Rent increase megathread

Sarn

If correct notice was given before the area became part of the RPZ then you will be stuck with the €350 increase. As pointed out above, if they have not done this then they will be limited to a 4% increase.

It highlights the need for a LL to do everything correctly in order to avoid any challenges.

Just thinking of how a LL might approach this if they are stuck renting well below market rate and their current tenants move out.

I have long been an advocate of renting rooms separately rather than renting a full house as it has many advantages but I wonder with this new rent cap would renting rooms totally separately to different people where the room is being rented and not the full house would the rules still look at the combined rent for the entire house or because none of the people are actually renting the house and in fact have separate tenancies* could the LL charge what he wanted for each room.

*lets just say for this argument that the people are tenants which may or may not be the case when they dont have exclusive use of the house.

Also just to say I'm not advocating breaking rules etc I'm asking a genuine question on how this method of letting a property might be viewed. There is nothing wrong with finding a legal way around a rule.

The_Conductor

What you're proposing is a recipe for an RTB tribunal- and if they found against you- given you'd effectively have several tenancies associated with the one property- it could work out very expensive, very quickly.

I can see where you're coming from- however, I strongly suspect a very dim view would be taken of your proposal by the RTB.

beauf

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

....I have long been an advocate of renting rooms separately rather than renting a full house as it has many advantages ...

I think it causes way more problems than it solves. Each to their own. Have you ever let a property line that.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

I think it causes way more problems than it solves. Each to their own. Have you ever let a property line that.

No but lived in a number of different properties let in this way and can see why LLs would choose this method. There may be some small disadvantages like a little more work involved in managing the property but it drastically reduces the biggest risks such as total loss of rent (even if one stops pays the other 2/3/4 won't), people don't tend to stay long so far less chance of getting stuck with long term tenants (paying or non-paying), a bad tenant can be forced out by the others in the house which would be impossible for a LL to do etc etc.

beauf

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

No ....

I think that's why you like it. In my experience its nothing but hassle for the LL. All those scenarios are more likely to happen in the opposite.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

I think that's why you like it. In my experience its nothing but hassle for the LL. All those scenarios are more likely to happen in the opposite.

I pretty much managed one of the properties for the LL. Looked after all comings and goings while I was there (I decided on who moved in so even have a decent bit of experience in choosing people), looked after all the bills, arranged with plumbers or other work men to come for him etc so I have a fair idea of the work involved and I was getting nothing for doing it but just ended up that way and even then it wasn't that much effort never mind if I was the LL getting the rent at the end of the month for my efforts. When a person was decided they rang the LL and got his bank details so rent was paid by each person individually to the LL therefore not a subletting setup.

Just to note I would do all the above myself as the LL I would not leave it to the people living there (I would be keeping much closer tabs on my place than my LLs kept on places I lived in).

ufc pro

Sarn wrote: »

If correct notice was given before the area became part of the RPZ then you will be stuck with the €350 increase. As pointed out above, if they have not done this then they will be limited to a 4% increase.

It highlights the need for a LL to do everything correctly in order to avoid any challenges.

When you say notice! I was told in a phone call the rent would be going up, I've received no new contract yet!!

beauf

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

I pretty much managed one of the properties for the LL. Looked after all comings and goings while I was there (I decided on who moved in so even have a decent bit of experience in choosing people), looked after all the bills, arranged with plumbers or other work men to come for him etc....

So basically like a house that was rented as a whole....not like seperate rooms at all.

Sarn

ufc pro wrote: »

When you say notice! I was told in a phone call the rent would be going up, I've received no new contract yet!!

From the RTB site:

If a landlord intends reviewing the rent, they must inform you, in writing, of any review in rent, a minimum of 90 days before the new revised rent is due to take effect. A valid notice served by the landlord must be in the prescribed form (see sample notice below).
- It must state the amount of new rent and the date from which is to have effect.
- It must include a statement that a dispute must be referred to the Board on the expiry of 28 days from the receipt by the tenant of that notice or the date the new rent takes effect.
- It must include a statement by the landlord that it is their opinion that the new rent is not greater than market rent having regard to the other terms of the tenancy, letting values of dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area.
- It must specify the rent amount for three comparable dwellings of a similar size, type and character and situated in a comparable area.
- It must include the date on which the notice is signed.
- It must be signed by the landlord or his/her authorised agent.
- A landlord is also required to notify the RTB of the revised rent so that the registrations details can be updated.

In the absence of the above it would be an invalid notice.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

So basically like a house that was rented as a whole....not like seperate rooms at all.

It very much was seperate rooms, the occupants of one room changed twice and the other room three times in the time I was there (less than 3 years). If one didn't pay the others didn't have to make up the rent, if there was a few weeks between a person moving out and another moving the others didn't have to make up the rent. All tenants paid for their room only directly to the LL and were responsible for their portion of the deposit. All utility bills were in the LLs name. One months notice to move out regardless of how long you were there etc.

It is the very definition of a rooms let separately setup.

yosser hughes

OSI wrote: »

When was it given? If it was given before Dec 24, it's valid.

So if notice of a rent increase of say 40% was given before these rent pressure zones were activated then it is ok?
So I assume a lot of landlords got their notices of rent increases in before December 24th?.

yosser hughes

yosser hughes wrote: »

So if notice of a rent increase of say 40% was given before these rent pressure zones were activated then it is ok?
So I assume a lot of landlords got their notices of rent increases in before December 24th?.

Yes once the notice was given in december the day before the original rent pressure zones were introduced it is not subject to the 4% as the review occurred prior to the new rules so can't be bound by them.

For the new pressure zone which came in last week the notice could have been given anytime up to the date last week that they came in and they would not be subject to the 4%.

syndrome777

quick question guys.....I read trough the whole topic but didn't find the answer

we were given review notice yesterday in the post

date on the papers is 1st Feb. saying our rent will increase from 18th April.

all the other thinks in there are fine

as they have to give min of 90 days and that makes this notice invalid.

what do I do next, do I just let them know it should be from 1st of May, or this being invalid notice, prevents them to send us another review in the next 12 months??

thanks a mill

Michael D Not Higgins

syndrome777 wrote: »

quick question guys.....I read trough the whole topic but didn't find the answer

we were given review notice yesterday in the post

date on the papers is 1st Feb. saying our rent will increase from 18th April.

all the other thinks in there are fine

as they have to give min of 90 days and that makes this notice invalid.

what do I do next, do I just let them know it should be from 1st of May, or this being invalid notice, prevents them to send us another review in the next 12 months??

thanks a mill

You can try that but expect to go to the RTB to enforce it. The ruling on the "unsuccessful review barring the landlord from reviewing again" judgement from the RTB was a much more complicated case and was not a simple case of the wrong notice issued in the first instance. If you cannot resolve the review with the landlord yourself, you can take a case with the RTB.

syndrome777

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You can try that but expect to go to the RTB to enforce it. The ruling on the "unsuccessful review barring the landlord from reviewing again" judgement from the RTB was a much more complicated case and was not a simple case of the wrong notice issued in the first instance. If you cannot resolve the review with the landlord yourself, you can take a case with the RTB.

To be fair if it's as complicated as you say, there is no point.

on the RTB site they say (just found this)
"Where a valid notice of a rent review has been served by the landlord then either party can submit a dispute to the RTB before the new rent is to have effect or before expiry of 28 days from the tenant receiving that notice,whichever is the later. There is no time limit where an invalid notice is served. "

so If I dispute this at any time before the increase (as there's no point doing it after), they have to send me a rent review with a new 90 days time ?

Michael D Not Higgins

syndrome777 wrote: »

To be fair if it's as complicated as you say, there is no point.

on the RTB site they say (just found this)
"Where a valid notice of a rent review has been served by the landlord then either party can submit a dispute to the RTB before the new rent is to have effect or before expiry of 28 days from the tenant receiving that notice,whichever is the later. There is no time limit where an invalid notice is served. "

so If I dispute this at any time before the increase (as there's no point doing it after), they have to send me a rent review with a new 90 days time ?

If your intention is to delay the increase as long as possible, then yes, leave it as late as possible to dispute the increase. This is at the risk of damaging the relationship you have with your landlord however.

syndrome777

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If your intention is to delay the increase as long as possible, then yes, leave it as late as possible to dispute the increase. This is at the risk of damaging the relationship you have with your landlord however.

My LL is a company in receivership, who's done nothing to improve our way of living/apartment even though we paid high rent and were good tenants for the past 3 years. The rugs were so dirty we had to pay for professional cleaning. We painted ourselves cuz they were to busy/lazy/didn't care.

If it was a normal proper LL I wouldn't even dream of trying to delay increas or anything like that.

Thanks for the info

robp

Many

syndrome777 wrote: »

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If your intention is to delay the increase as long as possible, then yes, leave it as late as possible to dispute the increase. This is at the risk of damaging the relationship you have with your landlord however.

My LL is a company in receivership, who's done nothing to improve our way of living/apartment even though we paid high rent and were good tenants for the past 3 years. The rugs were so dirty we had to pay for professional cleaning. We painted ourselves cuz they were to busy/lazy/didn't care.

If it was a normal proper LL I wouldn't even dream of trying to delay increas or anything like that.

Thanks for the info

In many countries you get nothing, no furniture not even a kitchen and are obligated to paint when you leave.

syndrome777

robp wrote: »

Many

In many countries you get nothing, no furniture not even a kitchen and are obligated to paint when you leave.

and in many you get a decent place to live for the money you pay

stateofflux

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If your intention is to delay the increase as long as possible, then yes, leave it as late as possible to dispute the increase. This is at the risk of damaging the relationship you have with your landlord however.

id like to add something to this.

i received a rent increase letter the day before the new regs were due to come into effect back in december. it said my rent would increase on july 1st and i have 28 days to dispute it. if it goes beyond the 28 days is that tantamount to acceptance of the increase?.

Paulw

stateofflux wrote: »

i received a rent increase letter the day before the new regs were due to come into effect back in december. it said my rent would increase on july 1st and i have 28 days to dispute it. if it goes beyond the 28 days is that tantamount to acceptance of the increase?.

Yes and no. They are obliged to state that your statutory rights give you 28 days to lodge a dispute about the rent increase with the RTB.

But, that doesn't stop you discussing the increase with your landlord. However, your lack or dispute and response would normally be considered an acceptance of the increase.

syndrome777

stateofflux wrote: »

id like to add something to this.

i received a rent increase letter the day before the new regs were due to come into effect back in december. it said my rent would increase on july 1st and i have 28 days to dispute it. if it goes beyond the 28 days is that tantamount to acceptance of the increase?.

it should say you have 28 days or until the day of actual increase, whichever is later...which in this case is July 1st.

Browney7

robp wrote: »

Many

In many countries you get nothing, no furniture not even a kitchen and are obligated to paint when you leave.

So the OP should put up because he's lucky to have some cheap furniture and as for a kitchen, whoa, pushing the boat out there fella, do you not know how good you have it? ðŸ˜

Last time I checked we were in Ireland?

beauf

Browney7 wrote: »

So the OP should put up because he's lucky to have some cheap furniture and as for a kitchen, whoa, pushing the boat out there fella, do you not know how good you have it? ðŸ˜

Last time I checked we were in Ireland?

Your missing the point. It's a better system than here. People will respect their own furniture better than someone elses. Having to return the place painted, and unfurnished would remove an awful lot of causes of disputes.

Not sure this has anything to do with topic subject though.

robp

Browney7 wrote: »

robp wrote: »

Many

In many countries you get nothing, no furniture not even a kitchen and are obligated to paint when you leave.

So the OP should put up because he's lucky to have some cheap furniture and as for a kitchen, whoa, pushing the boat out there fella, do you not know how good you have it? ðŸ˜

Last time I checked we were in Ireland?

I wasn't making that point. Of course he is entitled to certain things but the model where the tenant provides furniture and paints is better for everyone in my opinion. The fact that Irish landlords provide so much is one reason why rents are high.

adocholiday

Hi all,

Looking for some opinions/advice on a rent increase proposed by our landlord. For context, there are 3 of us in a 3 bed apartment and we have apportioned the rent based on the room sizes. 2 of us have been there for a good few years now, and the third person moved in in October.

1. Myself and the other long term tenant had our last increase in July 2015 when there was a different third person living there. My understanding is that this protects us from an increase until July 2017 is that correct?

2. When I moved in, I signed a lease that was signed by the other 2 people living there at the time so was covered by the same. As far as I am aware now, the newer tenant signed a lease when he moved in (I've to confirm this), but we didn't sign anything. Could the landlord have us under different leases? I presume the newer tenant can't be given an increase within the first 12 months so any increase would have to be met by myself and the other long term tenant?

3. We are living in a Dublin suburb, so does this mean that the rent increase should be limited to 4%?

We're in a bit of a strange situation here but I would like to resolve this amicably. The landlord is a very nice guy, was good to us during the downturn and has been good to us with the rent increases even though things are booming. I'm not out to make his life difficult but I think he might look for a more significant increase this time around so I want to make sure I'm informed in negotiating with him.

Would appreciate any advice/opinions

Samuel T. Cogley

At work so popping in and out but try this OP

Chaper 6 is the relevant part for you.

Michael D Not Higgins

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

At work so popping in and out but try this OP

Chaper 6 is the relevant part for you.

To add to this, you are multiple tenants. You previously rented the entire place under a jointly and severally liable lease. Changing a multiple tenant adds them to the tenancy in place (although they don't get Part 4 protection until 6 months in) and they cannot be on a separate tenancy as your tenancy covers the whole place.

If you each rented rooms and had shared access to common areas, then the tenancies could be separate but what the landlord has done is gotten the new guy to sign a lease which adds them to your tenancy. Their start date doesn't affect the rent review as it isn't applicable to the start of the tenancy or the last rent review.

In the end what this means is you are due a rent review this summer. You're in Dublin so you are covered by the 4% increase (although if done correctly it's likely to be 4.5%).

Polar101

I've been renting the same property for several years now. So far it has been fixed term (one year) leases, we have signed a new one every time the previous one has 'expired'. The property is in Dublin, so it would be in a "4%" zone. But does the fixed term lease change this somehow? As in, could the landlord put up the rent by 50% if he wanted to?