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

handlemaster

Agents fees and max increase under this new system

76544567

handlemaster wrote: »

Agents fees and max increase under this new system

I cut my agent who was managing the properties out because of this.
He was very understanding. Told me if I wanted him to manage the short term letting via airbnb or whatever that he would do it. Also told me that one option for next lettings is that the rent is set and all agent fees and management fees are paid by the tenant. That will be written up as an agreement between tenant and agent and nothing to do with the landlord in future.

This way I dont have to pay the 10 - 12% agent management fee every month. Nor do I have to pay the 1 month finders fee. The tenant will pay that directly to the agent and sign a contract with them for the ongoing management fee.
I will have nothing to do with that side of it.

Sounds like a good plan, but only good for the next letting. no good for current ones. And thats if I was to keep it as a long term rental. But i doubt I will be. I'll either be selling up or going with some sort of model that doesnt involve the RTB and all this stupid red tape and stifling rules.

syndrome777

brownej wrote: »

This law is being rushed in because of the lack of availability of rental properties and the spiralling prices.
Unfortunately it looks as if some of the landlord here will have "missed the boat" to get "market rate" for their properties.
This whole situation is just going to get messier. The supply is going to be further restricted due to increases in short term lets and air B&Bs.
The landlords that did manage to increase their rent to the max will also be in trouble. One can argue that these rental levels are becoming unaffordable and renters have no choice but to accept the new terms but then not abide by them. This will lead to a deluge of people unable to pay the rent and large amounts of overholding once terminations have been issued. The PRTB had better increase their staffing levels....

on this note, can someone clarify something for me.

My LL is a big company and they advised we will be getting mails with rent reviews tomorrow. It will be way more then 4 % and will be commencing in April.
Do I have any leverage in negotiating lower rent as by my understanding If I don't sign this until April and leave he can only raise the rent for new tenants by 4%?
I live in D8. not a really nice par of it, so not to thrilled of LL raising rent just cuz the market is crazy right now

tuisginideach

Why would you have to sign it/What would you be signing? The LL is telling you of a rent review. There is nothing for you to sign, as far as I know.

Sleeper12

_Brian wrote:

I'd be concerned about charging the redecoration fee up front, a poor tenant may take this as a signal that no care needs to be taken of the decoration currently in place..

I could see tenant not caring at all about ruining the paint work with this approach

tuisginideach wrote:

But surely he can't bring that in retrospectively? That would be absolutely farcical!!!.

They couldn't do something like that could they? <mod snip>

76544567

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I could see tenant not caring at all about ruining the paint work with this approach

That wouldnt matter because they would have paid up front for the redecoration before they even moved in. If they want to destroy the paint then they have to look at it until they move out.

I know of several rental companies who charge this redecoration fee in advance. It is fixed, and paid before you even get the key. Also ther is provision in the contract that should you do damage that comes over and above what you have paid for redecoration, then that comes out of your deposit.

Sleeper12

76544567 wrote:

That wouldnt matter because they would have paid up front for the redecoration before they even moved in. If they want to destroy the paint then they have to look at it until they move out.

I understand that. I thought charging upfront in this thread was a way to get a little more money than the 4% and the hope of not having to decorate afterwards. I must have picked it up wrong

the_syco

myshirt wrote: »

Why game the system? Ethics anyone?

As the saying goes; respect works both ways. If the government tries to screw you over, you try to screw the government over.

Further more, if the landlord does anything stupid, it's often illegal, and they'll get charged for it. If the tenant does anything stupid (decide not to pay rent), they can get away scot free, and not lose money over it.

doopa wrote: »

Why is it a terrible plan? Professionalism and standards will surely increase the level of service provided?

Yes, for large apartment buildings. For smaller properties (houses, etc), I can't see the investment firms renting them out. It's also not a good idea to let to people on RA, as it's not a secure source of income (government has fcuked up in the past, and the landlords don't get the missed rent; LL gets no rent, but no fault of the tenant), so they won't take them on. It's illegal to not letting to RA people because they're on RA, but it's not illegal to not let people on RA for some other reason.

doopa wrote: »

If you still think investing in property in Ireland is feasible then you can join one of these funds? You aren't prevented from investing in property.

They won't be investing in property, They'd have shares in a faceless property firm.

murphaph wrote: »

If small time landlords are edged out you can kiss goodbye to finding rental accommodation outside the cities and large towns.

RA tenants would also find it impossible to get a place to rent.

76544567

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I understand that. I thought charging upfront in this thread was a way to get a little more money than the 4% and the hope of not having to decorate afterwards. I must have picked it up wrong

It's more a method of separating the rent from other costs.

Sleeper12

<mod snip>

There are all sorts of landlords. Some are terrible, cheap and can care less about the tenant. I've seen landlords taking furniture out of skips for their rental property.
There are accidental landlords who might not understand the game and just want out asap. These aren't making any money anyway.
There are also some very good landlords. When something needs repairing the tradesman gets a call that day. Some landlords haven't been charging top rates when they could. To me a good landlord will look at their property and ask themselves would I be happy if my daughter or mother lived here. If the answer is no then its time to spend some money.
If I go to the cyclists forum sometimes the cyclists can sound horrible. Cyclists are perfect and motorists are always the bad guys.
I think you came into this forum at the wrong time. Not all landlords are bad

syndrome777

tuisginideach wrote: »

Why would you have to sign it/What would you be signing? The LL is telling you of a rent review. There is nothing for you to sign, as far as I know.

maybe I said that in a wring way.
In fact what I want to know if I hand in my notice in 2 months, by how much can the LL increase the rent for the new tenants.

This question can also be ask in a way if I was to move in 2 months will I be paying the rent on a property set before I rent it, or can the LL increase to what ever, or only 4%?

Parchment

Can i clarify something? I heard conflicting information regarding this last night.

Situation: LL has two long term tenants in situ - raised the rent (rent review) in Dec 2015. The Tenants will be likely moving out soon - can the LL then raise the rent again for the new tenants (let it at a higher rent) or is he stuck with the rate the last tenants were paying until the two year period passes and he can review the rent again and raise it?

Hope that makes sense and apologies if it has been done to death on the board.

76544567

Parchment wrote: »

Can i clarify something? I heard conflicting information regarding this last night.

Situation: LL has two long term tenants in situ - raised the rent (rent review) in Dec 2015. The Tenants will be likely moving out soon - can the LL then raise the rent again for the new tenants (let it at a higher rent) or is he stuck with the rate the last tenants were paying until the two year period passes and he can review the rent again and raise it?

Hope that makes sense and apologies if it has been done to death on the board.

If it is below market value and he is in a position to go with short term let's instead then he will probably do that. However if he has no other options he will either stick to the lower rent or just sell up. Many people are weighing up their options at this stage. We will know more in the new year about what people have e decided to do.

Parchment

76544567 wrote: »

If it is below market value and he is in a position to go with short term let's instead then he will probably do that. However if he has no other options he will either stick to the lower rent or just sell up. Many people are weighing up their options at this stage. We will know more in the new year about what people have e decided to do.

Thanks for the reply - the apartment is in a high demand area, it will let quickly. Why are longer term lets out of the question - the tenants gaining more rights?

Selling up seems the best route.

76544567

Parchment wrote: »

Thanks for the reply - the apartment is in a high demand area, it will let quickly. Why are longer term lets out of the question - the tenants gaining more rights?

Selling up seems the best route.

If its a high demand area he may very likely have other options, so he can stay away from long term let's.
Longer term let's leave a LL open to the whims of the government. He is in shackles so to speak. And before he gets out of these shackles he will probably slapped with leg irons too in a year or two.
It's just not a good environment for landlords now, especially for those who have been nice with below market rents in the past few years.

Parchment

76544567 wrote: »

If its a high demand area he may very likely have other options, so he can stay away from long term let's.
Longer term let's leave a LL open to the whims of the government. He is in shackles so to speak. And before he gets out of these shackles he will probably slapped with leg irons too in a year or two.
It's just not a good environment for landlords now, especially for those who have been nice with below market rents in the past few years.

I understand - thanks for clearing that up. Its a pity that landlords who terated good tenants well are being penalized now.

I'd expect even more LLs to move towards renting rooms seperately and choosing people unlikely to want to stay longer than 1-4 years such as PhD students, mid-20's young professional etc. This also means the rent for a full house is never really set as such as it's by the room. On the other hand families with kids could be the last choice as they most likely want to settle in an area longer term.

For LLs local to the property/properties they are letting I can also see them retaining a room and making it their business to be in and out of the house regularly thus making the other people there licensees.

As others have said airbnb will also be the choice of LLs in areas with a high footfall of tourists.

Over regulation like this results in people going out of their way to get around things or to stack the cards in their favour (first example above).

_Jamie_

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

Ditto AirBnB. If there is an exodus of landlords to the AirBnB rentals market, that's going to mean less business for everyone. So you have the uncertainty of not really knowing who you are renting to (I know AirBnB allows people to rate guests but it's not a foolproof system, people might not always be on their best behaviour just because they were in their last AirBnB rental) and there might not be enough business to make up for that lack of certainty.

Every scenario has its downsides!

76544567

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

Ditto AirBnB. If there is an exodus of landlords to the AirBnB rentals market, that's going to mean less business for everyone. So you have the uncertainty of not really knowing who you are renting to (I know AirBnB allows people to rate guests but it's not a foolproof system, people might not always be on their best behaviour just because they were in their last AirBnB rental) and there might not be enough business to make up for that lack of certainty.

Every scenario has its downsides!

I might just sell up. Or if I went the short term let route I would be happy to get 90 days a year and leave empty for the rest of the year.
I think at this stage there are so many hoops to jump through when renting I might just keep one as a holiday home for the famy and do airbnb or similar in the downtimes.
That or just sell and buy the apartment in Spain the better half is after.
I could rent that in the summer months stress free via an agent and the likes of airbnb or owners direct or the sort.
Lots of options. Anything really to not have the RTB involved.

murphaph

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

Ditto AirBnB. If there is an exodus of landlords to the AirBnB rentals market, that's going to mean less business for everyone. So you have the uncertainty of not really knowing who you are renting to (I know AirBnB allows people to rate guests but it's not a foolproof system, people might not always be on their best behaviour just because they were in their last AirBnB rental) and there might not be enough business to make up for that lack of certainty.

Every scenario has its downsides!

If enough LLs just decide they've had enough and sell up, then there won't be any competition for those who decide to go down the short term route.

It's the "new tenants have to get the same deal as the old tenants" that I have a problem with because it devalues my property arbitrarily. I do not actually have a problem with a 4% rent cap for sitting tenants.

_Jamie_

I don't agree with capping rent either. It's a tough to resolve situation. Landlords should be able to charge what market will bear but the rents are becoming punishing for tenants in cities. Supply needs to be increased quickly but then landlords will see their rents fall anyway.

I'm really against a mass exodus to AirBnB. It's not what it was created for and it would be a nightmare to live next to an AirBnB apartment. People deserve peaceful living in a residential zone. I expect that if that exodus happens, clampdowns will happen and it's only right, IMO.

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There's only so many students to go around. No every LL will be able to rent to just students if everyone wants to do it. Plus, there is a much higher chance of the property being damaged if students occupy the house. I lived in a quiet student house for most of my time in college but we truly were the exception, and it was a mix of students and workers so that meant parties didn't happen too often. All my friends had regular parties in at their houseshares and that takes its toll on a house. It's short-sighted to exclude non-students and it may cost you more to do so.

I agree that undergrad students bring their own risks etc which is why I was specifically mentioning PhD students who are a completely different thing, I'd say less risky than similar aged people working due to high work loads and lower disposable income (they also almost always move on after finishing so very little chance of over holding etc). Young working professionals in the mid 20's to early 30's were the other main suggestion of which there is an almost endless supply. A mix of these two types of people is also grand, all the house shares I've lived in in the past have been let by the room and a mix of PhD students and people working and have all worked out well from the LLs perspective.

_Jamie_

Beckett Wet Man wrote: »

I agree that undergrad students bring their own risks etc which is why I was specifically mentioning PhD students who are a completely different thing, I'd say less risky than similar aged people working due to high work loads and lower disposable income (they also almost always move on after finishing so very little chance of over holding etc). Young working professionals in the mid 20's to early 30's were the other main suggestion of which there is an almost endless supply. A mix of these two types of people is also grand, all the house shares I've lived in in the past have been let by the room and a mix of PhD students and people working and have all worked out well from the LLs perspective.

Right but then you are getting into an age group of people who are more discerning and would not be keen on the LL being able to drop in whenever he wants. The only way I would live in that situation is if I was getting a darn good deal on rent. If someone is paying market rent, they deserve peaceful enjoyment of their home. I guess in this market, people can't be choosy but what a crappy way to have to live. You'd never feel relaxed.

And in a tenant's market which it may well be in the future, the rentals where the landlord wants free access to the house will left on the shelf or will have to charge less than everywhere else to get in the punters. I know in a market where there was plenty of choice six or so years ago, owner-occupied rentals went to the bottom of the pile when I was looking for somewhere to live. And it'd have been the same for any landlord who wanted access whenever he wanted. Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

testaccount123

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

Sutton Modern Usher would, he thinks being a leasee in the arse end of nowhere is brilliant and cant understand why everyone isnt doing it

_Jamie_

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Right but then you are getting into an age group of people who are more discerning and would not be keen on the LL being able to drop in whenever he wants. The only way I would live in that situation is if I was getting a darn good deal on rent. If someone is paying market rent, they deserve peaceful enjoyment of their home. I guess in this market, people can't be choosy but what a crappy way to have to live. You'd never feel relaxed.

And in a tenant's market which it may well be in the future, the rentals where the landlord wants free access to the house will left on the shelf or will have to charge less than everywhere else to get in the punters. I know in a market where there was plenty of choice six or so years ago, owner-occupied rentals went to the bottom of the pile when I was looking for somewhere to live. And it'd have been the same for any landlord who wanted access whenever he wanted. Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

You are mixing up two different suggestions I made. The first suggestion didn't mention retaining a room or maintaining access. Simply renting rooms seperately. By it's nature this is never going to be a long term thing for the people renting the rooms thus not as much worry about the very long term part 4 as people tend to move on anyway, particularly if you choose people likely to move on i.e. Postgrads and young professions who will likely see sharing as a fairly short term solution.

The retaining a room is a further step for a LL if he really wants to try keep maximum control and nowadays I wouldn't be asking a cent less for a room and I bet there would be a queue of people.

testaccount123 wrote: »

Alayna Flat Trauma would, he thinks being a leasee in the arse end of nowhere is brilliant and cant understand why everyone isnt doing it

No idea what you are on about as your post has no link to anything I've been saying.

Electric Sheep

_Jamie_ wrote: »

And in a tenant's market which it may well be in the future, the rentals where the landlord wants free access to the house will left on the shelf or will have to charge less than everywhere else to get in the punters. I know in a market where there was plenty of choice six or so years ago, owner-occupied rentals went to the bottom of the pile when I was looking for somewhere to live. And it'd have been the same for any landlord who wanted access whenever he wanted. Who would willingly choose to live somewhere like that?

Owner-occupied rentals have always been the bottom of the barrel, and I am pretty sure will always be.

_Jamie_

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Owner-occupied rentals have always been the bottom of the barrel, and I am pretty sure will always be.

Absolutely. Anything where you have to share space with a landlord will never attract the best tenants.

Pkiernan

To get back on track, I may offer 2 pricing levels, with and without parking permits.

Crazy that it doesn't occur to the government to maybe incentivise rent reductions through corresponding landlord income tax reduction.

murphaph

Pkiernan wrote: »

To get back on track, I may offer 2 pricing levels, with and without parking permits.

Crazy that it doesn't occur to the government to maybe incentivise rent reductions through corresponding landlord income tax reduction.

It's all about the optics and being seen to do something. Landlords are a politically easy target.

KyussBeeshop

The housing minister has confirmed now, that it is illegal to use AirBnB without planning permission:

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/landlords-need-permission-for-airbnb-lets-minister-confirms-1.2914873

So, any landlords discussing a switchover to AirBnB here - or who are already using AirBnB - will need to seek planning permission, or they would be renting out illegally.

April 73

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The housing minister has confirmed now, that it is illegal to use AirBnB without planning permission:

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/landlords-need-permission-for-airbnb-lets-minister-confirms-1.2914873

So, any landlords discussing a switchover to AirBnB here - or who are already using AirBnB - will need to seek planning permission, or they would be renting out illegally.

Who is actually going to monitor this? I'd be interested in what the distinction in law is between a landlord & an owner-occupier.

KyussBeeshop

Presumably government/revenue can just force AirBnB to send a list of properties, and then cross reference the addresses against the planning database - and either force the property to be delisted, or threaten to pursue legal action against the landlords.

April 73

It's all bordering on ludicrous interference though.
Bad, greedy landlords are blamed & made out to be responsible for the housing crisis, the lack of social housing, the lack of affordable rental accomodation, the homeless families, the lack of building, the supply of zoned land and on and on.

KyussBeeshop

It's either illegal or it's not - and it turns out, that it is illegal, and has been all along.

In this case, many AirBnB landlords have been milking the rental market through illegal renting all this time, and have been lucky to get away with their current gains from that.

They should consider themselves lucky if Revenue and/or the council don't go after them, for renting out illegally.

athtrasna

Mod note
As another thread has been started about the legal status of Airbnb, let's keep that conversation to that thread from now on. Thanks

murphaph

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

It's either illegal or it's not - and it turns out, that it is illegal, and has been all along.

In this case, many AirBnB landlords have been milking the rental market through illegal renting all this time, and have been lucky to get away with their current gains from that.

They should consider themselves lucky if Revenue and/or the council don't go after them, for renting out illegally.

Revenue won't be going after anyone so long as tax has been paid at the appropriate level on the income. Kilkenny County Council with its one part time planning enforcement officer won't be going after too many bold airbnb landlords anytime soon either and from what I gather they are not unusual.

And in the end all the hounding will just see landlords sell up, reducing the overall number of bed spaces as owner occupiers make less efficient use of property as they don't share.

Is this the end goal?!

76544567

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The housing minister has confirmed now, that it is illegal to use AirBnB without planning permission:

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/landlords-need-permission-for-airbnb-lets-minister-confirms-1.2914873

So, any landlords discussing a switchover to AirBnB here - or who are already using AirBnB - will need to seek planning permission, or they would be renting out illegally.

That's fine with me. I won't be offering bed or breakfast. I'll just be renting to someone or a company who does not want to live e in the property may or may not do it. They may not even use airbnb. Basically I will give them the keys and take payment from them for advice or somthing and give them a discount for looking after my property and I will forget about it. There are people already working g out the ins and outs of this to start such companies. And that's if decide not to sell.

I also like the idea of charging extra for the parking spaces on top of the rent. I'm sure there are many, many other charges that can be broken out from the rent too. Agents fees comes to mind. Tenant pays agent separately on an ongoing basis and the finders fee now too.

Tenants will also get the minimum and cheapest possible response when anything needs to be replaced by a LL in future too. And new tenants will not definitely get the bare minimum when they move in. Not even a mattress I dare say.

It will take a couple of months after Christmas to see if any group will challenge this and to find out all of the possible outs. By then most owners will be armed.with enough info to know what they can do about it. It's all up in the air at the moment.

And all that because someone who was charging below market rate is being crucified by Covent.

Also expect no landlord to ever miss the first opportunity to increase to market rate in future for fear of getting stung by some out of the hole new legislation.

And market rate means nothing anymore because rents are now set randomly.

And let's not forget that even the rent a room scheme is vulnerable. You may be renting a room in your house and suddenly Coveny pulls another mystery legislation piece out and all of a sudden you can't have the room in your house back for 10 years or maybe even ever. Don't be surprised at this stage.

pwurple

Hmm.

Don't i feel like an eejit now. I have tenants in one place at below market rate. I raised the rent marginally last year when they brought in that two year thing, but not by much (hadn't raised it in the previous 3 years), because they are great tenants. And now I'm tied to that and am a complete mug for doing the decent thing. Feck anyway.

Now, I'm in it for the long term, because my pension is being raided, and I want to be able to pay for my own elder care when I get to that stage. So I'll sit tight and see if tax changes are introduced.

The thing is, with the MUDS act, me and the other owners took over the running of common areas a few years ago. Will have to have a chat with them now and see how many are in the same situation. Some of the other landlords want the current tenants out, so they can reset to new rent levels with new tenants.

murphaph

pwurple wrote: »

Hmm.

Don't i feel like an eejit now. I have tenants in one place at below market rate. I raised the rent marginally last year when they brought in that two year thing, but not by much (hadn't raised it in the previous 3 years), because they are great tenants. And now I'm tied to that and am a complete mug for doing the decent thing. Feck anyway.

Now, I'm in it for the long term, because my pension is being raided, and I want to be able to pay for my own elder care when I get to that stage. So I'll sit tight and see if tax changes are introduced.

The thing is, with the MUDS act, me and the other owners took over the running of common areas a few years ago. Will have to have a chat with them now and see how many are in the same situation. Some of the other landlords want the current tenants out, so they can reset to new rent levels with new tenants.

It's not uncommon in Berlin for a building owner to do endless renovations, generally making the common areas loud and dirty/dusty for months or years on end in an effort to drive tenants out. I know a woman living in such a situation. Tis not nice, but I wouldn't be surprised to see things like this happen as undercharging landlords have really been cheated by the state.

campingcarist

pwurple wrote: »

Hmm.

Don't i feel like an eejit now. I have tenants in one place at below market rate. I raised the rent marginally last year when they brought in that two year thing, but not by much (hadn't raised it in the previous 3 years), because they are great tenants. And now I'm tied to that and am a complete mug for doing the decent thing. Feck anyway.

Now, I'm in it for the long term, because my pension is being raided, and I want to be able to pay for my own elder care when I get to that stage. So I'll sit tight and see if tax changes are introduced.

The thing is, with the MUDS act, me and the other owners took over the running of common areas a few years ago. Will have to have a chat with them now and see how many are in the same situation. Some of the other landlords want the current tenants out, so they can reset to new rent levels with new tenants.

Not being 'au fait' with all this, but could you not (in an apartment complex) make the tenant pay the management service charges instead of including it in the rent?

Paulw

campingcarist wrote: »

Not being 'au fait' with all this, but could you not (in an apartment complex) make the tenant pay the management service charges instead of including it in the rent?

Legally, the management fees are part of the cost of ownership. They are part of a legal contract between OMC and unit owner. The tenant is not a party to the contract.

While a landlord could ask a tenant to pay, there is no legal way to enforce it. The tenant can simply say no.

GGTrek

campingcarist wrote: »

Not being 'au fait' with all this, but could you not (in an apartment complex) make the tenant pay the management service charges instead of including it in the rent?

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.

noodler

60% increases in rent nationally (higher in some urban areas) hasn't helped supply in the last 2 years so it is understandable that society and now the Government are unwilling to buy the argument that 4% increases off an already disgraceful base will reduce supply.

Jayesdiem

Paulw wrote: »

campingcarist wrote: »

Not being 'au fait' with all this, but could you not (in an apartment complex) make the tenant pay the management service charges instead of including it in the rent?

Legally, the management fees are part of the cost of ownership. They are part of a legal contract between OMC and unit owner. The tenant is not a party to the contract.

While a landlord could ask a tenant to pay, there is no legal way to enforce it. The tenant can simply say no.

According to citizens information.ie this is a perfectly legitimate charge for the tenant. Not going looking for the link now.

Graham

Jayesdiem wrote: »

According to citizens information.ie this is a perfectly legitimate charge for the tenant. Not going looking for the link now.

Here you go:

Obligations of a tenant

You must:

Pay your rent on time
Pay any other charges that are specified in the letting agreement, for example, waste collection charges; utility bills; management fees to the management company in an apartment complex – see ‘Other charges and payments’ below

<SNIP>

There are annual charges in multi-unit developments to pay for the maintenance, insurance and repair of common areas; for the provision of common services to unit owners; and to contribute to a sinking fund for non-routine refurbishment and maintenance expenses. Your landlord may pass these charges on to you if this is agreed, but if they are not paid, the owners’ management company may pursue the owner (the landlord) for them.

Source: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html

GGTrek

Graham wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

According to citizens information.ie this is a perfectly legitimate charge for the tenant. Not going looking for the link now.

Here you go:

Obligations of a tenant

You must:

Pay your rent on time
Pay any other charges that are specified in the letting agreement, for example, waste collection charges; utility bills; management fees to the management company in an apartment complex – see ‘Other charges and payments’ below



There are annual charges in multi-unit developments to pay for the maintenance, insurance and repair of common areas; for the provision of common services to unit owners; and to contribute to a sinking fund for non-routine refurbishment and maintenance expenses. Your landlord may pass these charges on to you if this is agreed, but if they are not paid, the owners’ management company may pursue the owner (the landlord) for them.

Source: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/tenants_rights_and_obligations.html

yes it is legal, but you should put in bold the following "Pay any other charges that are specified in the letting agreement", you cannot change the agreement without mutual consent in a current tenancy, so for all practical effects these charges can only apply to new tenancies. I feel that many posters in this thread do not understand this critical condition. You cannot just tell your current tenant: from next month you will pay these charges unless the tenancy agreement is changed with mutual consent, which a current tenant would not grant.
So my argument is that with the repeal of section 42 and the impossibility of terminating a tenancy without cause, no new tenancy agreement can be negotiated with tenant after 4 years, so the landlord is stuck with the current tenancy agreement indefinitely unless he can prove one of the causes of section 34 to terminate the tenancy. That is why I say that the repeal of section 42 is a much stonger attack of property rights than the rent controls.
No one in this forum has been able to mount an argument that it is still possible to terminate a current tenancy without cause after 4 years with the new amendments. I would really be glad to hear such argument

dasa29

GGTrek wrote: »

yes it is legal, but you should put in bold the following "Pay any other charges that are specified in the letting agreement", you cannot change the agreement without mutual consent in a current tenancy, so for all practical effects these charges can only apply to new tenancies. I feel that many posters in this thread do not understand this critical condition. You cannot just tell your current tenant: from next month you will pay these charges unless the tenancy agreement is changed with mutual consent, which a current tenant would not grant.
So my argument is that with the repeal of section 42 and the impossibility of terminating a tenancy without cause, no new tenancy agreement can be negotiated with tenant after 4 years, so the landlord is stuck with the current tenancy agreement indefinitely unless he can prove one of the causes of section 34 to terminate the tenancy. That is why I say that the repeal of section 42 is a much stonger attack of property rights than the rent controls.
No one in this forum has been able to mount an argument that it is still possible to terminate a current tenancy without cause after 4 years with the new amendments. I would really be glad to hear such argument

I just had a look at this bill and i think you are wrong in regards to the repeal of section 42, the bill says the following and i quote

"Part 4 tenancies and extension of period from 4 years to 6 years
37. (1) Section 28 of the Act of 2004 is amended in subsection (2) by substituting “6 years”
for “4 years” in both places where it occurs.
(2) The provisions of the Act of 2004 referred to in column (2) of Part 1 of the Schedule
are amended in the manner referred to in column (3) of that Part opposite the
reference in column (2) to the provision concerned.
(3) This section applies to all tenancies created after the coming into operation of this section."

so all that is changed is part 4 is vaild for 6 years rather than 4 years at present.

GGTrek

dasa29 wrote: »

I just had a look at this bill and i think you are wrong in regards to the repeal of section 42,  the bill says the following and i quote

"Part 4 tenancies and extension of period from 4 years to 6 years
37. (1) Section 28 of the Act of 2004 is amended in subsection (2) by substituting “6 years”
for “4 years” in both places where it occurs.
(2) The provisions of the Act of 2004 referred to in column (2) of Part 1 of the Schedule
are amended in the manner referred to in column (3) of that Part opposite the
reference in column (2) to the provision concerned.
(3) This section applies to all tenancies created after the coming into operation of this section."

so all that is changed is part 4 is vaild for 6 years rather than 4 years at present.

The part above only applies to new tenancies and not to further part 4 tenancies. I don´t even know why it matters since it was useful to define the start of a further part 4 tenancy and to terminate without cause with section 42.
Please read this that was updated this week:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html
The Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 contains several amendments to the residential tenancies legislation. It was signed into law on 23 December 2016. Some of the changes take effect from 24 December 2016 and some others will require Commencement Orders. The changes include:
The Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 contains several amendments to the residential tenancies legislation. It was signed into law on 23 December 2016. Some of the changes take effect from 24 December 2016 and some others will require Commencement Orders. The changes include:

• Measures to prevent the simultaneous serving of termination notices on large numbers of residents in a single development
• Extending the period of a Part 4 tenancy from 4 years to 6 years - for tenancies created from 24 December 2016
• Removing the provision that allows a landlord to end a further Part 4 tenancy during the first 6 months without having to give a reason
• Changes to declarations required when a termination is due to sale of the dwelling

So the question is: how do I terminate a part-4 tenancy without cause using only section 34(b) at the 4 years. What is the practical and legal way to do it?
If a landlord sends a notice of termination of 112 days to a tenant before the 4 years expire with termination date on the 4 years expiry date, the RTB will say that the notice is invalid because it did not furnish a reason for terminating the tenancy in accordance with section 34 of the RTA 2004. The escape valve from this was section 42, the landlord waited until the expiry of the 4 years and provided termination without cause according to section 42. This has been taken away now.

GGTrek

Also forgot to say that the amendment of the law that states the rent for a new tenancy of the same dwelling cannot be above the old tenancy rent of the same dwelling (and they force the landlord to give a statement to the new tenant) is just political posturing and totally unenforceable and can be easily sidestepped for a new tenancy, since I said above, in a tenancy new charges can be legally applied which are much more than a mere 4% more than the old rent. As in every country where rent controls are introduced, new tenants will pay the massive collateral damage of rent controls, but clearly the government does not care about new tenants otherwise it would not meddle.

Paulw

Mod Note: There have been a number of posts here that are borderline illegal. Be very careful what you post/suggest or recommend. Any further posts about doing illegal activities or activites that breach the law/regulations will result in infractions.