Tenant offering more than 4%

what2do

If a property were for rent at a certain price in line with the capped increase can a landlord accept more if a prospective tenant offers?

Graham

what2do wrote: »

If a property were for rent at a certain price in line with the capped increase can a landlord accept more if a prospective tenant offers?

Not legally and not without potentially leaving themself open to an RTB complaint when said tenant realises they stand a good chance of being awarded the excess back.

what2do

Thanks- would have thought if it was the prospective tenants suggestion it was their choice.

GhostyMcGhost

what2do wrote: »

Thanks- would have thought if it was the prospective tenants suggestion it was their choice.

They can simply say afterwards it wasn't or they didn't know etc

ozt9vdujny3srf

If this were to be the case then the rent controls would be effectively meaningless, and the quoted price would just turn into the minimum bid for the lease.

Mrs OBumble

A smart tenant would offer the extra for extra services to make it clear to the LL that theres no risk.

Graham

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

A smart tenant would offer the extra for extra services to make it clear to the LL that theres no risk.

Other than the risk the tenant could turn around and tell the landlord they no longer wanted those services as soon as they got the lease signed.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Other than the risk the tenant could turn around and tell the landlord they no longer wanted those services as soon as they got the lease signed.

Then in that situation the landlord ends up getting the rent at the market value as agreed.

what2do

Thought it was too good to hope for;-)

antoinolachtnai

Could ask for 'key money'?

Graham

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Could ask for 'key money'?

I'm surprised that hasn't started happening yet.

I'd be really interested in anything that suggests what the RTBs view on key money would be. Have you seen anything Antoin?

antoinolachtnai

I am sure that RTB will be against key money. But I can't think that there is much they can do about it. Key money isn't rent. Even if they can do something about it in theory, it is hard to see what they can do about it in practice.

There are much worse things that can happen than 'key money'. What about up-front payments to estate agents to get on lists, straight bribes and so on? You could have tenants charging assignees key money or subletting at a profit. At the end of the day though, this problem is happening because there are more people than accommodation, and the only way to resolve this is to make a lot more accommodation available.

antoinolachtnai

We just aren't building enough. Give a significant incentive for builders to build (say 40k per unit) and you will get a lot built pretty quickly.

But no one wants to do this. People really don't like giving anything to developers.

But you won't have homes until developers start building them in significant numbers.

jamesthepeach

I've heard of new tenants paying the service charges via the landlord, so an extra charge per month for those services. I've also heard lately where parking space has to be paid as an extra monthly charge and is compulsory. Or you can't just say you don't want it anymore.
Another one I've seen is renting the furniture off the landlord via an extra monthly charge.
I'm sure there are loads of ways to offer the landlord over the 4%.

The_Conductor

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I've heard of new tenants paying the service charges via the landlord, so an extra charge per month for those services. I've also heard lately where parking space has to be paid as an extra monthly charge and is compulsory. Or you can't just say you don't want it anymore.
Another one I've seen is renting the furniture off the landlord via an extra monthly charge.
I'm sure there are loads of ways to offer the landlord over the 4%.

I don't believe that tenants should pay the Management Charge (under any circumstances)- however, parking spaces are fair game. Its quite unusual for the parking space not to be billed separately from Management Charge- and after the last amendment to the MUD Act- any lodgement to the sink fund, is also billed separately.

If certain components of the Management Charge could be stripped out in a fully transparent manner- such as refuse collection, government policy is the polluter pays principle applies- and such charges should be bourne by the tenant.

So- yes, there are certain charges that could be reasonably applied to tenants- but there are others, such as the Management Charge- which are *not*.

gizmo81

I think people are failing to understand the IHRC

For example, advertisements cannot include terms like “rent supplement not accepted” or “professionals only”. If you see a discriminatory advertisement you can tell us on this form.This form of discrimination is covered by the housing assistance ground.


Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, or on any of the nine grounds, may also take the form of landlords or letting agents –

refusing to let you look at the property
refusing to rent the property to you
including discriminatory terms or conditions in leases or other tenancy agreements, whether written down or spoken
refusing to renew your lease or other tenancy agreement
end your lease or other tenancy agreement
withdrawing services related to property, or making it very hard for you to get these services.

https://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/

I wouldn't be putting 'work references' on my advert nor would i be withdrawing services from my property that were part of the property previously.

If your property is market rent but you want to withdraw services from the property then you are excluding a lot of people who can afford the market rent but not lump sum payments to the landlord or extra monthly payments.

jamesthepeach

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't believe that tenants should pay the Management Charge (under any circumstances)- however, parking spaces are fair game. Its quite unusual for the parking space not to be billed separately from Management Charge- and after the last amendment to the MUD Act- any lodgement to the sink fund, is also billed separately.

If certain components of the Management Charge could be stripped out in a fully transparent manner- such as refuse collection, government policy is the polluter pays principle applies- and such charges should be bourne by the tenant.

So- yes, there are certain charges that could be reasonably applied to tenants- but there are others, such as the Management Charge- which are *not*.

I see no problem with passing on the full management charges. I don't need to worry about it anymore, but it's a legitimate cost to the landlord that can be passed on outside the headline rent number.

The idea is that everything stays the same it's just that landlord gets to get around the rent control and get back to the market rate. He can't go above the market rate because it will be empty as no-one will take it, so that won't be an issue.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

withdrawing services related to property, or making it very hard for you to get these services.

Its becoming standard for Management Companies to strip out refuse collection and any other non-core service charges from the annual management charge in Managed Complexes.

Its not discriminatory- to insist on all residents paying for their refuse collection separately- or to have mandatory parking spaces assigned to units- which are billed separately.

In most cases- these items were setup in this manner from the late 1980s onwards- however, for convenience sake, they weren't separated out as is now happening.

The MUD Act specifically separated out the sink fund from service charges- but was agnostic regarding other aspects of the service charge.

It was also- up until 2004, normal to have a standard clause in owner's leases, that any resident of 3 years standing, regardless of whether they were an owner or a tenant, would be supplied with a copy of the proposed budget for the following year- and the residents would have make their feelings on the budget known to the members of the management company for voting on at the AGM. I.e. the tenant got a say on whether, or not, the proposed budget for the year was fair or reasonable.

No-one likes to pay any more than they necessarily have to- however, enforcing something that was there all along- doesn't necessarily make it a discriminatory factor.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its becoming standard for Management Companies to strip out refuse collection and any other non-core service charges from the annual management charge in Managed Complexes.

Its not discriminatory- to insist on all residents paying for their refuse collection separately- or to have mandatory parking spaces assigned to units- which are billed separately.

In most cases- these items were setup in this manner from the late 1980s onwards- however, for convenience sake, they weren't separated out as is now happening.

The MUD Act specifically separated out the sink fund from service charges- but was agnostic regarding other aspects of the service charge.

It was also- up until 2004, normal to have a standard clause in owner's leases, that any resident of 3 years standing, regardless of whether they were an owner or a tenant, would be supplied with a copy of the proposed budget for the following year- and the residents would have make their feelings on the budget known to the members of the management company for voting on at the AGM. I.e. the tenant got a say on whether, or not, the proposed budget for the year was fair or reasonable.

No-one likes to pay any more than they necessarily have to- however, enforcing something that was there all along- doesn't necessarily make it a discriminatory factor.

Numerous tenants organisations actively seeking cases along these lines to test. Remember it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the IHRC.

Landlords are literally walking into the Lions cage by pursuing petty things like this in a market where they are getting huge rents.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

Numerous tenants organisations actively seeking cases along these lines to test. Remember it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the IHRC.

Landlords are literally walking into the Lions cage by pursuing petty things like this in a market where they are getting huge rents.

Come back and tell us when the cases are finished how they went. <snip>

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

Numerous tenants organisations actively seeking cases along these lines to test. Remember it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the IHRC.

Landlords are literally walking into the Lions cage by pursuing petty things like this in a market where they are getting huge rents.

The IHRC? I presume you mean the IHREC.
Let them.......
The government has an obligation to provide accommodation to its citizens.
Private landlords- are not charities- and are not obliged to act as charities.

At the end of the day- the bigger issue than anything else- is lack of supply.
Instead of threatening people with the Irish Human Rights Equality Commission- on what are spurious grounds- a far better use of people's resources, including of course, time- would be to push local authorities and central government- to massively increase its ramp up and roll out of social housing and other local authority housing units- and perhaps putting some effort into looking into some of the current ills of the system (such as the manner in which even now, local authorities are selling more LA housing units than they are adding to their housing stock- which is nuts).

The IHREC- taking cases against people paying for parking spaces, refuse collection etc- honestly, I seriously doubt they'd take a case- but if they have the time and inclination (which I strongly suspect they don't)- let them.

Dangling the IHREC as a threat (or Threshold- or any other organisation)- to try and browbeat people with- is immoral. If there is a genuine case to be made, for or against any particular practice- let people make the case- and let it be tested in an open and transparent manner.

Threatening people with the RTB/Threshold/EPA Inspectors/The IHREC or any other body- is bullying- plain and simple. If there is a case to be made- make the case- at very least it will provide clarity for others.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

The IHRC? I presume you mean the IHREC.
Let them.......
The government has an obligation to provide accommodation to its citizens.
Private landlords- are not charities- and are not obliged to act as charities.

At the end of the day- the bigger issue than anything else- is lack of supply.
Instead of threatening people with the Irish Human Rights Equality Commission- on what are spurious grounds- a far better use of people's resources, including of course, time- would be to push local authorities and central government- to massively increase its ramp up and roll out of social housing and other local authority housing units- and perhaps putting some effort into looking into some of the current ills of the system (such as the manner in which even now, local authorities are selling more LA housing units than they are adding to their housing stock- which is nuts).

The IHREC- taking cases against people paying for parking spaces, refuse collection etc- honestly, I seriously doubt they'd take a case- but if they have the time and inclination (which I strongly suspect they don't)- let them.

Dangling the IHREC as a threat (or Threshold- or any other organisation)- to try and browbeat people with- is immoral. If there is a genuine case to be made, for or against any particular practice- let people make the case- and let it be tested in an open and transparent manner.

Threatening people with the RTB/Threshold/EPA Inspectors/The IHREC or any other body- is bullying- plain and simple. If there is a case to be made- make the case- at very least it will provide clarity for others.

This is so problematic, landlords are getting millions in taxpayer money for HAP, RAS schemes but you consider renting to someone on HAP as giving charity though you will get thousands for it.

You are treating people differently because of their circumstances.

Yes the E key is sticky

I shared the link numerous times.

You and your landlord colleagues threaten tenants on this Forum on a near daily basis.

Do you not think the comments by landlords including you on here are bullying tenants?

This is a forum for Accommodation and Property, not just landlords.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is so problematic, landlords are getting millions in taxpayer money for HAP, RAS schemes but you consider renting to someone on HAP as giving charity though you will get thousands for it.

You are treating people differently because of their circumstances.

Yes the E key is sticky

I shared the link numerous times.

You and your landlord colleagues threaten tenants on this Forum on a near daily basis.

Do you not think the comments by landlords including you on here are bullying tenants?

This is a forum for Accommodation and Property, not just landlords.

The only threats here are from you tbh.
Most Landlords don't actually want the hap or ras so why try to force it on them and then claim because they take it they are somehow beholden. They are actually doing you a favour by taking it.

gizmo81

jamesthepeach wrote: »

The only threats here are from you tbh.
Most Landlords don't actually want the hap or ras so why try to force it on them and then claim because they take it they are somehow beholden. They are actually doing you a favour by taking it.

You cannot discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services, so perhaps landlords shouldn't be in the business if they want to discriminate.

Actively pursuing complaints in relation to discrimination isn't a threat.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is so problematic, landlords are getting millions in taxpayer money for HAP, RAS schemes but you consider renting to someone on HAP as giving charity though you will get thousands for it.

Landlords are getting millions from the schemes you've noted- as are the Revenue Commissioners. Most landlords I know wouldn't shed a tear if they were excluded from these schemes- and increasingly large cohorts of them are being excluded- on the basis the properties they are letting do not comply with current building standards- which would not be applicable in the private rental sector.

The fact that the government are spending vast sums of money on private rented accommodation- is a reflection of the simple fact that they have failed in their obligation to provide housing to the citizens of the country- and are now, belatedly, trying to offload this obligation on the private sector.

The private sector- are not covered under United Nations bill of rights- the government are.

The bigger issue is a lack of provision of additional housing units by local authorities. The increase in supply of LA housing units- has to be massively ramped up and quickly.

gizmo81 wrote: »

You are treating people differently because of their circumstances. .

No. I don't think anyone is proposing that people be treated differently- they are proposing the exact same standards be imposed on all tenants. The local authorities, government and others (Threshold- possibly the IHREC) would like special treatment for some cohorts of tenants- however, they don't want to pay for this.

The obvious answer- if the government are spending 1.6 billion on housing this year, is to try and meet the needs of people who need additional requirements that are not readily available for them (for whatever reason).

gizmo81 wrote: »

You and your landlord colleagues threaten tenants on this Forum on a near daily basis.

If anyone threatens tenants or landlords (or anyone else) on this forum- there is an escalating schedule of punishments handed out- ultimately resulting in a ban. No one group has a monopoly on discussing the actions of another- and any group- has the right of reply to any accusations levelled at them. However- personally attacking someone- or bullying- will not be tolerated. If you are incapable of responding to a perceived slight or threat- without employing attacking or bullying practices- we have a very simple method for dealing with it- you use the report post function- and let the moderators know what the issue is with the post in question- and it will be reviewed.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Do you not think the comments by landlords including you on here are bullying tenants?

There is a big difference between discussing policies- and resorting to blackening or threatening entire groups of people. You have to accept that there are landlords, tenants, owner occupiers, managing agents and a plethora of others, posting in this forum. You are not going to agree with all of them. This doesn't make their point any more or less valid than yours. It also doesn't give you a blank cheque to attack them- or their points of view.

The rule of thumb is quite simply- if you disagree with what someone posts- you refute the post- without attacking or threatening the poster. Its a matter of being civil towards one another. We're not going to always agree with one another- thats a given- but the least we can do is afford one another the dignity of listening to each other's opposing view points.

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is a forum for Accommodation and Property, not just landlords.

+1
All the more important that we remain civil towards one another.

The_Conductor

gizmo81 wrote: »

You cannot discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services, so perhaps landlords shouldn't be in the business if they want to discriminate.

Actively pursuing complaints in relation to discrimination isn't a threat.

Its all to do with perception- and if someone is suggesting there is an act of discrimination- quite simply because they aren't getting their way- it does constitute bullying.

Just because any given tenant doesn't get a particular property- while another tenant does- does not mean that tenant A has been discriminated against.

Someone else is not always to blame- though society in general likes to play this card- in pretty much all circumstances. It is not always the case. Don't get me wrong- discrimination happens on a daily basis. However- because Kate and Ivy, a gay couple, don't succeed in renting an apartment- while Jack and Jill- a heterosexual couple got it- it doesn't necessarily mean Kate and Ivy were discriminated against..........

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I've heard of new tenants paying the service charges via the landlord, so an extra charge per month for those services. I've also heard lately where parking space has to be paid as an extra monthly charge and is compulsory. Or you can't just say you don't want it anymore.
Another one I've seen is renting the furniture off the landlord via an extra monthly charge.
I'm sure there are loads of ways to offer the landlord over the 4%.

I don't think any of those approaches have been tested in front of the RTB.

I wouldn't like to guess at how they'd view any of them. In the past they've certainly found against landlords who have tried to be clever getting around the RTA. No saying which way they'd go with unbundling of compulsory services.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

I don't think any of those approaches have been tested in front of the RTB.

I wouldn't like to guess at how they'd view any of them. In the past they've certainly found against landlords who have tried to be clever getting around the RTA. No saying which way they'd go with unbundling of compulsory services.

Plus on current form the government would just move the goal posts again.
Still, people are doing it, so I will watch with interest to see if anything actually does happen.

gizmo81

The_Conductor wrote: »

Just because any given tenant doesn't get a particular property- while another tenant does- does not mean that tenant A has been discriminated against.

.

This is not what you're saying

You're saying that on top of market rent, you and others here advocate for all these excess charges which would place certain demographics in a disadvantage.

The rental price is one thing, if people can't afford that fine. But other charges added are discriminatory.

Everyone cannot afford a Mac, but when start charging people to look at it, to walk into the shop, to have a drive run thats a problem.

jamesthepeach

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is not what you're saying

You're saying that on top of market rent, you and others here advocate for all these excess charges which would place certain demographics in a disadvantage.

The rental price is one thing, if people can't afford that fine. But other charges added are discriminatory.

Everyone cannot afford a Mac, but when start charging people to look at it, to walk into the shop, to have a drive run thats a problem.

No. What people are talking about are ways to bring a capped rent to market rent. Obviously they can't bring it above market rent because they won't get it.

To use your Mac analogy it would be like two shops next door to each other selling the same Mac. The govt says shop a must sell it for market rate of 1000 but shop b must sell theirs for 700.
So shop b adds in a service charge of 300. So they can get the same price for the same product as next door. €1000

Samuel T. Cogley

In my view the RPZ aren't and con not be a 'rent control' such controls are unconstitutional. They're designed to put a break on profiteering, I don't agree with that but at the same time I can see things are starting to get out of hand. As such though it seems to me that actual increases in cost, such as refuse charges fall out of the scope of the purpose of the 4% and the increase should be able to be passed on. Similarly parking spaces if not previously included should be fair game, if they have been previously included though the rent should be reduced by the market rate for the space, that one should cook a few noodles but also police itself in terms of price.