What happens with new tenant?

tina1040

Ok so, as a landlord with a tenant leaving to return to the US later in the year, if I advertise at current rental + 4% and I have a full inbox of enquiries, what do I do?

Say the first person comes to view and wants to take it, but I have a queue down the road with potential tenants wanting to pay €100 or €200 more, what are the rules?

jamesthepeach

tina1040 wrote: »

Ok so, as a landlord with a tenant leaving to return to the US later in the year, if I advertise at current rental + 4% and I have a full inbox of enquiries, what do I do?

Say the first person comes to view and wants to take it, but I have a queue down the road with potential tenants wanting to pay €100 or €200 more, what are the rules?

Welcome to the stupidity of government interference.
You may be able to get the total take up by separating the rent from maintenance fees, parking, or anything ales you can think of.
Take this opportunity to do that because once you have a new tenant in then you can't do that.
Also you can be very choosy about getting the right tenant but whatever you do explain to Noone why you rejected them or you might face discrimination action.

Ms Doubtfire1

be mindful with that kind of work around. You might well face issues down the road as this has not been tried yet in front of the RTB - if you get a tenant and tenant decides to take issues with it at a later point, you don't know what view the RTB will take on it - but I don't think they will be pleased.

jamesthepeach

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

be mindful with that kind of work around. You might well face issues down the road as this has not been tried yet in front of the RTB - if you get a tenant and tenant decides to take issues with it at a later point, you don't know what view the RTB will take on it - but I don't think they will be pleased.

Let's wait until we see if there is a proven with it before we ASSUME somehow the rtb can do anything. Might as well be ASSUMING that if you don't rent it to someone with a starsign of Pisces that the rtb might take a dim view of it.

Ask a solicitor well versed in property op if you need to. You could try Airbnb too. That has worked out well for me so far. Only thing I'd say about Airbnb is get it managed via an agent, because it's very hands on if you don't.

Ms Doubtfire1

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

be mindful with that kind of work around. You might well face issues down the road as this has not been tried yet in front of the RTB - if you get a tenant and tenant decides to take issues with it at a later point, you don't know what view the RTB will take on it - but I don't think they will be pleased.

Let's wait until we see if there is a proven with it before we ASSUME somehow the rtb can do anything.  Might as well be ASSUMING that if you don't rent it to someone with a starsign of Pisces that the rtb might take a dim view of it.

Ask a solicitor well versed in property op if you need to.  You could try Airbnb too.  That has worked out well for me so far.  Only thing I'd say about Airbnb is get it managed via an agent, because it's very hands on if you don't.

I just don't like to take chances - and this is taking a chance. Would agree with solicitor - airbn might be the best way to go.

SteelyDanJalapeno

ASSUMING

dudara

The only rules are that you can't discriminate.

If I were in your shoes, I'd set up 10 or so viewings from the responses you've received. Use your judgement to pick out 10 good/clear responses. I personally wouldn't do an open viewing as you probably will have tens of people queuing to view.

Meet those 10 people, get their references etc, and conclude the viewing by saying that you'll get back to them once you've made your decision.

Review the references, decide who you want your tenant to be and offer them the property.

Whatever path you do decide to go down, do not accept any offers to pay additional cash "under the table" or in addition to the advertised rent. That will put you above the allowed 4% and leaves you open to potential legal trouble.

Hollister11

dudara wrote: »

The only rules are that you can't discriminate.

If I were in your shoes, I'd set up 10 or so viewings from the responses you've received. Use your judgement to pick out 10 good/clear responses. I personally wouldn't do an open viewing as you probably will have tens of people queuing to view.

Meet those 10 people, get their references etc, and conclude the viewing by saying that you'll get back to them once you've made your decision.

Review the references, decide who you want your tenant to be and offer them the property.

Whatever path you do decide to go down, do not accept any offers to pay additional cash "under the table" or in addition to the advertised rent. That will put you above the allowed 4% and leaves you open to potential legal trouble.

How does cash leave you open to legal trouble? There is no proof you are getting any cash

dudara

Hollister11 wrote: »

How does cash leave you open to legal trouble? There is no proof you are getting any cash

I'm talking about the case where the tenant lodges a claim with the RTB saying that they were paying more than +4% rent.

Hollister11

dudara wrote: »

I'm talking about the case where the tenant lodges a claim with the RTB saying that they were paying more than +4% rent.

I know. But if the 'through the books' money shows that the rent is equal to +4%, where's the proof that cash is being paid.

dudara

If I were a tenant, I would withdraw the extra funds on their own, so as to have a paper trail. You may not be able to prove it went to the landlord, but you can show a trail of it originating on your side.

jamesthepeach

dudara wrote: »

If I were a tenant, I would withdraw the extra funds on their own, so as to have a paper trail. You may not be able to prove it went to the landlord, but you can show a trail of it originating on your side.

Waste of time even doing it that way.
Sure the tenant can just stop paying the extra after a month and there is nothing the landlord can do.
Definitely better to separate the rent out from extra charges on the tenant changeover.

awec

Just pick a tenant that you like the most. Look for one with a good job.

Avoid getting into this dodgy business of inventing these extra costs for tenants. Unscrupulous landlords deserve unscrupulous tenants.

testaccount123

Probably best the ignore the advice of the likes of jamesthepeach or whatever he's calling himself this week OP, he's consistently shown he has no regard for the law when it comes to the rental sector.

The rules say you can let the property again at its current market value plus 4%. So do that.

mdebets

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Waste of time even doing it that way.
Sure the tenant can just stop paying the extra after a month and there is nothing the landlord can do.
Definitely better to separate the rent out from extra charges on the tenant changeover.

I wouldn't be too sure that the PRTB would see this as legal (especially if all the extra charges are compulsory and nothing the tenant could opt out off), as the nominal rent will only be increased by 4%, but the value the tenant get will be decreased (by the new charges, as they were included in the rent paid in the past). So make sure to keep the extra money, in case the PRTB will order you to pay it back.

Del2005

tina1040 wrote: »

Ok so, as a landlord with a tenant leaving to return to the US later in the year, if I advertise at current rental + 4% and I have a full inbox of enquiries, what do I do?

Say the first person comes to view and wants to take it, but I have a queue down the road with potential tenants wanting to pay €100 or €200 more, what are the rules?

Have the property so that it only meets the mimimum standards and let who ever rents it supply the rest. More chance of getting a person to look after it if most of the items are their property not yours.

Graham

Mod Warning

Several posters need to re-familiarise themselves with the forum charter. Specifically:

Members looking for information on, ways to, or advocating work arounds on property or tax law or other illegal or morally dubious practices will be banned.

davindub

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Waste of time even doing it that way.
Sure the tenant can just stop paying the extra after a month and there is nothing the landlord can do.
Definitely better to separate the rent out from extra charges on the tenant changeover.

Why?

If I were forced to pay an additional charge to secure a lease, if it were fixed term, I would pay the 1st month rent + charge and then pay rent - charge the next month. What can you do about it?

jamesthepeach

mdebets wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure that the PRTB would see this as legal (especially if all the extra charges are compulsory and nothing the tenant could opt out off), as the nominal rent will only be increased by 4%, but the value the tenant get will be decreased (by the new charges, as they were included in the rent paid in the past). So make sure to keep the extra money, in case the PRTB will order you to pay it back.

Well when you have something from the rtb to back this up do let us know. Until then it's perfectly legal to separate out charges from the rent. It's done everywhere else. It's even done here with most bills. This is just passing on the rest of the bills seperarley to the rent.

jamesthepeach

davindub wrote: »

Why?

If I were forced to pay an additional charge to secure a lease, if it were fixed term, I would pay the 1st month rent + charge and then pay rent - charge the next month. What can you do about it?

Different situation. What I'm suggesting is not illegal. So it's the same as charging rent. You have the same issues as you have if the tenant decided not to pay rent but no more, as you are not doing anything illegal as the landlord. And people saying it MIGHT be illegal aren't proving anything really are they.

If you ask for u see the table payments, that is 100% illegal,.so you don't have enough aleg to stand on should they stop the payments.

mdebets

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Well when you have something from the rtb to back this up do let us know. Until then it's perfectly legal to separate out charges from the rent. It's done everywhere else. It's even done here with most bills. This is just passing on the rest of the bills seperarley to the rent.

It's not the seperating out of extra charges, that might be illegal, but the keeping the current rent the same + 4%, while decreasing the value you get for it that might be illegal.
Example of this:
The old rent was 100€. The landlord want's now to increase the rent to 104€ and add new other cost as 20€, bringing the total to 124€. But if it could be argued that the new costs were already part of the old rent, the actual rent (which would be the basis for the rent increase cap of 4%) would be 80€, so the new rent + cost would be 80€ (old rent) + 3.20€ (4% increase) + 20€ (new costs), bringing it up to 103.20€, less than the landlord would be able to charge if he didn't do the split.

By the way, could you please state the law that says 'if it's done everywhere else, it's legal in Ireland'. I have a few parts of the German rental law, that I would like to apply to Ireland as well as per the above law you mentioned.

mdebets

Just one additional thought. If the separating of extra charges from the rent, without dropping the rent by this amount would be legal within the law, what would prevent the landlord from introducing a compulsory cutlery or furniture charge. 5€/month for a spoon, 10€/month for a plate. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

jamesthepeach

mdebets wrote: »

It's not the seperating out of extra charges, that might be illegal, but the keeping the current rent the same + 4%, while decreasing the value you get for it that might be illegal.
Example of this:
The old rent was 100€. The landlord want's now to increase the rent to 104€ and add new other cost as 20€, bringing the total to 124€. But if it could be argued that the new costs were already part of the old rent, the actual rent (which would be the basis for the rent increase cap of 4%) would be 80€, so the new rent + cost would be 80€ (old rent) + 3.20€ (4% increase) + 20€ (new costs), bringing it up to 103.20€, less than the landlord would be able to charge if he didn't do the split.

By the way, could you please state the law that says 'if it's done everywhere else, it's legal in Ireland'. I have a few parts of the German rental law, that I would like to apply to Ireland as well as per the above law you mentioned.

I'm not the one making up laws so don't be asking me to state laws. It's logic that I'm staying, not things like "oogh, the rtb wouldn't be happy with that" and nothing to back it up.

It's been posted many times I threads here that the EU are ensuring that most charges are to be stripped out of rents so that the user pays.
Old rent for one tenant is not the same as new rent for a new tenant.

Anyway make it too awkward for the actual owners of the property and they willeave the current setup. It's happening on a huge scale already. Loads are going short term or selling g up. The remainder are looking at ways like splitting the rent out from extra charges, to try and stay in the business. If they can't they will just leave it to. You need to be able to make a profit to stay in business.

mdebets

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I'm not the one making up laws so don't be asking me to state laws. It's logic that I'm staying, not things like "oogh, the rtb wouldn't be happy with that" and nothing to back it up.

It's been posted many times I threads here that the EU are ensuring that most charges are to be stripped out of rents so that the user pays.
Old rent for one tenant is not the same as new rent for a new tenant.

Anyway make it too awkward for the actual owners of the property and they willeave the current setup. It's happening on a huge scale already. Loads are going short term or selling g up. The remainder are looking at ways like splitting the rent out from extra charges, to try and stay in the business. If they can't they will just leave it to. You need to be able to make a profit to stay in business.

You don't seem to understand, stripping out of extra charges is not the problem, I would actually prefer this, if it is done properly, with giving a proper invoice to the tenant and providing him with the invoice of the charges, the landlord pays.
The problem I see is (and yes, I know, until it is challenged and there is a ruling by the RTB, we don't know if my or your interpretation is correct) the splitting of what you get when you rent a home into different proportions without reducing the appropriate amounts.
If you split the old rent into rent for the home and extra charges, the sum at the end needs to be the same. After this, you can increase the rent part by the allowed percentage.

On a side note, as you are so fond of the European and German tenancy laws, then you surely think that rent control is a good thing, that the landlord has no right to inspect the home during the tenancy, that the landlord can evict a tenant only for certain reasons, no 6 months and 6 years rule, and that a tenant can under certain circumstances can legally refuse to move out, even if a landlord has a legal right to have the landlord evicted.

Graham

Mod Warning

One poster has just received a short ban for ignoring the forum charter.

Members looking for information on, ways to, or advocating work arounds on property or tax law or other illegal or morally dubious practices will be banned.