What is a New tenancy?

twalsh995

Just curious as what constitutes a New Tenancy? My housemates and I are getting our rent increased and we did not have a lease last year. The previous year there was a lease but only one of the lads from the original lease stayed on. So would this constitute as a New tenancy and warrent a 8% increase? I moved in last may 2016 and everyone else has been in dribs and drabs
Thank you
Thomas

Michael D Not Higgins

So there was a lease for 2015, none for 2016 and now for renewal in 2017, the landlord wants to implement an 8% increase? Have I got that right? When was the last rent increase? Was the new rent listed in a rent review notice with the required 3 comparable properties, RPZ calculation (if applicable), and correct 90 day notice period?

twalsh995

Yes thats right, there hasnt been an increase in the last two years. RPZ says 4% for existing but 8% for new tenancy. Nope she just came around and told us the rent was being put up around a month ago and wants new lease from september with rental increase, what is the rent review notice?

Michael D Not Higgins

A rent review notice is a written notice that indicates the new rent for the property, states the old rent and when it was set, indicates the new rent and how it was calculated, gives the date when the new rent comes in (must be at least 90 days after the receipt of the rent review notice) and includes 3 comparable properties to demonstrate the new rent is not above the market rate. It sounds like you've not gotten any of the above except the amount of the new rent.

Your landlord's interpretation of the tenancy as a new tenancy is suspect. Replacement of tenants along the way can constitute a tenancy continuing and it sounds like there's still one of the same guys from the original lease still there which would also support it being the same tenancy. Nonetheless, request a proper rent review notice in line with the legislation.

Fol20

The landlord hasn't served you the correct rental increase notice. They are however obeying the new laws for a max increase of 4pc per annum. If you want to be extra strict you could force them in giving you the correct rental review however I would ask yourself is the rent here good value and secondly how is your relationship with your ll. Going down exact route for it in writing etc may piss off the ll and if the rental amount is a good bit below market rate they much just do substantial work to the place to get rid of you. Go onto the Rpz calculator website if you want to double check they are charging you the correct amount. If I were you. I would way up what I mentioned to see what you

davindub

Fol20 wrote: »

The landlord hasn't served you the correct rental increase notice. They are however obeying the new laws for a max increase of 4pc per annum. If you want to be extra strict you could force them in giving you the correct rental review however I would ask yourself is the rent here good value and secondly how is your relationship with your ll. Going down exact route for it in writing etc may piss off the ll and if the rental amount is a good bit below market rate they much just do substantial work to the place to get rid of you. Go onto the Rpz calculator website if you want to double check they are charging you the correct amount. If I were you. I would way up what I mentioned to see what you

2% PA for the 1st review falling after the RPZ.

The_Conductor

davindub wrote: »

2% PA for the 1st review falling after the RPZ.

The RTB have an online calculator which outlines whether, or not, a property is in an RPZ, and what the maximum rent is. As Davindub points out- at first review- depending on when the last review was- typically the permitted increase is 2% per annum (at the outset)- rising to 4% per annum for subsequent annual reviews.

Link to calculator here: https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rpz-calculator

davo10

The_Conductor wrote: »

The RTB have an online calculator which outlines whether, or not, a property is in an RPZ, and what the maximum rent is. As Davindub points out- at first review- depending on when the last review was- typically the permitted increase is 2% per annum (at the outset)- rising to 4% per annum for subsequent annual reviews.

Link to calculator here: https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rpz-calculator

If restricted to 2%, I'm sure the LL can find some "major" refurbishment to be done or a "relative" to move in.

Given the current situation, I actually think Fol20's is the best advice I've read in a long time. If the rent is reasonable for the area, even at 8% increase, I'd accept it. At 2%, it probably makes sense to spend a bit of money on refurbishment and re-let at a higher rate to the op. If course the op will have to find somewhere to live for a few months which in reality will end the tenancy. The prospect of trying to find another rental would be daunting.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

At 2%, it probably makes sense to spend a bit of money on refurbishment and re-let at a higher rate to the op.

That's not how it works.

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

That's not how it works.

Of course it's not how it works legally, but it is how it works in reality. Doing "major" refurbishment or "needing" it for a family member are bone fide reasons to terminate a Part 4. If a rental property is below market rate, or put another way, the LL can get substantially more in a new rental, then moving the existing tenants out and doing refurbishment makes financial sense, though it may be morally questionable. Given that a rental is business rather than a past time, financial considerations tend to be foremost in the property owners mind.

When you add in the insane difficulty finding another rental, potentially without a reference, then sometimes reality bites and you have to consider all potential outcomes. It's no use being the moral victor while being homeless.

Really it depends on whether the new rental rate is reasonable.

The_Conductor

davo10 wrote: »

If restricted to 2%, I'm sure the LL can find some "major" refurbishment to be done or a "relative" to move in.

That's 2% per annum now- not a straight 2%- if the rent hasn't been reviewed since the outset of the tenancy 3 years ago- that's 6%. Its then 4% per annum thereafter.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

Of course it's not how it works legally, but it is how it works in reality.

If I was a landlord I wouldn't risk trying to game the refurbishment criteria, particularly if my tenants were local (and therefore might be able to move into family home temporarily).

All it takes is for a disgruntled tenant to take a case to the RTB and you've not only wasted the refurb money, you'd have a big bill from the RTB.

davo10

The_Conductor wrote: »

That's 2% per annum now- not a straight 2%- if the rent hasn't been reviewed since the outset of the tenancy 3 years ago- that's 6%. Its then 4% per annum thereafter.

I understand. One of the huge problems of the legislation is that if the current rent is low/reasonable, then it can only be raised by 2/4/6%, which may be well below market rate. If that is the case, then it is worth while refurbishing. On the other hand, if the 2/4/6% increase brings it up close to market rate, then it isn't worth the hassle.

It therefore depends on the rental, if the rental is low relative to market, then the op should consider paying the 8% rather than risking having to look for another property.

irelandrover

Lumen wrote: »

If I was a landlord I wouldn't risk trying to game the refurbishment criteria, particularly if my tenants were local (and therefore might be able to move into family home temporarily).

All it takes is for a disgruntled tenant to take a case to the RTB and you've not only wasted the refurb money, you'd have a big bill from the RTB.

But if you do carry out a refurb then you can relet at a higher rent. What could the tenant then bring to teh RTB?

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

If I was a landlord I wouldn't risk trying to game the refurbishment criteria, particularly if my tenants were local (and therefore might be able to move into family home temporarily).

All it takes is for a disgruntled tenant to take a case to the RTB and you've not only wasted the refurb money, you'd have a big bill from the RTB.

You aren't "gaming" the system if you do refurbish your property, the legislation clearly states that it is a valid reason to end a tenancy.

Refurbishing is a good way of increasing rental income so it depends if the ends justify the means, the extra rental income covers the cost of refurbishment.

Lumen

davo10 wrote: »

You aren't "gaming" the system if you do refurbish your property, the legislation clearly states that it is a valid reason to end a tenancy.

But as discussed here many times, it isn't the case that any refurbishment provides a valid reason, it has to be substantial. There is no definitive, objective definition of what that means, although works requiring planning would seem to qualify, and so attempting to do some minimum amount in order to justify a termination (*) is a very risky strategy.

(*) That's what I mean by "gaming".

davo10

Lumen wrote: »

But as discussed here many times, it isn't the case that any refurbishment provides a valid reason, it has to be substantial. There is no definitive, objective definition of what that means, although works requiring planning would seem to qualify, and so attempting to do some minimum amount in order to justify a termination (*) is a very risky strategy.

(*) That's what I mean by "gaming".

I agree with you, my point, maybe I'm not making it simple or clear enough, is that if the landlord can make more money from renting at a higher rate then is spent on substantial refurbishmemt, then I'm confident the benefit of doing the refurbishment will be obvious to most, but maybe not all.

That of course would be dependent on how much the rent could be increased by after the substantial refurbishmemt, if it's €100 per month, then of course it's not worth it, but if it's €400 per month and subsequent increases would be 4% above this new level, well that has to be given consideration.

Considering the limited refurbishmemt you can do on an apartment, a new kitchen/bathrooms/boiler/painting (could anything be more "substantial"?) might set you back €10k, You don't have to have a degree in maths to realise that being able to set a new rent would mean that would be recovered pretty quick.

jamesthepeach

davo10 wrote: »

I agree with you, my point, maybe I'm not making it simple or clear enough, is that if the landlord can make more money from renting at a higher rate then is spent on substantial refurbishmemt, then I'm confident the benefit of doing the refurbishment will be obvious to most, but maybe not all.

That of course would be dependent on how much the rent could be increased by after the substantial refurbishmemt, if it's €100 per month, then of course it's not worth it, but if it's €400 per month and subsequent increases would be 4% above this new level, well that has to be given consideration.

Considering the limited refurbishmemt you can do on an apartment, a new kitchen/bathrooms/boiler/painting (could anything be more "substantial"?) might set you back €10k, You don't have to have a degree in maths to realise that being able to set a new rent would mean that would be recovered pretty quick.

I did a refurbished myself just over a year ago on a 1 bed apartment. I put in new floors, tiled bathroom, new kitchen and new furniture, painting and repairing doors and walls. I did it all for less than 3k. The place went from old and tired to luxury. It was a total transformation and I dont think I could have transformed it anymore even if I spent another 10k on it short of getting marble floors and granite worktop which you would never do in a rental.

And after that I got screwed over by the rent caps. I had intended to recover the outlay by raising the rent a little as it was way below market rate, but alas, it wasn't allowed anymore.

It did work out in the end though as it became perfect for short term let.

I would advise someone to think twice before I spent any money on a rental while it's capped in future though.