New Tenant and Rent Increase

estee11

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

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.

does that mean the if his property was let at 900 /month then each room will now be allowed to be rented out at 300 /month + 4% each?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mr McBoatface wrote: »

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 ?

There have been posts on this, I believe in this thread, if not The_Conductor has made some posts recently outlining what needs to be done and shown.

Samuel T. Cogley

estee11 wrote: »

does that mean the if his property was let at 900 /month then each room will now be allowed to be rented out at 300 /month + 4% each?

900 + 4% = 3*300+4%

estee11

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

900 + 4% = 3*300+4%

that is what i have written.

Is OP screwed by the system or are there any ways out?

Samuel T. Cogley

estee11 wrote: »

that is what i have written.

Is OP screwed by the system or are there any ways out?

They can make substantial refurbishment
They can AirBnB the place, establishing beyond doubt a licensee agreement and not allowing the acquisition of Part IV rights. (There is some question over > 6 months of even AirBnB)
They can leave it empty for 2 years.

What they can't, or would be very ill advised to do, is try and find a loophole by saying they're staying there once in a blue moon or storing their boat in the bedroom.

I love Sean nos

gizmo81 wrote: »

Raising profits at a time of crises is profiteering. The OP hasn't been giving away the property the last 10 years, he has been making a profit, but now in a time of crises (Rental crises) he seeks to raise his prices. To me that is textbook profiteering.

And his expenses related to the property have remained the same for the ten years of course. :rolleyes:

The OP didn't cause any crisis and any profit he is making is unlikely to be excessive.

mrcheez

Just curious, if you are renting out a place for the first time, can you set the price to whatever you like?

Currently own a house, but might be going abroad so may rent it out. (or are you restricted to a max rate based on the market in the area?)

Samuel T. Cogley

mrcheez wrote: »

Just curious, if you are renting out a place for the first time, can you set the price to whatever you like?

Currently own a house, but might be going abroad so may rent it out. (or are you restricted to a max rate based on the market in the area?)

Not as far as I know. The market for the area should sort that out anyway. E.g. you won't get €2000 for a 1 bed apartment if the rest rent for €1500. That said you'll make LL's doing rent reviews very happy.

Mr McBoatface

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

There have been posts on this, I believe in this thread, if not The_Conductor has made some posts recently outlining what needs to be done and shown.

Thanks seen that post now. My property (not actually rented atm) isn't in a pressure zone. If it was I'd be well able to afford and could make those changes if every required but I can see how others just want to sell up and give up the landlord game thus increasing pressure further on the rental market.

The intention of the new rules was good but poorly implemented. I'd probably sell it should it be extended to the area.

It's no longer worth being "nice" to good tenants.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mr McBoatface wrote: »

Thanks seen that post now. My property (not actually rented atm) isn't in a pressure zone. If it was I'd be well able to afford and could make those changes if every required but I can see how others just want to sell up and give up the landlord game thus increasing pressure further on the rental market.

The intention of the new rules was good but poorly implemented. I'd probably sell it should it be extended to the area.

It's no longer worth being "nice" to good tenants.

I could not agree more. I'm actually in a position where I'll be putting the rent up on excellent tenants who I'd have been happy to leave at their current rent for as long as they were there, even though I'm making a small loss - such is the worry you get landed with deadbeats. However if I go to sell the yield will be a factor.

Also don't get me wrong you're right that this is very difficult to enforce, but absent the LL having their ducks in a row if a dispute arises, I've no faith that the RTB won't give the tenant the benefit of the doubt.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

No, like Mother Courage didn't cause the war but she profited from it.

He's taking about increasing of around 63% so I'd say that's excessive.

Would it be safe to assume you wouldn't offer to drop your wages to mid-recession rates if the market rate for your job had increased in the last 10 years?

Mr McBoatface

The_Conductor wrote: »

Works that involve planning permission and/or require the use of a C2 registered contractor- and if a tenancy is being ended for the purpose of carrying out such works (not happening in this case)- a copy of the bill of works from the nominated contractor has to be supplied to the tenant. Its specifically been stated that a new bathroom or kitchen *does not* qualify. Once the work is structural in nature- you're probably fine.

Unfortunately in the OP's case- it really is an instance of 'no good deed going unpunished'.

What about extensions below the planning permission requirements? Would a certificate of compliance from an architect be enough in this case without the need for C2 contractors?

I love Sean nos

gizmo81 wrote: »

his outgoings must of been covered by the previous tenants rent

Must they?

Rent 63% under the current market rate.
Paying a mortgage (perhaps).
Likely paying the higher rate of PAYE as well as USC on the revenue received, not the profit.
Insurance.
Utilities.
Maintenance.
RTB fee.
LPT.
Risk.

Yeah, that sounds like profiteering. Especially if he does then get his 63% increase and has to put half of it in Michael Noonan's pocket.

gizmo81

These's things you quote didn't appear when his tenant handed in his notice.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Must they?

Rent 63% under the current market rate.
Paying a mortgage (perhaps).
Likely paying the higher rate of PAYE as well as USC on the revenue received, not the profit.
Insurance.
Utilities.
Maintenance.
RTB fee.
LPT.
Risk.

Yeah, that sounds like profiteering. Especially if he does then get his 63% increase and has to put half of it in Michael Noonan's pocket.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

You're not talking same for same.

He isn't being asked to drop anything.

No, he's stood the loss of income for many years already. Fairly decent in my opinion and certainly not something he should be financially punished for forever more.

gizmo81

I'll bow out. I'm new to this forum. The landlord contingent is very strong and it's very depressing to read what I've read here the last week.

I love Sean nos

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'll bow out. I'm new to this forum. The landlord contingent is very strong and it's very depressing to read what I've read here the last week.

:pac:

I'm not a landlord and if I was given a house for free or inherited one, I'd sell it as quickly as possible rather than become one.

karenalot

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?

The RTB might not have records but they can investigate for a disgruntled tenant who believes they are overpaying and lodges a complaint. I have seen lots of rental ads on Daft which clearly aren't following the 4% rule. The onus would be on you to prove the previous tenants were paying market rate.

Also bear in mind when a new tenancy commences in an RPZ you are required to furnish the tenants in writing with the rental amount of the previous tenant.

"Additional Requirement for New Tenancies in Rent Pressure Zone
In the case of a new tenancy in a rent pressure zone, a landlord is required to furnish the tenant, in writing, with the following information at the commencement of the tenancy:

(i) The amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(ii) The date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(iii) A statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been
calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula."

76544567

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. :-)

Happened to me too. Spent a fortune renovating before the new rules came in. Do i feel like an idiot now.
Won't be doing any work whatsoever on a rental anymore. You just can't make back the money spent with rent controls in place

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Raising profits at a time of crises is profiteering. The OP hasn't been giving away the property the last 10 years, he has been making a profit, but now in a time of crises (Rental crises) he seeks to raise his prices. To me that is textbook profiteering.

Profiteering? Please. It's baby infants level business to know that when something is in short supply then you increase the price and make more profit. You should keep very far away from running a business judging by your posts. A LL should seek to maximise profits at all times, especially when prices are high due to demand.

MarkHall

Sean Fantastic wrote: »

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?

Any new tenant can ask to see proof of previous rental price.

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.

If you havn't paid it in over 4 years. Then you could be in for some taxman related issues. If you pay the income tax and claim the 75% of interest on Mortgage.
Then the last year or two could be dodgy as you can't claim that if you don't register the tenancies. if there's no change then a prtb can last 4 years. But needs to be a renewed after that. Hopefully that's not the case for you.

Graham

I read the OP. Nowhere is it mentioned what the OPs costs were at the start of the tenancy relative to now. To be honest, it's not relevant.

Unless you're going to offer to work for 2007 rates and donate anything above that to meet random peoples 'fundamental basics of existence' then it's rather hypocritical to expect anyone else to do it.

gizmo81

It's irrelevant what I work for or what my work is worth.

What is relevant is it is illegal for the OP to increase the current rent by more than 4%,unless substantially renovated, as another poster pointed out, by law, he is requested to provide new tenants of documentation in regards to the previous rent.

For a new tenancy (starting on or after 24 December 2016) in a Rent Pressure Zone, the landlord may raise the rent once every 12 months. The maximum rent increase will be 4% per year. The landlord must give the tenant the following information, in writing, at the start of the tenancy:

The amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling
The date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling
A statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated, having regard to the Rent Pressure Zone formula

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

So this 4% increase is the actual LEGAL market value of his property not the 63% increase he envisions because his neighbour is charging it.

Graham wrote: »

I read the OP. Nowhere is it mentioned what the OPs costs were at the start of the tenancy relative to now. To be honest, it's not relevant.

Unless you're going to offer to work for 2007 rates and donate anything above that to meet random peoples 'fundamental basics of existence' then it's rather hypocritical to expect anyone else to do it.

Graham

gizmo81 wrote: »

It's irrelevant what I work for or what my work is worth.

Yet you think it's relevant to make judgements around the OPs income/worth based on knowing nothing at all about his position other than he did his previous tenant a good turn over a prolonged period.

gizmo81 wrote: »

What is relevant is it is illegal for the OP to increase the current rent by more than 4%

I'm quite familiar with the RPZ legislation, that doesn't mean I think it's particularly fair especially in cases such as the OPs.

davindub

Sean Fantastic wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately you are paying the price for others landlords actions, I'm sure the 4% cap was not directed at landlords well under the market rent, but the legislation was rushed in to curb massive increases in rent.

You might check out a Long term lease to county council 10-20 year lease at 80% MV. Im not sure if they still do this with the introduction of HAP, but it doesn't come under the RTB act.

gizmo81

He didn't do the previous tenant a 'good turn', he made money from him.

No I didn't judge the man all I judged was the fact he said he wanted to increase the rent on a property by 63% for no reason other than his neighbours are charging more.

Your posts read as though you are not all that familiar with the RPZ legislation, that's the law now. Your opinion is immaterial, the law is the law and many disagree with you.

Graham wrote: »

Yet you think it's relevant to make judgements around the OPs income/worth based on knowing nothing at all about his position other than he did his previous tenant a good turn over a prolonged period.



I'm quite familiar with the RPZ legislation, that doesn't mean I think it's particularly fair especially in cases such as the OPs.

Graham

jsd1004 wrote: »

No you should not. Food is a fundamental basic of existence too but i dont see my local Tesco basing their business on empathy.

+1

It's always easier to have empathy when it's coming out of the pocket of somebody else.

jsd1004

gizmo81 wrote: »

Again I say read the original post. he's not charging 10 and paying 90% of that out in fees and charges.

O'm watching The Property Crisis Documentary on RTE, I'll leave you argue against what's the law and what's the value of a tin of beans. G'nite

You are the one arguing. It is basic economics. Limited supply means increased demand. Be it a can of beans or a house. There is no room for empathy in business.

athtrasna

Mod note

Please take the to and fro to pm, along with the economics lessons and psychic knowledge of the OP's financial outgoings. Thanks

gizmo81

And the business of renting property is governed. So whether his property is worth 63% more than the current rent, your opinion, his opinion and economics are all immaterial.

The law says it's worth no more than a 4% increase and that's the end of it!

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

jsd1004 wrote: »

You are the one arguing. It is basic economics. Limited supply means increased demand. Be it a can of beans or a house. There is no room for empathy in business.