Property in an RPZ Below Market Rate

The_Conductor

ThehPatroniser - your brother was happy to leave the rent, as it was- because he had good tenants.
He was abroad and took his eye off the ball- however, he had good tenants.

He issued them with an illegal rent increase demand- and they are familiar with the law.

Its not that an RTB tribunal might go one way or another- it almost certainly would go against your brother if the tenant took a case- on foot of a termination notice from your brother.

Its far from unusual for landlords to have gotten locked into artificially low rents- as a result of government policies.

In your brother's favour- the RPZ legislation is a fixed term SI- which will expire in December 2019- so providing its not renewed, he would be in a position to review the rent to market levels at that time- but not before- for now he is limited to an initial 4% over 24 months- thereafter 4% per annum increase.

Vis-à-vis the tenants- they are also supposed to be deducting withholding tax from the gross rent they pay your brother- as he is not tax resident in Ireland...........

Your brother got caught by the new legislation- as did many landlords- however, your brother has tied himself up in knots with his e-mail correspondence with the tenants.

If he attempts to terminate the tenancy- and it goes to the RTB- in light of his illegal rent increase demand, it is almost a foregone conclusion that he would loose.

ThehPatroniser

Can the tenants allow copies of the e-mails passing between my brother and them to be given as evidence even though they are "hearsay"?

So if we object to the e-mails about the rent increase, is there any evidence?

My brother had NO IDEA that e-mails could be brought into a court case about rent.

wordofwarning

Browney7 wrote: »

In fairness - I don't think this is entirely fair. If he set the rent at market rent two years ago he would have been unable to increase it due to the two year rule and so now is his first opportunity to review.

Rents have not risen by 50% in 2 years though. I would hazard a guess that the rent significantly below market rate from day one.

The_Conductor

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

This is DEEPLY depressing.

This is the position many landlords are in- your brother is far from unique- the most unique factor in your brothers case- is a paper trail highlighting the illegal rent hike he sought.

The_Conductor

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Can the tenants allow copies of the e-mails passing between my brother and them to be given as evidence even though they are "hearsay"?

So if we object to the e-mails about the rent increase, is there any evidence?

My brother had NO IDEA that e-mails could be brought into a court case about rent.

They are not hearsay- they are eligible- as are text messages etc.
Your brother screwed up- on several different levels, sorry.

Lumen

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

This is an interesting point. Does the RTB take into account the fact that the landlord could get by using some other means such as a hotel if the use of the property is occasional only? If so we are bunched because Lumen is correct: if we kept the tenants, the rent would cover hotel accommodation. This is DEEPLY depressing.

You're missing my point. I'm not asking you what he is claiming, I'm asking you what the truth is. You say that he wants to kick the tenants out so that he can use it for his own occasional use, but this is not credible.

He wants to kick the tenants out so that he can get new ones in at a higher rent. This is an easily discovered ruse - the tenants can simply ring the doorbell some time in the next two years, discover the truth and go to the RTB. Then he'll have a very large bill to pay.

I suppose he could take a very long term view that after leaving the property largely vacant for 2 years he can then recover the lost rent by increasing it 50%, but that plan will take six years to break even (disregarding the fact that he'll have the property available for his own occasional use). The rent control legislation is supposed to be a temporary measure, and may well get overturned in the meantime.

Bandana boy

Your Brother seems to have his nose out of joint with the tenant's and the government for something that is 100% his fault, namely not paying attention to his investment.

Nobody has taken advantage of him , He did not know what the rents were increasing in Dublin that is his fault , he now feels that this money he might have earned has been taken from him , but in reality he burned that money through laziness.
Now he wants to jump the rent to try make it back , Dublin like many other capital cities around the world has rent controls that stop that.

He can ask Tenants to leave for personal use and there is nothing they can do about it , his ask for an increase of €1,000 will not hinder that.
He cannot though relist in 6 months to avoid the rent controls and while he might get away with it , I strongly suspect he will get caught .

beauf

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

This is an interesting point. Does the RTB take into account the fact that the landlord could get by using some other means such as a hotel if the use of the property is occasional only? If so we are bunched because Lumen is correct: if we kept the tenants, the rent would cover hotel accommodation. This is DEEPLY depressing.

I think you are missing the point. Is that you may be the property owner, its not your home. Its the tenants home while they have a valid lease. You can't treat it like your home.

ThehPatroniser

Bandana boy wrote: »

Your Brother seems to have his nose out of joint with the tenant's and the government for something that is 100% his fault, namely not paying attention to his investment.

Nobody has taken advantage of him , He did not know what the rents were increasing in Dublin that is his fault , he now feels that this money he might have earned has been taken from him , but in reality he burned that money through laziness.
Now he wants to jump the rent to try make it back , Dublin like many other capital cities around the world has rent controls that stop that.

He can ask Tenants to leave for personal use and there is nothing they can do about it , his ask for an increase of €1,000 will not hinder that.
He cannot though relist in 6 months to avoid the rent controls and while he might get away with it , I strongly suspect he will get caught .

At last a helpful comment namely that the requested rent increase which was MERELY A REQUEST cannot stop a landlord getting his property back for personal use. NO MATTER how little it will be used. If the Brother is prepared to forego the rent and use the place occasionally surely that's HIS CHOICE... Thanks I appreciate your comment: it gives hope.

beauf

Bandana boy wrote: »

Your Brother seems to have his nose out of joint with the tenant's and the government for something that is 100% his fault, namely not paying attention to his investment.....

Even if he was paying attention. Nothing he could have done anyway. it was brought in before anyone could have opted out. Which was the point.

The unfairness is that it only caught LL who had kept the rents low. They won't make that mistake again.

The_Conductor

Bandana boy wrote: »

He can ask Tenants to leave for personal use and there is nothing they can do about it , his ask for an increase of €1,000 will not hinder that.
He cannot though relist in 6 months to avoid the rent controls and while he might get away with it , I strongly suspect he will get caught .

I'd argue that he very probably can't terminate the current tenant's tenancy on personal use grounds- given he just asked them for a 1,000 Euro rent increase in writing.

If he tries- and the tenants dispute it (and to be honest, they'd be nuts not to)- its entirely foreseeable that your brother would loose the case, and the tenants would remain in situ........

Even if the guy's brother did terminate the tenant's tenancy- he can't relet the property at a higher rate- without significant and substantial work done to it (a new bathroom or kitchen- or tiling etc- is insufficient).

The guy's brother has screwed himself by suggesting a 1,000 Euro rent increase in writing- the tenants are virtually guaranteed to win if he tries to terminate the tenancy.

gizmo81

Bandana boy wrote: »

Your Brother seems to have his nose out of joint with the tenant's and the government for something that is 100% his fault, namely not paying attention to his investment.

Nobody has taken advantage of him , He did not know what the rents were increasing in Dublin that is his fault , he now feels that this money he might have earned has been taken from him , but in reality he burned that money through laziness.
Now he wants to jump the rent to try make it back , Dublin like many other capital cities around the world has rent controls that stop that.

He can ask Tenants to leave for personal use and there is nothing they can do about it , his ask for an increase of €1,000 will not hinder that.
He cannot though relist in 6 months to avoid the rent controls and while he might get away with it , I strongly suspect he will get caught .

I think the best possible outcome at the RTB would be to reach an agreement at the adjudication stage not to evict the tenants and not increase the rent.

If the tenants proceed to tribunal and are evicted (albeit legally) after an illegal rent increase I doubt the panel would look favourably on the landlord.

ThehPatroniser

One thing i would ask. Is there any good book that goes into detail on this business of the law on what precisely you want the property back for. I can find nothing on the internet that deals with real life situations like where the Landlord says: Look I ned a rent increase BUT if you don't want to pay, so be it - I will just have to manage by taking the place back for myself. All the legal websites simply say that the Landlord can take the place back for himself. None of them say what happens if you give the tenant a choice: pay increased rent or i need the place for weekends. If anyone can mention such a book I would be grateful and will quote the material here.

The_Conductor

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

At last a helpful comment namely that the requested rent increase which was MERELY A REQUEST cannot stop a landlord getting his property back for personal use. NO MATTER how little it will be used. If the Brother is prepared to forego the rent and use the place occasionally surely that's HIS CHOICE... Thanks I appreciate your comment: it gives hope.

Honestly- just get a solicitor who is familiar with the RTA- and willing to spend a couple of hours reading up on their adjudications.

Your brother- by virtue of seeking the 1,000 Euro rent increase in writing- will in all probability be seen to be vindictively terminating the tenancy if it goes to tribunal.

Just because someone says something you want to hear- doesn't make it so.

The_Conductor

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

One thing i would ask. Is there any good book that goes into detail on this business of the law on what precisely you want the property back for. I can find nothing on the internet that deals with real life situations like where the Landlord says: Look I ned a rent increase BUT if you don't want to pay, so be it - I will just have to manage by taking the place back for myself. All the legal websites simply say that the Landlord can take the place back for himself. None of them say what happens if you give the tenant a choice: pay increased rent or i need the place for weekends. If anyone can mention such a book I would be grateful and will quote the material here.

Look at the adjudications on the RTB website- there are some examples there not a million miles away from that of your brother. This is the only 'case law' out there. No- there is no book.

Sarn

Unfortunately if he was willing to let the tenants stay on if they paid an extra €1k a month and then turns around when he can't get it and says I need it for personal use it is likely to be seen as penalizing the tenants for refusing the illegal increase.

ThehPatroniser

Sarn wrote: »

Unfortunately if he was willing to let the tenants stay on if they paid an extra €1k a month and then turns around when he can't get it and says I need it for personal use it is likely to be seen as penalizing the tenants for refusing the illegal increase.

Just for the record his e-mail said both at the same time: I need a €1,000 or else it makes no sense for me to keep renting - I would need to use the place whenever I am back in Ireland. So to be precise, it was NOT a threat, it was a fair choice.

Browney7

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Just for the record his e-mail said both at the same time: I need a €1,000 or else it makes no sense for me to keep renting - I would need to use the place whenever I am back in Ireland. So to be precise, it was NOT a threat, it was a fair choice.

But the 1000 request was an illegal request that contravenes the RTA. If rents hadn't risen at all in the two years would he still need the 1000 extra to keep the Let going?

AlmightyCushion

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Just for the record his e-mail said both at the same time: I need a €1,000 or else it makes no sense for me to keep renting - I would need to use the place whenever I am back in Ireland. So to be precise, it was NOT a threat, it was a fair choice.

He either needs it or he doesn't. Giving them an option to stay there suggests he doesn't need it. Also, occasional use for when he is back in the country is hard to describe as a need.

Lumen

Browney7 wrote: »

But the 1000 request was an illegal request that contravenes the RTA. If rents hadn't risen at all in the two years would he still need the 1000 extra to keep the Let going?

The idea is that the rising rents have increased the cost of his occasional accommodation in Dublin, so that it now makes sense for him to hold it off-market as a crash pad at the opportunity cost of 2k/month.

Owryan

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Landlord says: Look I ned a rent increase BUT if you don't want to pay, so be it - I will just have to manage by taking the place back for myself.

To me that reads like blackmail, pay up or be homeless. Esp since he says he only wants the property for occasional use. If I was the tenants I would be straight off to the rtb.

Lumen

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

He either needs it or he doesn't. Giving them an option to stay there suggests he doesn't need it. Also, occasional use for when he is back in the country is hard to describe as a need.

Actually, the wording of the RTB notice is "The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation".

So this hinges on meaning of the word "occupation".

edit: the 2004 act states "The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family"

LuckyLloyd

When one of two options are breaking the law, it ain't a fair choice.

ThehPatroniser

Lumen wrote: »

Actually, the wording of the RTB notice is "The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation".

So this hinges on meaning of the word "occupation".

edit: the 2004 act states "The landlord requires the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling for his or her own occupation or for occupation by a member of his or her family"

The legal dictionaries online say that occupation means to possess or enjoy property. It says nothing about "living in it". On that basis you could occupy a property by having possession of it (the key) so that you could use it or enjoy it whenever you want. So you could be the "occupier" of a holiday home even though you only live in it from time to time. Which is exactly our point.

Lumen

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

The legal dictionaries online say that occupation means to possess or enjoy property. It says nothing about "living in it". On that basis you could occupy a property by having possession of it (the key) so that you could use it or enjoy it whenever you want. So you could be the "occupier" of a holiday home even though you only live in it from time to time. Which is exactly our point.

I'm not sure that the RTB will care about your online dictionary, but please post again with the outcome of the case.

ThehPatroniser

Definition of Occupier in the Occupiers Liability Act:

“occupier”, in relation to any premises, means a person exercising such control over the state of the premises that it is reasonable to impose upon that person a duty towards an entrant in respect of a particular danger thereon and, where there is more than one occupier of the same premises, the extent of the duty of each occupier towards an entrant depends on the degree of control each of them has over the state of the premises and the particular danger thereon and whether, as respects each of them, the entrant concerned is a visitor, recreational user or trespasser;

So an occupier just needs to have control, not to LIVE IN. In my book that's called "having the key"

gizmo81

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

Just for the record his e-mail said both at the same time: I need a €1,000 or else it makes no sense for me to keep renting - I would need to use the place whenever I am back in Ireland. So to be precise, it was NOT a threat, it was a fair choice.

It really doesn't matter what your dictionaries say, if he used the words 'or else' he threatened the tenants with an illegal rent increase and eviction.

Browney7

ThehPatroniser wrote: »

The legal dictionaries online say that occupation means to possess or enjoy property. It says nothing about "living in it". On that basis you could occupy a property by having possession of it (the key) so that you could use it or enjoy it whenever you want. So you could be the "occupier" of a holiday home even though you only live in it from time to time. Which is exactly our point.

Look, by all means chance removing the tenants and fighting any dispute in the RTB. People with experience on the thread have advised they are likely to lose but no one can say for definite.

But if you think you will get away with letting it sit idle for six months and re renting it for the thousand more in six months time and youre caught I suspect the repercussions could be punitive.

jamesthepeach

Why don't you move into it yourself and Airbnb the other rooms for a while.

Or else tell him to sell it.

Your options are limited.

Varik

They're 2 years plus into it, another year and you can give them notice.