New Tenant and Rent Increase

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 4:28pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

That applies to Dublin City Council areas. DCC is the only local authority to have clarified requirements in this respect (thus far) and it relates to two specific high profile cases (one in the Temple Bar, one in Rathmines).

I suspect its a non-runner- but I don't think its been definitively knocked on the head (yet).

My understanding is it's almost like a reverse process; That DCC can apply for it not be allowed, rather than one having to apply for it to be allowed.

Mrs OBumble · 10-04-2017 4:38pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It would have to be used more than the 'odd time'. There's about 6 threads on this a week for the last 6 weeks or so, take your pick of the ones with the myriad of reasons why this won't necessarily defeat the RTA.

I don't think it would need to be used at all: just rent out the two or even three rooms separately rather than tenting the whole house.

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 4:41pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I don't think it would need to be used at all: just rent out the two or even three rooms separately rather than tenting the whole house.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#part4-chap6

estee11 · 10-04-2017 4:45pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/enacted/en/print#part4-chap6

we may distinguish whether at commencement the individual was told and signed up to be a lodger or whether was given access to property without 'proper' advertisement (that it's a room in a shared house with an owner) signed a licensee agreement etc. I would also suggest to try not to argue with such guest to let it not escalate to rtb.

quadrifoglio verde · 10-04-2017 4:45pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It would have to be used more than the 'odd time'. There's about 6 threads on this a week for the last 6 weeks or so, take your pick of the ones with the myriad of reasons why this won't necessarily defeat the RTA.

Yes but if it was used on the last Friday of the month, then it would be ok

estee11 · 10-04-2017 4:46pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Yes but if it was used on the last Friday of the month, then it would be ok

is the word 'Friday' anywhere in the statue?

Sean Fantastic · 10-04-2017 4:50pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I'd rent out the two rooms at just below market rate and use the other room once a month for myself.
There is nothing to stop a landlord keeping a room for himself and using it the odd time. If new tenants get a bit of a discount compared to elsewhere in the area as well as a 3 bed house that is mainly occupied by 2 they'll be happy, provided it's all agreed at the start.

I'm not sure I understand? How will that help?

Sean Fantastic · 10-04-2017 4:52pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Renovate a bathroom or kitchen or new windows if needed then rent out. Have work carried out by professional and receipts.

I've had all that work done in the last 5 years. 2 new bathrooms, all new windows and front and back doors, new alarm system and a new kitchen. :-)

punisher5112 · 10-04-2017 4:53pm

Sean Fantastic wrote: »

I've had all that work done in the last 5 years. 2 new bathrooms, all new windows and front and back doors, new alarm system and a new kitchen. :-)

Oh well could have been a way.

Mr McBoatface · 10-04-2017 4:53pm

Genuine question here In the event of new tennents how do the RTB find out if a supposed increase above 4% is issued? Do they review thier records and act if they see an increase above that rate ? Or do they wait for a complaint ? Then following on from that how can the RTB tell if major upgrade work has been done or not ?

Seems an unmanageable mess and it's open to legal challenges

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 4:59pm

estee11 wrote: »

we may distinguish whether at commencement the individual was told and signed up to be a lodger or whether was given access to property without 'proper' advertisement (that it's a room in a shared house with an owner) signed a licensee agreement etc. I would also suggest to try not to argue with such guest to let it not escalate to rtb.

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Yes but if it was used on the last Friday of the month, then it would be ok

All of this would be subject to the RTB making a decision on it. Leases are a matter of the surrounding facts and not confined to the contract.

estee11 · 10-04-2017 4:59pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

All of this would be subject to the RTB making a decision on it. Leases are a matter of the surrounding facts and not confined to the contract.

once again, let's try not to escalate it to rtb and all parties should remain happy

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 5:01pm

Mr McBoatface wrote: »

Genuine question here In the event of new tennents how do the RTB find out if a supposed increase above 4% is issued? Do they review thier records and act if they see an increase above that rate ? Or do they wait for a complaint ? Then following on from that how can the RTB tell if major upgrade work has been done or not ?

Seems an unmanageable mess and it's open to legal challenges

As above, it's within the remit of the RTB to make a decision on it. That can be challenged but there is a deference to these bodies at common law. The standard to overturn their decisions (not on a point of law) is very high.

There could be a challenge to the over arching legislation but it would be extremely costly.

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 5:03pm

estee11 wrote: »

once again, let's try not to escalate it to rtb and all parties should remain happy

What are you suggesting here? If it's that the tenants won't post on somewhere like boards asking a question then that's a bit of a silly risk to take. If it's taking advantage of more vulnerable groups, then people can draw their own conclusions on what sort of LL you are or advise you're giving. It's already been pointed out one can take the risk, pretty irresponsible, but of course one can.

gizmo81 · 10-04-2017 5:04pm

I don't get why he's being 'shafted' the rent he was charging was more than acceptable till he now sees others getting more.

Quandary wrote: »

And here we have a first hand example of a seemingly fair and decent landlord getting shafted by the new regulations. Joke.

Best of luck with it OP.

Sean Fantastic · 10-04-2017 5:07pm

My previous tenants were all registered with the PRTB since it's inception. However, I've been remiss in keeping them updated for the last 4/5 years. In this case it would seem to me that I can set the rent for the new tenants at market value as the PRTB don't have a records as to what the rent level was at the time this rent control mechanism was implemented. Or am I missing something?

estee11 · 10-04-2017 5:08pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What are you suggesting here? If it's that the tenants won't post on somewhere like boards asking a question then that's a bit of a silly risk to take. If it's taking advantage of more vulnerable groups, then people can draw their own conclusions on what sort of LL you are or advise you're giving. It's already been pointed out one can take the risk, pretty irresponsible, but of course one can.

one second, hold your horses. I'm talking RAR and lodgers not tenants.
First of all I am not asking anyone to break a law. Secondly, i'm clearly saying that these cases are only referred to RTB once there is a dispute.
Renting out a spare bedroom, should never put a homeowner in a position where the lodger has an advantage and vice versa. Why not trying to say everything upfront that the person and make it clear that person is a lodger and that he/she is sharing a house with a living in landlord ? or straight away give individual lease for a room with set term then there should never be a problem.

I love Sean nos · 10-04-2017 5:09pm

Could you move into the house yourself for a while and rent out where you are living now instead?

estee11 · 10-04-2017 5:09pm

Sean Fantastic wrote: »

My previous tenants were all registered with the PRTB since it's inception. However, I've been remiss in keeping them updated for the last 4/5 years. In this case it would seem to me that I can set the rent for the new tenants at market value as the PRTB don't have a records as to what the rent level was at the time this rent control mechanism was implemented. Or am I missing something?

hmm, what kind of landlord am i

? In this OP's case it clearly shows that landlord has a problem.
Renting out individual rooms at 'set' rate with individual tenancy agreement (if he isn't living in there) seems like a good option?

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 5:09pm

gizmo81 wrote: »

I don't get why he's being 'shafted' the rent he was charging was more than acceptable till he now sees others getting more.

Many businesses will leave something as it is with long standing clients. Some through a want not to upset the apple cart, others as a reward for loyalty. It's not fair force that with new tenants and is probably unconstitutional. We won't know until it's properly challenged.

A business has a right to sell a product/service (absent profiteering) at the market rate.

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 5:10pm

estee11 wrote: »

one second, hold your horses. I'm talking RAR and lodgers not tenants.
First of all I am not asking anyone to break a law. Secondly, i'm clearly saying that these cases are only referred to RTB once there is a dispute.
Renting out a spare bedroom, should never put a homeowner in a position where the lodger has an advantage. I'm saying to say everything upfront that the person is a lodger and that he is sharing a house in a living in landlord home, then there should never be a problem.

Actually on rereading the OP it's not clear that he's not living there. I read it that the LL is not resident.

Sean Fantastic · 10-04-2017 5:12pm

gizmo81 wrote: »

I don't get why he's being 'shafted' the rent he was charging was more than acceptable till he now sees others getting more.

In this case "shafted" is being used to indicate that you're getting way less than market value for something. In the same way that if you bought a lotto ticket and said at the time that you'd love to win 10K and when all your number came in you only got 10K out of the 5million prize because you indicated that you'd be happy with that.

Ultimately, over supply lowers rent and facilitates tenants which is why I had reduced the rent over the years (by 47.5% in fact). I didn't complain then when I was being "shafted" at that time. It follows then when demand overtake supply then the rent should increase accordingly.

Seems straightforward to me.

pilly · 10-04-2017 5:14pm

No-one else tired of this subject?

Sean Fantastic · 10-04-2017 5:16pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Actually on rereading the OP it's not clear that he's not living there. I read it that the LL is not resident.

I'm not living there. The house is rented out to 1 person.

Sean Fantastic · 10-04-2017 5:17pm

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Could you move into the house yourself for a while and rent out where you are living now instead?

Unfortunately not. I have 5 children and the house I live in isn't local to this one so wouldn't suit in terms of schools or size.

estee11 · 10-04-2017 5:18pm

Sean Fantastic wrote: »

I'm not living there. The house is rented out to 1 person.

why not to rent out individual rooms ? register each new person with RTB and make it i.e. whatever as a rent per room - and collect rent weekly/monthly. This way you are just dividing your property into rooms, still register each tenancy with RTB and are on the top with everything?

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 5:20pm

Sean Fantastic wrote: »

I'm not living there. The house is rented out to 1 person.

Okay so to clarify the RTB can become involved even if one is claiming it's a licensee agreement. They would then make a decision on it.

estee11 · 10-04-2017 5:22pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay so to clarify the RTB can become involved even if one is claiming it's a licensee agreement. They would then make a decision on it.

he isn't claiming it and he has no intention to move in to become (residing in landlord).

Mr McBoatface · 10-04-2017 5:28pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As above, it's within the remit of the RTB to make a decision on it. That can be challenged but there is a deference to these bodies at common law. The standard to overturn their decisions (not on a point of law) is very high.

There could be a challenge to the over arching legislation but it would be extremely costly.

But how can the RTB prove or disprove that substantial work to refurbish a dwelly has occurred.

A landlord could say I fitted a new kitchen to replace an old one, put new flooring down, completely changed the heating system, insulation put in the loft as so on. They may not have done so but could have done minor repaired damaged kitchen unit, had wooden floors sanded and vanished not replaced, changed a boiler and a couple of radiators not a complete heating system. In affect make things look new without spending a complete fortune (would still require a significant spend from some).

If the RTB came looking for expenses to prove costs, a landlord could easily say they done the work themselves to reduce outgoings but could claim the work added value.

I suppose the question is how can the RTB say what is significant improvements and what is the standard required to prove it when it's not defined ?

Samuel T. Cogley · 10-04-2017 5:28pm

estee11 wrote: »

he isn't claiming it and he has no intention to move in to become (residing in landlord).

If the rooms are rented individually, absent significant refurbishment, the previous rent will apply. If there is significant refurbishment, there is no need to individually rent rooms.

You're dancing around trying to defeat the provisions of the RTA. You can't do that with a transparent 'loop hole'. The RTB will see the situation as it is on the ground and award damages if it's challenged.

New Tenant and Rent Increase

Comments