Rent increase megathread

ted1

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

What? Unless the witness is a independent body that sounds like crap. Registered post is the best proof that something was delivered and its a reasonable assumption that something was delivered.

And, most importantly, a month later they ask for confirmation of the delivery? Not the next day or week? Landlord will be ripped apart in the PRTB.

Registered post needs to be signed for, most rented properties are empty during the day and have no one who can sign for them and in many cases tenants won't sign for post.

A month later they were seen if the tenants agreed to it not if they got it.

happyoutscan

OP I would visit your solicitor first. Take it from there.

Paulw

exaisle wrote: »

I'd advise the Landlord to carry out substantial improvements to the property....then an increase of more than 4% is permitted.

That's not the question that the OP asked.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Why? They knew it was delivered and gave the tenants a month to mull it over.

How do you think the messed up? They seem pretty on the ball to me.


Hand delivered notice and have proof

Gave three reference sites

Gave enough notice and let the tenant mull it over for a month

On the ball, but hardly a decent way to treat a tenant of a number of years. Knowing how important it was to get it out and delivered before a certain date, and the lengths they would go to delivering up towards midnight on a weeknight, why would it not occur to them to follow it up?

Thank god I have a decent landlord who wouldn't pull this kind of stunt.

Donal55

Why would a tenant agree to more than 4% of an increase?
Unless the proverbial gun was being put to the head?

ted1

Basil3 wrote: »

On the ball, but hardly a decent way to treat a tenant of a number of years. Knowing how important it was to get it out and delivered before a certain date, and the lengths they would go to delivering up towards midnight on a weeknight, why would it not occur to them to follow it up?

Thank god I have a decent landlord who wouldn't pull this kind of stunt.

Not follow up, they did follow up pretty much exactly a month after. They hand delivered it so , they know the tenant got it.

A month is a reasonable time to give a tenant to think about weather they are willing to pay it.

Also there office probably closed in the 22nd to the 2th


In my opinion they were pretty good not to harass the tenant straight away.

Samuel T. Cogley

Donal55 wrote: »

Why would a tenant agree to more than 4% of an increase?
Unless the proverbial gun was being put to the head?

I think that is the very point the OP is making. It's not uncommon for a bidding war of sorts to break out over desirable properties in Dublin. I stand over my comment that I can't see any legal reason a bare promise can't be made to pay X, however I can't see a landlord being able to enforce it however.

I may simply be musing here on simple contracts - perhaps another one best left for legal discussions. That said I think the OP has an interesting point and practically speaking the LL won't be able to get more than the legislation allows.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Not follow up, they did follow up pretty much exactly a month after. They hand delivered it so , they know the tenant got it.

I meant follow up the delivery, knowing how important it was. They could have even messaged the tenant ahead of time letting them know. As you can see from the topic of this thread, they don't know that the tenant got it, only that it was (supposedly) delivered.

A month is a reasonable time to give a tenant to think about weather they are willing to pay it.

Yes, it is.

Also there office probably closed in the 22nd to the 2th

I didn't know it was common practice for agents to break up early for Xmas, but fair play to their dedicated team out delivering letters after 11pm at night after their office has closed for Xmas already.

In my opinion they were pretty good not to harass the tenant straight away.

A friendly message to a tenant != harassment.

I don't think anyone in the position of the OP would be too happy.

sullivk

I don't know, it does sound pretty plausible.
They obviously would want to get the tenant notice before the 4% law change. Reg post wouldn't have been quick enough. I've often taken pictures of parcelled items prior to posting as proof so I wouldn't consider that unusual.
Following up with a phonecall a month later, giving the tenant time to consider the rental increase, seems pretty reasonable...
It may be worth contacting the RTB OP, but it sounds like it could be a case of your word against theirs.

The Caveman

I would do this.

When your next months rent are due, place the cash in an envelope, take a picture of cash before closing envelope, than another with the agency's address on with a stamp, and, take another picture of you placing the envelope into a post box.

than, 30 days later ask them if they received the rent?

if not, well it is not your problem, as you can proof you sent it...

April 73

This is an interesting hypothetical actually.

Suppose the renter really wanted to secure the property & offered the advertised rent plus offered to pay any agency fees, extra rent for the parking space & the management fee (if applicable) - what would stop this deal being done?

If the rent is in line with the legislation - then there's nothing to stop this. Just have the extra payments documented as separate to the monthly rent.

blindside88

Just a quick question on this point because it is an interesting question. Is there some sort of database where the previous rent for each property is being held or how would a perspective tenant or the prtb know that the rent is only 4% more than the previous tenant was paying?

April 73

This is the other point. The RTB are supposed to have records of rent from when tenancies begin. In many cases people have never bothered to update the RTB when rents went up. The records are definitely patchy.
You could argue that Revenue know previous tents.
But who is going to be accountable for checking & correlating all the records & making sure rents don't rise by more than 4% in RPZs.
The whole thing is currently unworkable & uncheckable.

MicktheMan

Paulw wrote: »

The rent must be up to a maximum of 4% of the previous rent, if rented out within the previous two years. That's the law.

Yes, but where both the landlord and tenant mutually agree to a rent higher than the 4% and document this fact in the lease, surely that's also within the law.

MicktheMan

Donal55 wrote: »

Why would a tenant agree to more than 4% of an increase?

Market is 1500, severe shortage of property to rent in desired area, bidding war ensues.

CIARAN_BOYLE

MicktheMan wrote: »

Yes, but where both the landlord and tenant mutually agree to a rent higher than the 4% and document this fact in the lease, surely that's also within the law.

Problem is that there's 10 other people that would have paid the legal maximum that now can't get a property.

MicktheMan

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Problem is that there's 10 other people that would have paid the legal maximum that now can't get a property.

But there's still only one property being advertised so 10 people would still be without!

Samuel T. Cogley

Avoiding bidding wars is no doubt an aim of the legislation. Personally it's one (of the very few) elements I agree with.

Fkall

Sarn wrote: »

How did they notify you of an increase last time? How do they normally communicate? If I had been in their position I would have followed up with a phone call and an email to avoid any doubt. It seems very unusual that they took a photo of the letter being delivered given the consequences of mistiming the notice.

As mentioned above, I would say that someone messed up and are now trying to cover themselves.

Issuing a rent review just prior to the introduction of legislation capping rent increases - an estate agent / landlord would be foolish not to take a photo.

Nothing suspicious here just a little bit of foresight.

Fkall

Thestones wrote: »

So someone at the agency works at 11.20 at night to deliver a letter? Seems highly odd.

Not really - a last minute push to ensure all properties due a rent review received it prior to the introduction of a rent cap.

hidinginthebush

Paulw wrote: »

Nope, it's 4% of the previous rate. If the landlord charged below market rate previously, then that is their loss.

All details are on the RTB website - http://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/rent-pressure-zones

Thanks for the link. Looks fairly straight forward from that website. That's what I suspected (and hoped) was the case

eddiem74

If a tenant was notified in November 2016 of a rent review and subsequent rent increase which would be effective from March 1st 2017, is this still capped at the 4% now? Or as that rent increase was notified prior it can still proceed?

hidinginthebush

bigpink wrote: »

600 increase ****kk

You think that's bad, when the lads moved in initially 4 years ago the rent was €1000

syndrome777

ted1 wrote: »

Registered post in a Thursday 3 days before Christmas would not be delivered till the 27th at the earliest

it doesn't matter when it would be delivered, it would matter the date on the letter and when it was sent.

GerardKeating

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

That is why you use registered mail.

Register email does not always work will in apartment block, esp if the tenant does not want to get the mail, don't buzy the postman in, and don't bother to collect the mail if postie leaves a note.

testaccount123

If the OP declines the rent hike and moves out the landlord will only be allowed to raise the rent to 4% above it's current rate...

ted1

testaccount123 wrote: »

If the OP declines the rent hike and moves out the landlord will only be allowed to raise the rent to 4% above it's current rate...

Debatable as the rent has increased already. If the tenant moves out because he doesn't want to pay it then the new tenant will.

varuka

Paulw wrote: »

Thanks for posting the exact text, showing that for tenancies that are already in existence and the Landlord has not reviewed the rent in previous 24 months "a maximum rent increase of 4% will apply".

The new law now allows a maximum increase of 4% per annum, going forward from the last rent review.

What if rent wasn't increased in 36 months... is it still 4% max total?

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

If the OP declines the rent hike and moves out the landlord will only be allowed to raise the rent to 4% above it's current rate...

Wrong, the notice has already set new rent (if the notice is deemed legimate) so even if the op moved out the new rent can be 4% above the rent in the notice.

Paulw

varuka wrote: »

What if rent wasn't increased in 36 months... is it still 4% max total?

Yes. The law says to a maximum of 4%.