Rent increase megathread

Saadyst

4ensic15 wrote: »

Recorded mail, e-mail, fax, text and pigeon. Keep copies!

Ok, thanks for that. I had replied to an email they sent me to confirm the increase from Feb, in which I told them the notice was invalid.

They haven't replied at all yet (a week gone)...

the_syco

20 towns will be added to the 4% increase thing, including Galway city, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow.

http://www.rte.ie/playerxl/#v=10679052 from 08:30 to 10:50



Interesting tidbit from SF that the banks had offered them loads of houses, but the government had only taken a few, so I'm guessing most are in the back arse of nowhere which the banks can't get rid of, as no-one in their right mind would buy them.

The_Conductor

the_syco wrote: »

Interesting tidbit from SF that the banks had offered them loads of houses, but the government had only taken a few, so I'm guessing most are in the back arse of nowhere which the banks can't get rid of, as no-one in their right mind would buy them.

In many cases the properties offered were in contiguous blocks and the local authorities were concerned about creating 'ghettos' of social housing- and 'no-go' areas- though there were serious concerns raised at council meetings about the quantities of properties being turned down particularly in areas which have identified deficits.

That said- over 80% of the national demand- is in the greater Dublin area- and despite what many people here may think privately- it is not policy to evict Dubliners to Longford and Carrick-on-Shannon- or similar locations- which have an excess of availability (many people may argue that this is giving those incapable of homing themselves an unfair advantage- as many people who work- have to commute from these locations to and from Dublin on a daily basis- which is an obvious inequity.........)

Someone I know hasn't had a review in a good few years and are paying <50% market rate on their rent.

What would happen if they move out (not that I see it anytime soon!) but what if? Can the landlord raise the rent to market rates or are they stuck with a 4% increase?

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone I know hasn't had a review in a good few years and are paying <50% market rate on their rent.

What would happen if they move out (not that I see it anytime soon!) but what if? Can the landlord raise the rent to market rates or are they stuck with a 4% increase?

If the property is located within a pressure zone- the rent is associated with the property- and not the tenancy- and any incoming tenants can demand the rent be set within the 4% limit (they could agree anything at all to secure the property- move in- and then dispute the rent with the RTB- and if the new rent level exceeded the old rent by more than 4%- the tenants would have their rent reduced to the old level).

I.e. if an existing tenant got a good deal from their landlord- the landlord is forced to accept whatever he offered the tenants to new tenants (plus a max of 4%).

This is the case with 'pressure zone' properties- and despite the list of areas being massively extended earlier this week- FF and others are trying to have it enforced nationally- but have a hit list of 24 more towns they want added with immediate effect.

daithi7

Does anyone know the situation re say offering a rebate, so that a landlord could charge a loyal tenant a very good rent without handicapping their future rent potential from potential future leases say?

E.g. say I have a tenant for years and am charging them 150/month below current market rents say. If I offered them a lease at the market rent but gave them a rebate of say. 150 x3 every quarter in cash, as a 'loyalty discount', would this legally get around the limit on headline rent say?
I.e. could you then charge the next tenant up to current market rent + 4% allowed under the latest legislation??

The_Conductor

daithi7 wrote: »

Does anyone know the situation re say offering a rebate, so that a landlord could charge a loyal tenant a very good rent without handicapping their future rent potential from potential future leases say?

E.g. say I have a tenant for years and am charging them 150/month below current market rents say. If I offered them a lease at the market rent but gave them a rebate of say. 150 x3 every quarter in cash, as a 'loyalty discount', would this legally get around the limit on headline rent say?
I.e. could you then charge the next tenant up to current market rent + 4% allowed under the latest legislation??

If the property is in a currently defined 'pressure zone' that boat has sailed. You cannot legally up the tenant's rent to market rates (irrespective of whether you have an arrangement with them or not). Technically what you are suggesting may not be illegal- however, if you are not allowed to charge market rates because of the change in the law- its moot- you can't get around it- you're dead in the water.

beauf

daithi7 wrote: »

...offering a rebate, so that a landlord could charge a loyal tenant a very good rent without handicapping their future rent potential...

A LL would be unwise to set anything other than the max rent rate from now on. Setting it lower apart from effecting future rents, will now have an impact on the value of the property if selling.

3DataModem

newacc2015 wrote: »

OP would have let this property previously in the middle of the recession. Unemployment was huge, there a lot of vacant property and he properly let it for a fraction of what he would get today. If I was him, I would not be "happy" with that. He had no choice but to let it at a low rent in the middle of the recession.

I think it is quite funny the fact you say he should be happy with the rent and yet you acknowledge it probably doesnt even cover his mortgage... Who would be happy with the rent on a loss making property when you can increase the rent to reduce those losses? But the landlord, tries covers his losses like any other businessman he is suddenly greedy?

I would love for you to speak to a Landlord who lost his properties to the banks and tell them it was a low risk investment. Or speak to any landlord about 'how low risk' the industry is. How can you say it is low risk industry when every year the tax code and rules governing it change. There was massive changes to the rules of being a landlord at christmas and then a month later AAA-PBP tried changing the laws massively again. The fact you can't even see the rules coming a month down the line makes it a high risk industry.

If people are outraged with private sector landlords, then call your TDs and demand more social housing. Don't endorse rules and regs, you know are fundamentally wrong and will only make the rental crisis worse in a few years. But you condone it, as it is easy to think all Landlords are greedy, yet you have no issue with any other business increasing their prices while operating a profit...

"Not covering the mortgage" is not loss making.

If the amount you are subbing the investment each month is less than the amount the mortgage is reducing each month, then you are making a profit. On top of that comes capital appreciation.

ArnieSilvia

I read a post here where landlord waived December rent to his good tenants, next thing tenants went to PRTB to set the annual rent at 11 months payments instead of 12, making things complicated further in context of 4% increase down the road.

4ensic15

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

I read a post here where landlord waived December rent to his good tenants, next thing tenants went to PRTB to set the annual rent at 11 months payments instead of 12, making things complicated further in context of 4% increase down the road.

Did the tenants succeed with that nonsense?

testtech05

The_Conductor wrote: »

Depends on a few different factors-

1. What part of Galway- not all of the city is included- there are a few areas that seem for no good reason to have escaped being included in the pressure zone.

2. Was notice properly served prior to the inclusion of the area in the pressure zone limits (i.e. the rules in place when the notice was served are the rules that count). If notice was improperly or invalidly served- then you're now under the new regime.

3. There are a few curious opt out and clauses- such as if the property was first let in the last two years, its automatically out of the pressure zone etc.

Your own specific circumstances will determine whether or not you can rely on the 4% increase, rather than the notified increase, however, if the notice was properly served, the notice is valid.

Thanks for the responses guys, I would have to double check the notice from the agents <mod snip > acting on behalf of the LL but I think it was served properly and its the 1st increase we have gotten in over 3 years since I moved in and they were willing to negotiate with us so I don't think we can complain overall.

I think I am one of the lucky ones though from reading some peoples experiences on this thread. Hopefully the new rules will help to stabilise things a bit for people.

The_Conductor

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

I read a post here where landlord waived December rent to his good tenants, next thing tenants went to PRTB to set the annual rent at 11 months payments instead of 12, making things complicated further in context of 4% increase down the road.

Talk about no good deed going unpunished..........

emeldc

The_Conductor wrote: »

If the property is located within a pressure zone- the rent is associated with the property- and not the tenancy- and any incoming tenants can demand the rent be set within the 4% limit (they could agree anything at all to secure the property- move in- and then dispute the rent with the RTB- and if the new rent level exceeded the old rent by more than 4%- the tenants would have their rent reduced to the old level).

I.e. if an existing tenant got a good deal from their landlord- the landlord is forced to accept whatever he offered the tenants to new tenants (plus a max of 4%).

This is the case with 'pressure zone' properties- and despite the list of areas being massively extended earlier this week- FF and others are trying to have it enforced nationally- but have a hit list of 24 more towns they want added with immediate effect.

I think there is a bit of an anomaly there. So the same tenant is in situ with low rent for say a four year term and then leaves of his own accord. The RTB will know what the starting rent was but not the finishing rent which may be considerably lower than market value. Even IF the tenant were to inform the RTB of the final rent it could only be proven by bank statements or tax returns from both parties if requested by the RTB. Do the RTB really have the time or the staff or indeed the expertise to deal with such matters. It seems to take forever to evict a non paying anti social tenant so will they really spend all their time chasing LL's who are just trying to get their rents somewhere near market value.

Michael D Not Higgins

emeldc wrote: »

I think there is a bit of an anomaly there. So the same tenant is in situ with low rent for say a four year term and then leaves of his own accord. The RTB will know what the starting rent was but not the finishing rent which may be considerably lower than market value. Even IF the tenant were to inform the RTB of the final rent it could only be proven by bank statements or tax returns from both parties if requested by the RTB. Do the RTB really have the time or the staff or indeed the expertise to deal with such matters. It seems to take forever to evict a non paying anti social tenant so will they really spend all their time chasing LL's who are just trying to get their rents somewhere near market value.

Of course there will be no proactive enforcement. The RTB don't have the resources to pull that off. This will be reactive, on disputes lodged by tenants.

This will lead to landlords chancing their arm when going for a new tenancy and most of the time they'll get away with it. The RTB will have to impose harsh penalties for the few that do make it to them to dissuade other landlords from taking that chance.

gambler12

Sorry if this has already been covered folks.
I've been renting an apartment for almost 2 years now. I started with a 12 month contract and remained in the apartment after the 12 months were up under part 4 tenancy rules.
The landlord has the right to increase the rent after 2 years, which is coming up soon, by the 4% maximum which presumably he will do. I am happy to pay the increased rate.
My question is am I required to sign a new lease at the end of the 2 years when the landlord decides on the newly increased rate of rent? Or can I just continue under part 4 tenancy, paying the new rate without having to sign a new lease?

The_Conductor

gambler12 wrote: »

Sorry if this has already been covered folks.
I've been renting an apartment for almost 2 years now. I started with a 12 month contract and remained in the apartment after the 12 months were up under part 4 tenancy rules.
The landlord has the right to increase the rent after 2 years, which is coming up soon, by the 4% maximum which presumably he will do. I am happy to pay the increased rate.
My question is am I required to sign a new lease at the end of the 2 years when the landlord decides on the newly increased rate of rent? Or can I just continue under part 4 tenancy, paying the new rate without having to sign a new lease?

You can continue on Part IV if it suits you to do so- however, you have nothing to loose from signing a contract/lease- as legally any aspects of it which detract from your rights under the Residential Tenancies Act are wholly unenforceable. If they want you to sign a new lease- I'd do so- you have and continue to have the full protections of the RTA

Samuel T. Cogley

The_Conductor wrote: »

You can continue on Part IV if it suits you to do so- however, you have nothing to loose from signing a contract/lease- as legally any aspects of it which detract from your rights under the Residential Tenancies Act are wholly unenforceable. If they want you to sign a new lease- I'd do so- you have and continue to have the full protections of the RTA

By signing a lease would they not agree to remain in the property for the length of the lease, losing the flexibility of Part IV?

I'm not convinced that a prevention of reassignment, leaving by giving the required Part IV notice et al is unenforceable if you've entered into a separate agreement. The two are not incompatible as one could simply remain on Part IV.

The only stumbling block I see is what the consideration for the new contract is, but that could be relatively easily overcome if not generally done in practice.

EDit: Could you fire this into my Part IV question if you don't feel it's right here please?

info13

Hi all just wondering if our landlord wishes to increase our rent above the 4% cap which is in our area now if we don't agree to more than 4% can he give us notice to leave?

info13

OSI wrote: »

No.

Short answer I guess what I mean is what's to stop him from doing that?

Paulw

info13 wrote: »

Short answer I guess what I mean is what's to stop him from doing that?

Your rights as a tenant. Part IV tenancy.

Refusing a rent increase above the legal limit is not a valid reason for eviction.

ufc pro

forgive my ignorance but a friend told me that if a property has lets say a rent of 1150 and the going rate for rent in that area is 1600 are the landlords not able to put the rent up to the going rate or close to in the area and then the 4 percent every year after that?

Paulw

ufc pro wrote: »

forgive my ignorance but a friend told me that if a property has lets say a rent of 1150 and the going rate for rent in that area is 1600 are the landlords not able to put the rent up to the going rate or close to in the area and then the 4 percent every year after that?

No. Rent in the area makes no difference now. It's 4% of the current rent.

ufc pro

so if im paying 1200 now and next door has to pay 16 or 17 hundred because thats the going rate for rent now your saying that the landlord CAN NOT put the rent up any more than 4 %? is that not a bit unfair on the landlord?

Paulw

ufc pro wrote: »

so if im paying 1200 now and next door has to pay 16 or 17 hundred because thats the going rate for rent now your saying that the landlord CAN NOT put the rent up any more than 4 %? is that not a bit unfair on the landlord?

That's the law. The law isn't always "fair". The landlord is now restricted, so that rent rates are controlled and cannot dramatically increase on the tenants. That is the way that the Govt designed the law.

The_Conductor

ufc pro wrote: »

so if im paying 1200 now and next door has to pay 16 or 17 hundred because thats the going rate for rent now your saying that the landlord CAN NOT put the rent up any more than 4 %? is that not a bit unfair on the landlord?

Correct.
There is no cognisance of the fact that a landlord may have cut a good tenant some slack and allowed them pay rent at below the going rate. The rate of rent is now associated with the property- rather than the tenancy- and any increase (in a designated pressure zone) is limited to 4%, per annum, from next rent review, period.

ufc pro

The existing requirement that the rent set for a property must be in line with local market rents for similar properties and three examples of rents for comparable properties must be presented to demonstrate this, still applys.

i got this from the rtb website . does this not mean that if the property is below average for the area and you can give 3 examples of houses in the area similar to you can put the rent up? am i misunderstanding this?

The_Conductor

ufc pro wrote: »

The existing requirement that the rent set for a property must be in line with local market rents for similar properties and three examples of rents for comparable properties must be presented to demonstrate this, still applys.

i got this from the rtb website . does this not mean that if the property is below average for the area and you can give 3 examples of houses in the area similar to you can put the rent up? am i misunderstanding this?

This stipulation does still apply- however, it is subject to the 2016 RTA- i.e. if a property will be above the local market rate with a 4% increase- tough, you can't apply a 4% increase- and if the review shows a property is 50% below local market norms- tough, you're still limited to a 4% increase...........

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

ufc pro

this is very interesting, my current situation is just last week i got a call from a property seller to say that my landlord wants to put my rent up this year by 400, i verbaly agreed to 350, since then this cap has come into the area, why did the property consultant not tell me she can not do this?

The_Conductor

ufc pro wrote: »

this is very interesting, my current situation is just last week i got a call from a property seller to say that my landlord wants to put my rent up this year by 400, i verbaly agreed to 350, since then this cap has come into the area, why did the property consultant not tell me she can not do this?

Why would they?
You need to fight your corner- and they theirs.
If the landlord has not served correct notice- and the area is now part of the pressure zone- the 4% applies.
Its very possible the landlord is not aware of the new legislation and its stipulations- however, ignorance is not an excuse.

If proper notice has not been served- and the property is in a pressure area- the 4% applies- if the landlord attempts to impose an increase of >4%- the tenant should liaise with the landlord in the first instance- and if that fails- should lodge an appeal against the increase with the RTB.