Excessive rent - how is it policed?

Pkiernan

What isn't clear from the OP is when the last rent review was.
For new tenants the RTB calculator allows for a cumulative increase from the last time the rent was raised.

So much more than 4% is certainly allowable.

Wanderer78

The_Conductor wrote: »

Everyone should obey the law.

of course everyone should but in reality that never happens for an near infinite amount of reasons. believe it or not, some laws are actually there for the benefit of the minority even if it harms the majority. i think the work of somebody such as bill black shows that very well, but to bring this to some context, the housing market is a mess, its not working for many landlords or tenants.

davo10

Wanderer78 wrote: »

of course everyone should but in reality that never happens for an near infinite amount of reasons. believe it or not, some laws are actually there for the benefit of the minority even if it harms the majority. i think the work of somebody such as bill black shows that very well, but to bring this to some context, the housing market is a mess, its not working for many landlords or tenants.

Agree with this, the Government have made a complete balls of tenancy legislation and it's completely unenforceable. They interfered in a broken system and made it worse instead of addressing the real problem, supply.

Nickindublin

Graham wrote: »

Would be interesting to see if that approach has been tested in front of the RTB.

Nothing they can do. They had it looked at legally.

Graham

Nickindublin wrote: »

Nothing they can do. They had it looked at legally.

I'm surprised.

It's not too much of a stretch to suggest the rent has increased by the value (new rent) of the parking that's no longer included.

wordofwarning

sapper wrote: »

I think it's crazy that the only way these new rules can be enforced are through new tenant seeking evidence or an old tenant complaining.

No, the only crazy thing is this law. It is politics at its finest. Every economists will tell you rent control is flawed policy. It has never worked and will never work. A modern country in the 21st century introducing it making zero sense. Although it has served a purpose. It has appeased the clueless who think it has resolved the housing crisis...

sapper wrote: »

Why can't the prtb publish the rent attached to each tenancy on their website like the property price register? Then at least anyone with internet access could report the breach

Great idea. Why stop there? Why don't we publish the names, address, photos of the landlords, their hobbies, their first born, where they want on holidays last March, etc etc. :rolleyes:

Instead of the RTB doing their job of enforcing this law, we should just give landlords zero privacy and get the public to do it? If this info was revealed, every rag in the country would be tearing landlords apart. Actually let me rephrase that, they will destroy landlords even further.

How would you feel if Revenue decided to stick your name on a public database telling everyone how much you earned? Would you be happy with Mary in No 3 seeing that? I imagine absolutely not. Yet you see no issue with the RTB doing the same. You see no issue with the RTB stating how much a landlord makes on their properties

Nickindublin

Graham wrote: »

I'm surprised.

It's not too much of a stretch to suggest the rent has increased by the value (new rent) of the parking that's no longer included

It's a new rental. Basically when the person rented the apartment they also rented the space separately. He included it for last tenant. Nothing illeagal about it. A friend of mine has an apartment and never had a space with it. The space was rented out to someone else. Then last month the space became available and he rented it as he just bought a car 3 months ago and was street parking it with great inconvenience. Extra 100 a month it cost. Even though that space belonged to that apartment.

davo10

Wordofwarning I agree with you, rental properties are subject to the economic law of any other commodity, what's rare and desired is valuable, always has been, always will be. When you try to interfere with it, it's disastrous. As usual the buck was passed, blame it on the property owners. Rents rise when supply is low and demand is high, if the shoe was on the other foot tenants would rejoice that rent is low if supply was high.

But back to the subject of the thread, if rent is capped (as is the "law") then 20+ prospective tenants turn up and references/deposits are the deciding factor. You've 19 disaffected tenants who complain why they didn't get the property and can't get another one even though some were willing to pay more than the successful applicant but were prevented from doing so by the law. Effectively it becomes a "beauty" contest. How is that good for the market?

If the op complains, how does that help the people viewing the property? Many of those viewing may be willing to pay more to secure it but are prevented from doing so.

Graham

Nickindublin wrote: »

It's a new rental. Basically when the person rented the apartment they also rented the space separately. He included it for last tenant. Nothing illeagal about it. A friend of mine has an apartment and never had a space with it. The space was rented out to someone else. Then last month the space became available and he rented it as he just bought a car 3 months ago and was street parking it with great inconvenience. Extra 100 a month it cost. Even though that space belonged to that apartment.

I'd argue, if a previously included parking space has been removed for a separate rent of say €200/month then the value of that space is €200/month. If that space is no longer included with the apartment, the rent has notionally increased by €200/month.

Mrs OBumble

OP - was the rent you were paying well below the market rate for the area? If it was, then realistically I'd just move on.

You may be legally in the right to report the LL. But Ireland is a very small country, and karma is a bitch. You never know who you'll end up working for, or renting from again in the future.

sapper

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP - was the rent you were paying well below the market rate for the area? If it was, then realistically I'd just move on.

You may be legally in the right to report the LL. But Ireland is a very small country, and karma is a bitch. You never know who you'll end up working for, or renting from again in the future.

Property was rented at market rate a few years ago and the lease came up for renewal just as the initial 2 year freeze came into effect. Toward the end of that the rent pressure zones came in. A few landlords in the area started trying their luck with high rents about 6 months ago. What is being asked for is in line with those recent v high rents but 50% more than I was paying

If I plug in the previous rent and relevant dates into the prtb rent calculator the allowable rent is 70% of what is being asked for. The allowable rent is about 10% more than what I paid.

I'm only having a whinge on boards.ie not leafleting the neighbourhood and not intending on reporting to the prtb, but as someone who pays their dues and follows the law (and is also a landlord) I guess I naively assumed that simple processes to enforce these rent controls were in place. If it's all basically voluntary then it's just another Irish Water-type debacle waiting to happen

davo10

sapper wrote: »

Property was rented at market rate a few years ago and the lease came up for renewal just as the initial 2 year freeze came into effect. Toward the end of that the rent pressure zones came in. A few landlords in the area started trying their luck with high rents about 6 months ago. What is being asked for is in line with those recent v high rents but 50% more than I was paying

If I plug in the previous rent and relevant dates into the prtb rent calculator the allowable rent is 70% of what is being asked for. The allowable rent is about 10% more than what I paid.

I'm only having a whinge on boards.ie not leafleting the neighbourhood and not intending on reporting to the prtb, but as someone who pays their dues and follows the law (and is also a landlord) I guess I naively assumed that simple processes to enforce these rent controls were in place. If it's all basically voluntary then it's just another Irish Water-type debacle waiting to happen

It's not a "debacle", it's market forces, same as any other commodity. It's an issue same as every other country in the world where rental properties are in high demand. You say it's not right, others will argue they can't rent because they are prevented from offering what they can afford to secure a property. This is what happens when governments interfere with free and enterprise.

There is another thread on boards where a prospective tenant asked what they have to do to rent a property when loads of people turn up to a viewing, they have references, a deposit but can't rent because others keep getting the properties, if the market worked same as any other then the highest bidders wins.

Wanderer78

<snip>

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

<snip>

i completely disagree with your opinion mod but anyhow.....

Cuddlesworth

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP - was the rent you were paying well below the market rate for the area? If it was, then realistically I'd just move on.

You may be legally in the right to report the LL. But Ireland is a very small country, and karma is a bitch. You never know who you'll end up working for, or renting from again in the future.

Really? Because I would report it. Regardless of what we think, if the law was in favour of the landlord and not the tenant, most landlords I know would report it in a heartbeat. At the end of the day, it's a business transaction with regulations defined in law. And part of those regulations is the enforcement of rent increases, then the OP could be getting a rather large payout because of underhanded tactics from their old landlord.

wordofwarning

davo10 wrote: »

But back to the subject of the thread, if rent is capped (as is the "law") then 20+ prospective tenants turn up and references/deposits are the deciding factor. You've 19 disaffected tenants who complain why they didn't get the property and can't get another one even though some were willing to pay more than the successful applicant but were prevented from doing so by the law. Effectively it becomes a "beauty" contest. How is that good for the market?

If the op complains, how does that help the people viewing the property? Many of those viewing may be willing to pay more to secure it but are prevented from doing so.

One of the issue with rent control is that it creates a black market. As you give in your example, 20 potential tenants turn up to a listing of a 2 bedroom apartment in the IFSC that is on the market due to the rent cap at €1,200 a month. The market rent is about €2,000. One of the potential tenants says to the landlord, Ill send an EFT of €1,200 each month and give you an envelope with €300 each month. This is the norm in the likes of Sweden.

The rent cap is incredible difficult to police. Lets get real, who cares about policing it? The Government appeased the masses with it.

I want the Government to build social housing to address the housing crisis, than enforce a failed policy

Cuddlesworth

wordofwarning wrote: »

One of the issue with rent control is that it creates a black market. As you give in your example, 20 potential tenants turn up to a listing of a 2 bedroom apartment in the IFSC that is on the market due to the rent cap at €1,200 a month. The market rent is about €2,000. One of the potential tenants says to the landlord, Ill send an EFT of €1,200 each month and give you an envelope with €300 each month. This is the norm in the likes of Sweden.

The rent cap is incredible difficult to police. Lets get real, who cares about policing it? The Government appeased the masses with it.

I want the Government to build social housing to address the housing crisis, than enforce a failed policy

Because its pretty easy to fake a "substantial refurb"? New tiling, new floors, new kitchen press doors, replace the cheap couches with different cheap couches and paint the place. Voila, 3-5 days of work for 1 person, 3k to 5k and the place looks brand new. In this case the landlord has little to no excuse.

CollyFlower

If the property is way under market value it might be best to leave it empty for 2 years and then put it on the market for the going rate in the area.

Cuddlesworth

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Really? Because I would report it. Regardless of what we think, if the law was in favour of the landlord and not the tenant, most landlords I know would report it in a heartbeat. At the end of the day, it's a business transaction with regulations defined in law. And part of those regulations is the enforcement of rent increases, then the OP could be getting a rather large payout because of underhanded tactics from their old landlord.

What on earth would the op get a payout for?

Cuddlesworth

Tatum Vast Watermelon wrote: »

What on earth would the op get a payout for?

Illegal Eviction(if no refurb was actually done), difference in rent payments as a result of the eviction, costs for moving. Payouts can be anywhere from 5k to 25k for illegial evictions, rent legislation could add much more to it.

Pkiernan

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Illegal Eviction(if no refurb was actually done), difference in rent payments as a result of the eviction, costs for moving. Payouts can be anywhere from 5k to 25k for illegial evictions, rent legislation could add much more to it.

What eviction?
OP in his own words moved out.

noodler

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP - was the rent you were paying well below the market rate for the area? If it was, then realistically I'd just move on.

You may be legally in the right to report the LL. But Ireland is a very small country, and karma is a bitch. You never know who you'll end up working for, or renting from again in the future.

You are incredibly transparent when it comes to rental issues it is unreal.

Every post.

You either support the landlord when the law favours them or when it doesn't you want the tenant about "karma".

Unreal.

Ann_Landers

noodler wrote: »

You are incredibly transparent when it comes to rental issues it is unreal.

Every post.

You either support the landlord when the law favours them or when it doesn't you want the tenant about "karma".

Unreal.

+1

Cuddlesworth

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Illegal Eviction(if no refurb was actually done), difference in rent payments as a result of the eviction, costs for moving. Payouts can be anywhere from 5k to 25k for illegial evictions, rent legislation could add much more to it.

There was no illegal eviction or any eviction for that matter.

Cuddlesworth

Pkiernan wrote: »

What eviction?
OP in his own words moved out.

I missed that. But it also makes it more interesting because its not the first occurrence of zero policing in rent prices that I have heard.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fian

CollyFlower wrote: »

If the property is way under market value it might be best to leave it empty for 2 years and then put it on the market for the going rate in the area.

This doesn't work. If the property was rented in the 24 months before the RPZ then the rent controls apply - regardless of whether it is left vacant for 24 months.

If it was not rented during that 24 month period then the rent controls do not apply - even on a review after it has first been rented.

See subsection 34(5) here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/17/section/34/enacted/en/html#sec34