated in section 34. A sample termination notice from RTB:
https://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/sample-notice---terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences-16-01-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I got legal advice and tested notice with identical reason to the one above at RTB adjudication and sucessfully got determination order evicting real smart ass tenant. In January I had serious doubt about section 34(b) notices since I could not find any case law except for the Dunivya case and there was no sample notice there. So I went to the solicitors that dealt with the case and got the reason that matched almost identically the reason in the link above: landlord is not willing to grant a new part 4 tenancy.

Crazy socialists almost removed this section in January with the abstention of Fianna Fail. So I am making great use of it to terminate all my tenancies before the Coveney or socialists come out with other brilliant ideas. I am not willing to grant to anyone the right to stay in my property for six years unless the Irish govvie introduces proper legislation that penalizes tenants that leave in the middle of their leases, removes reassignment and provides effective tools to remove within 8 weeks non-paying or anti-social tenants and removes rent controls for new leases.

The RTA has become a tenants charter and it is better to be avoided.

mrslancaster

thanks a lot ggtrek for that info..!

e.r

I have been following this thread for the most part, so forgive me if this has been asked already.

Is there anyway to raise the rent but NOT raise the rent, let me explain.

My tenants are fine and paying on time every month, the rent is approx 10% below the market rate. But I'm happy for this to continue.

Is there anyway to issue the maximum 4% increase ( all above board time lease started etc) but not get the increase of the tenant.

Reasons are so when this tenant moves on, I'm not stuck with the last rent amount, and can bring it closer to market rate, if this makes sense.

Thanks

jamesthepeach

e.r wrote: »

I have been following this thread for the most part, so forgive me if this has been asked already.

Is there anyway to raise the rent but NOT raise the rent, let me explain.

My tenants are fine and paying on time every month, the rent is approx 10% below the market rate. But I'm happy for this to continue.

Is there anyway to issue the maximum 4% increase ( all above board time lease started etc) but not get the increase of the tenant.

Reasons are so when this tenant moves on, I'm not stuck with the last rent amount, and can bring it closer to market rate, if this makes sense.

Thanks

From my research there are several ways of doing what you ask when the tenant changes, but not before.

On the phone now though, but If I get time over the weekend I will list them, if they haven't been listed already by then.

Pkiernan

e.r wrote: »

I have been following this thread for the most part, so forgive me if this has been asked already.

Is there anyway to raise the rent but NOT raise the rent, let me explain.

My tenants are fine and paying on time every month, the rent is approx 10% below the market rate. But I'm happy for this to continue.

Is there anyway to issue the maximum 4% increase ( all above board time lease started etc) but not get the increase of the tenant.

Reasons are so when this tenant moves on, I'm not stuck with the last rent amount, and can bring it closer to market rate, if this makes sense.

Thanks

For a new tenancy you can backdate the 4% annually since the rent was lat raised. So no need for fake increases.
Use the RTB calculator for NEW tenancies.

mrslancaster

I wanted to ask LL's opinions on deposits so apologies if it's in the wrong place

years ago when i was a student & rented in dublin the deposit was one months rent & the notice period was 28 days either side

if everything was OK with normal wear and tear, tenant moved out as agreed and did not have rent arrears etc it was straightforward process and tenant got their deposit back.

now it seems there are so many rules LL's have to follow if they need to terminate a tenancy, why is the deposit still only one month?

if there's arrears there's 14 days notice then another 28 days so that alone would suggest a deposit of 6 weeks and that would not take any account of any damage etc

IMO a deposit should be minimum two months with more if there are other risks such as pets

would love to hear other opinions,

The_Conductor

mrslancaster wrote: »

IMO a deposit should be minimum two months with more if there are other risks such as pets

I agree with you- a one month deposit- in the current regulatory environment- quite simply does not reflect any measure of the risk associated for a landlord with letting a residential property.

The law, and the regulatory environment- are stacked in favour of tenants.

Personally- I think the landlord in Christchurch in Dublin (see elsewhere in this forum) who is seeking a 12 month deposit at 1600 a month, a 6 month deposit at 1950 a month or a 3 month deposit at 2,200 a month- has the right idea. I.e. a staggered rent- commensurate to the level of deposit- giving a reasonable discount for a larger deposit- up to an entire year- is the way to go.

gordongekko

The_Conductor wrote: »

Personally- I think the landlord in Christchurch in Dublin (see elsewhere in this forum) who is seeking a 12 month deposit at 1600 a month, a 6 month deposit at 1950 a month or a 3 month deposit at 2,200 a month- has the right idea.

Could you link me to that thread. I dont seem to be able to find it

wordofwarning

mrslancaster wrote: »

IMO a deposit should be minimum two months with more if there are other risks such as pets

would love to hear other opinions,

The norm in places like NYC is you check a tenant credit. Credit checking is generally amazing in the US. Your phone company, bank, credit card, even gas and electric bills are reported to a credit rating agency. So a landlord can see how good you are at paying your bills. A credit worthy tenant pays a 3 month deposit and a tenant with bad credit pays 6 months deposit. I had a friend who moved to California and could not rent easily as he had no credit rating.

The problem is most tenants and TDs are certain the landlord will pocket deposits. Every year Student Unions tell students about a 'friends of friends second cousin' who lost a deposit to a landlord once and students should be aware that landlords like to pocket deposits.

Yet the RTB keeps stats on deposit disputes and 99.7% of tenancies end without a complaint over a deposit. Out of those 0.3% of cases of an 'unfairly withheld deposit' that was referred to them. Landlords in 20% of the cases were right to withhold the deposit, in 40/45% of the cases, the landlord was partially right to withhold the deposit and only 35/40% of deposits were unfairly withheld.

But there is a belief we need to set up costly deposit protection scheme to protect 0.15% of tenants losing a deposit somewhat unfairly. I think credit unions or banks should offer landlords, escrow accounts for deposits. The financial institutions get cheap/free deposits, tenants get protection for deposits that they won't lose in the first place and landlords get a decent deposit.

The problem is most tenants here seem to live month to month. So there is no way a low income tenant will be able to fork out 6 months deposit

Samuel T. Cogley

So glad I'm not the only person in the Universe that see's the massive number and scopes of the benefits from a credit referencing system!

To be fair on deposits - escrow could be used at fairly minimal cost if it was more common.

ED E

wordofwarning wrote: »

Every year Student Unions tell students about a 'friends of friends second cousin' who lost a deposit to a landlord once and students should be aware that landlords like to pocket deposits.

Yet the RTB keeps stats on deposit disputes and 99.7% of tenancies end without a complaint over a deposit. Out of those 0.3% of cases of an 'unfairly withheld deposit' that was referred to them. Landlords in 20% of the cases were right to withhold the deposit, in 40/45% of the cases, the landlord was partially right to withhold the deposit and only 35/40% of deposits were unfairly withheld.

Reporting bias big time there. Students, mostly renting rooms not full places, on shorter terms are the least likely be by far to go to the RTB.

Samuel T. Cogley

ED E wrote: »

Reporting bias big time there. Students, mostly renting rooms not full places, on shorter terms are the least likely be by far to go to the RTB.

Rent a room is outside of the remit of the RTB but even the ones who are (landlord not living there) students have no excuse, and college worth it's salt will have a FLAC or simialr society for advice. Even if that account for 10-20% of deposits not returned - and let's be honest here they're also the group most likely to have deposits witheld with cause - it's still the vast majority of deposits being returned.