welcome to Dublin rental market :/

fibix

Hi there, boards.ie know all so here's me asking:) I have moved to Dublin only over a month ago, beautiful apartment share, all is going great, could't believe my luck. The other person lives in the apartment from April 2016. On Fri we got a letter from the agency with the termination notice. The landlord (which is the agency themselves: builders/developer or whatever, not a private one) wants to carry out substantial renovation (listed in the letter), the notice period is aprox. 3 months. And then they say that we get the first refusal. The rent obviously won't be the same, am I correct in assuming so? Realistically, the rent is very cheap for what is, the location, the size etc. so I do understand why they do it, they could easily be renting the place for a 1k more. So my question is: do we just pack up and go? Do we stay longer? Does it matter that the contract was signed off again when I moved in so only a month ago, it still does mention the start date as of April 2016 for 12 months, so can they terminate any time now? Please clarify good people. Thanks!

voluntary

I'm pretty sure the dates and notices they gave you are checked with their lawyers so are likely valid. Some people in similar situation decide not to move out anyway if they've no place to go knowing the evictions take very very long in this country. Ideal scenario: you find a new place and just move out, spare yourself and them all the hassle.

whomitconcerns

So you signed a new 12 month lease with the landlord a month ago? Is that the case?

voluntary

Seems like he was added to somebody else's contract which started in 2016

fibix

voluntary wrote: »

Seems like he was added to somebody else's contract which started in 2016

Correct, the contract was reissued when I moved in after the previous second tenant left.

When they refurbish the place and re-let, they can hike up the rent as much as they want don’t they?

The_Conductor

It has to be a substantial refurbishment- aka a new kitchen or bathroom would not suffice (though have been used as justification successfully- the RTB don't appear to be consistent on this one).

It does sound like they have run this past the solicitors- it is likely it is in order- the only possible dispute would be whether or not the proposed refurbishment is sufficient under the Act to justify terminating the lease and then reletting at open market rates once done.

Dav010

Out of interest op, can you post the items listed in the letter.

Graham

fibix wrote: »

Correct, the contract was reissued when I moved in after the previous second tenant left.

Check the terms of the contract/lease.

If it is a 12 month fixed term, take a look to see if there are any grounds listed where the landlord can terminate the contract before the end of the fixed term.

dennyk

This document has a detailed guideline for what constitutes a substantial change for the purposes of an RPZ exemption and also what is considered a substantial refurbishment for the purposes of ending a Part 4 tenancy. The two guidelines are not identical; a refurb can be substantial enough to permit ending the tenancy but still not create a sufficiently substantial change in the nature of the accommodation to allow an RPZ exemption. In reality, I suspect most landlords would chance raising the rent significantly after having sunk a lot of money into a refurb regardless of whether it meets the RPZ exemption guidelines, especially since they know the original tenant has probably found other accommodations already and many new tenants don't know they have a right to see the previous rent amount or that RPZ restrictions continue to apply between tenancies as well (or they are afraid to assert their rights for fear of losing their bid for the property).

The_Conductor

The other thing I'd point out- is the RTB document is 'guidelines' and specifically states it should not be interpreted as definitive in nature.
Aka- its 'best practice' but even when its not met- it doesn't mean it will necessarily fall foul of either of the two noted exemptions.
The RTB themselves have alluded to this several times- and are very hesitant to nail it down- despite their 'guidelines'- and in an arbitration- could go either way.
Its not as black and white as either tenants or landlords would like- with both parties chancing their arm at arbitration- sometimes it coming down on one side, other times not.

I'd suggest- having read both the guidelines and the very limited information in the legislation- that a landlord is safest where the refurbishment is structural in nature- and anyone relying on a new kitchen or bathroom- is in for a short sharp shock- snowballs chance in hell that it would stand up to arbitration scrutiny.

voluntary

The_Conductor wrote: »

The other thing I'd point out- is the RTB document is 'guidelines' and specifically states it should not be interpreted as definitive in nature.
Aka- its 'best practice' but even when its not met- it doesn't mean it will necessarily fall foul of either of the two noted exemptions.
The RTB themselves have alluded to this several times- and are very hesitant to nail it down- despite their 'guidelines'- and in an arbitration- could go either way.
Its not as black and white as either tenants or landlords would like- with both parties chancing their arm at arbitration- sometimes it coming down on one side, other times not.

I'd suggest- having read both the guidelines and the very limited information in the legislation- that a landlord is safest where the refurbishment is structural in nature- and anyone relying on a new kitchen or bathroom- is in for a short sharp shock- snowballs chance in hell that it would stand up to arbitration scrutiny.

Would you say that new carpets in the 2 story house (all floors excl kitchen/bathrooms covered) plus repaint of walls not be enough reason for rent hike during tenancy change / new rental over the restricted limits?

Specifically I'm thinking about a situation where a house had been rented then it's sold. New owner do some refurbishment (as listed, new carpets, walls repainted) and the new owner finds tenants, rents it out with the current market rates. There's less than 1 year between the previous tenants moved out and new tenants moved in (house sold in the meantime).

trishabon

voluntary wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the dates and notices they gave you are checked with their lawyers so are likely valid. Some people in similar situation decide not to move out anyway if they've no place to go knowing the evictions take very very long in this country. Ideal scenario: you find a new place and just move out, spare yourself and them all the hassle.

Just my opinion... given the situation and an almost impossible task of finding any apartments in Dublin unless you can afford mad money, I would look for a new apartment but if you don't find one then let them evict you or stay until you do find an alternative. Good luck!

4ensic15

A tenancy can't be terminated during the currency of a fixed term. Is the o/p in a fixed term?

dennyk

voluntary wrote: »

Would you say that new carpets in the 2 story house (all floors excl kitchen/bathrooms covered) plus repaint of walls not be enough reason for rent hike during tenancy change / new rental over the restricted limits?

Almost certainly not, as new flooring and paint is not a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation. Paint and flooring are wear items and are expected to need replacement/redoing as part of a landlord's ordinary maintenance and upkeep from time to time, and even if the new fittings are an upgrade in quality, they are still only considered cosmetic improvements and thus not a substantial change by themselves. Unless that work was only part of a much more significant project (e.g. a down-to-the-studs refurb replacing most or all of the interior fittings and decor, bathrooms, kitchen, etc. to a significantly higher standard that would significantly increase the price the property could attract), the RPZ limit would still apply when the property is placed back on the rental market.

The_Conductor

voluntary wrote: »

Would you say that new carpets in the 2 story house (all floors excl kitchen/bathrooms covered) plus repaint of walls not be enough reason for rent hike during tenancy change / new rental over the restricted limits?

Specifically I'm thinking about a situation where a house had been rented then it's sold. New owner do some refurbishment (as listed, new carpets, walls repainted) and the new owner finds tenants, rents it out with the current market rates. There's less than 1 year between the previous tenants moved out and new tenants moved in (house sold in the meantime).

Most certainly not.
If a case akin to the one you've just described were sent to the RTB for adjudication- it would fail- and an order would almost certainly be made that the property has to be offered back to the original tenant at the original rent level.

A new carpet and a lick of paint- does not equate with a renovation.

The issue where the house has changed hands- is an interesting one- as technically the rent level is associated with the property and not the owner. In such a case I believe the property would have to have been untenanted for a period of at least 2 years- before the previous rent associated with it were extinguished (aka if the buyer of the property were to keep it off the market for a combined period of two years- since the last tenant vacated the premises- then they could do a few alterations- new carpet, a lick of paint, whatever- and charge whatever they like- however, they'd have to go over the 2 years to extinguish the previous rent associated with the property).

voluntary

The_Conductor wrote: »

Most certainly not.
If a case akin to the one you've just described were sent to the RTB for adjudication- it would fail- and an order would almost certainly be made that the property has to be offered back to the original tenant at the original rent level.

A new carpet and a lick of paint- does not equate with a renovation.

The issue where the house has changed hands- is an interesting one- as technically the rent level is associated with the property and not the owner. In such a case I believe the property would have to have been untenanted for a period of at least 2 years- before the previous rent associated with it were extinguished (aka if the buyer of the property were to keep it off the market for a combined period of two years- since the last tenant vacated the premises- then they could do a few alterations- new carpet, a lick of paint, whatever- and charge whatever they like- however, they'd have to go over the 2 years to extinguish the previous rent associated with the property).

In this specific case the new owner did some refurb work as described and hired an EA to find tenants. They asked the market rate with no reference to previous tenancy during previous ownership. They made it like a first rental and not continous rental basically. The new tenants only found out about the previous tenants when one of them visited once to check if there was any post left for him. Otherwise they would never know the place was previously rented out.

Adding up all the payments over the legal limit over the 2+ years give a significant sum of money. Roughly around 500 each month, so around 15,000 Euros over the tenancy period.

What are the chances of claiming this back and also reducing the rent going forward? I guess the landlord would get a heart attack if this happend.

dennyk

The_Conductor wrote: »

In such a case I believe the property would have to have been untenanted for a period of at least 2 years- before the previous rent associated with it were extinguished

From what I understand, there is actually no such exception to the RPZ legislation. That idea comes from a misinterpretation of some RTB guidance notes' rather unclear summations of Part 3, Section 19, Subsection 5 (a) of the RTA:

(5) Subsection (4) (which describes the formula for calculating the maximum legal rent for a property subject to RPZ legislation) does not apply —

(a) where a dwelling has not at any time been the subject of a tenancy during the period of 2 years prior to the date the area is prescribed under section 24A as a rent pressure zone or deemed to be so prescribed;

In effect, the "two year" exemption only applies to properties that were not tenanted at any time in the two years prior to being declared an RPZ, and only applies to setting the initial rent for the first tenancy of that property after the RPZ took effect. Once a property has been tenanted for any period of time while under the RPZ legislation (or at any time during the two years prior to becoming subject to an RPZ), there is no mechanism for the RPZ rent increase limitation on that property to "expire" at a later date regardless of how long the property remains untenanted afterwards.

voluntary

In the case I'm describing there was less than 1 year between tenancies anyway. Just the property ownership changed in the meantime.

AlmightyCushion

voluntary wrote: »

In this specific case the new owner did some refurb work as described and hired an EA to find tenants. They asked the market rate with no reference to previous tenancy during previous ownership. They made it like a first rental and not continous rental basically. The new tenants only found out about the previous tenants when one of them visited once to check if there was any post left for him. Otherwise they would never know the place was previously rented out.

Adding up all the payments over the legal limit over the 2+ years give a significant sum of money. Roughly around 500 each month, so around 15,000 Euros over the tenancy period.

What are the chances of claiming this back and also reducing the rent going forward? I guess the landlord would get a heart attack if this happend.

The tenant would have to open a case with the RTB for an illegal rent increase. And I imagine the landlord would have a heart attack if it ruled in favour of the tenant.

Xterminator

Hi Op

i concur with the posters that say paint and carpets would not qualify as substantial refurbishments.

i might ask how you know it was just carpets and a lick of paint? how are you sure the flooring, wiring, or other more structural aspects were not addressed? Because you would probably want to be fairly sure, and pehaps have some evidence other than a disaffected tenants opinion?
(photos of the place before would be a good starting point)

because if a case was taken against the landlord he might be able to find invoices from tradesmen to back up claimed refurb work. So before fouling the relationship with landlord you would just want to be sure you can back up that assertion!

JJJackal

dennyk wrote: »

From what I understand, there is actually no such exception to the RPZ legislation. That idea comes from a misinterpretation of some RTB guidance notes' rather unclear summations of Part 3, Section 19, Subsection 5 (a) of the RTA:



In effect, the "two year" exemption only applies to properties that were not tenanted at any time in the two years prior to being declared an RPZ, and only applies to setting the initial rent for the first tenancy of that property after the RPZ took effect. Once a property has been tenanted for any period of time while under the RPZ legislation (or at any time during the two years prior to becoming subject to an RPZ), there is no mechanism for the RPZ rent increase limitation on that property to "expire" at a later date regardless of how long the property remains untenanted afterwards.

6. EXEMPTIONS
It is important to remember that not all properties in Rent Pressure Zones are subject to the 4% restriction. Exempt properties include those that are new to the rental market and have not been let at any time in the previous two years, and those that have undergone a 'substantial change in the nature of the accommodation'.

From: https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/

I think not rented for 2 years is enough to bypass the 4% restriction

The_Conductor

JJJackal wrote: »

6. EXEMPTIONS
It is important to remember that not all properties in Rent Pressure Zones are subject to the 4% restriction. Exempt properties include those that are new to the rental market and have not been let at any time in the previous two years, and those that have undergone a 'substantial change in the nature of the accommodation'.

From: https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/

I think not rented for 2 years is enough to bypass the 4% restriction

I agree- but I think its moot in this case- as its been less than two years since it was last tenanted.

voluntary

Xterminator wrote: »

Hi Op

i concur with the posters that say paint and carpets would not qualify as substantial refurbishments.

i might ask how you know it was just carpets and a lick of paint? how are you sure the flooring, wiring, or other more structural aspects were not addressed? Because you would probably want to be fairly sure, and pehaps have some evidence other than a disaffected tenants opinion?
(photos of the place before would be a good starting point)

because if a case was taken against the landlord he might be able to find invoices from tradesmen to back up claimed refurb work. So before fouling the relationship with landlord you would just want to be sure you can back up that assertion!

This is the thing. The new tenants cannot be sure. How would they know? There's no way for them to know. They only suspect. The other thing is that the house is a relatively new build, maybe 10 years old so I suppose structural improvements are not that much likely.

The only certain thing is that they signed a new contract in the restricted zone which did not mention the previous tenants' rent level or % of increase. So the fact that there were tenants before has been withdrawn from them.

dennyk

voluntary wrote: »

Adding up all the payments over the legal limit over the 2+ years give a significant sum of money. Roughly around 500 each month, so around 15,000 Euros over the tenancy period.

What are the chances of claiming this back and also reducing the rent going forward? I guess the landlord would get a heart attack if this happend.

You say "2+ years" and seem to indicate they've been there for at least 30 months; when exactly did their tenancy begin? The RPZ legislation only came into effect from December 24th, 2016; if their tenancy began before that date, the landlord would have been free to set the initial rent at anything up to "market rate" regardless of the previous rent amount (although any subsequent rent reviews/increases made after that date would have been subject to the RPZ restrictions).

If their tenancy did begin on or after December 24th, 2016, then the landlord would have been required to provide written documentation to the tenant advising them of the rent under the previous tenancy and the date that rent was set, and showing how he calculated the current allowable rent based on the RPZ formula. The current tenant can file a dispute with the RTB for his failure to provide that information and his setting of the rent in violation of the RPZ rules, and they may well be able to get some or all of their excess rent back as well as have their future rent lowered to the legally allowable amount if the RTB rules in their favour.

Of course, this will obviously destroy whatever relationship they have with their landlord, and they should be prepared to deal with the consequences and possible retaliation. At the very least, I'd expect the landlord to become far less responsive to issues or maintenance, and it's very possible that the landlord may start harassing the tenant or even attempt to terminate their tenancy on spurious grounds. As for the overpaid rent, they might end up having to pursue the landlord in the courts for that amount if he chooses to ignore the RTB order, and they may have a difficult time actually getting any money out of him even then, especially if he doesn't actually have the funds in question. Not to say that they shouldn't pursue the matter and should let him get away with his actions, of course, but they do need to be aware of the likely consequences and be prepared to deal with them should they choose to file a complaint.

dennyk

JJJackal wrote: »

6. EXEMPTIONS
It is important to remember that not all properties in Rent Pressure Zones are subject to the 4% restriction. Exempt properties include those that are new to the rental market and have not been let at any time in the previous two years, and those that have undergone a 'substantial change in the nature of the accommodation'.

From: https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/

I think not rented for 2 years is enough to bypass the 4% restriction

Like I said, the RTB's layman's notes are unfortunately rather unclear on that subject (they don't expand on what "new to the rental market" means in this context), but if you read the actual legislation, the exemption only applies to properties which have *never* been tenanted during the time the RPZ was in effect or during the two years prior to the enactment of the RPZ in which the property resides.

voluntary

dennyk wrote: »

You say "2+ years" and seem to indicate they've been there for at least 30 months; when exactly did their tenancy begin? The RPZ legislation only came into effect from December 24th, 2016; if their tenancy began before that date, the landlord would have been free to set the initial rent at anything up to "market rate" regardless of the previous rent amount (although any subsequent rent reviews/increases made after that date would have been subject to the RPZ restrictions).

If their tenancy did begin on or after December 24th, 2016, then the landlord would have been required to provide written documentation to the tenant advising them of the rent under the previous tenancy and the date that rent was set, and showing how he calculated the current allowable rent based on the RPZ formula. The current tenant can file a dispute with the RTB for his failure to provide that information and his setting of the rent in violation of the RPZ rules, and they may well be able to get some or all of their excess rent back as well as have their future rent lowered to the legally allowable amount if the RTB rules in their favour.

Of course, this will obviously destroy whatever relationship they have with their landlord, and they should be prepared to deal with the consequences and possible retaliation. At the very least, I'd expect the landlord to become far less responsive to issues or maintenance, and it's very possible that the landlord may start harassing the tenant or even attempt to terminate their tenancy on spurious grounds. As for the overpaid rent, they might end up having to pursue the landlord in the courts for that amount if he chooses to ignore the RTB order, and they may have a difficult time actually getting any money out of him even then, especially if he doesn't actually have the funds in question. Not to say that they shouldn't pursue the matter and should let him get away with his actions, of course, but they do need to be aware of the likely consequences and be prepared to deal with them should they choose to file a complaint.

It started in the first months of 2017, so within the restrictive period already. Yeah, they got nothing with the contract on previous tenants as far as I'm aware. I remember advicing them to push back, but then they found out the property has been refurbished after the new owner bought the place so that was it. Assumed the new carpets and repaint job was enough reason to hike the rents.

Your point about damaging relationship with the LL is valid though. It would be probably smart to not touch the case until the time they decide to move out.

beauf

I can understand trying to reduce your rent. Especially when they are at insane levels.
But people rent a place a face value. This seems like a new trend to rent somewhere and trawl through its past tenancy in order to get a windfall.
Most people will say a LL that has broken the rules deserves this respective massive fine/penalty.

But at this level of fine, its worth spending 10k to add a room or such, just to reset the rent if on a historical low rent in a RPZ.
Which will only have one effect. Increasing rents. It also only effects those with very low rents if they try to circumvent the rules.
It also reinforces that LL should always keep their rents at the maximum they can achieve.

If the market is at its peak and seems to be softening, its probably time to sell up if capital appreciation was the objective.

At this point this ship has well and truly sailed. So its a bit pointless discussion the implications.

AlmightyCushion

beauf wrote: »

I can understand trying to reduce your rent. Especially when they are at insane levels.
But people rent a place a face value. This seems like a new trend to rent somewhere and trawl through its past tenancy in order to get a windfall.
Most people will say a LL that has broken the rules deserves this respective massive fine/penalty.

But at this level of fine, its worth spending 10k to add a room or such, just to reset the rent if on a historical low rent in a RPZ.
Which will only have one effect. Increasing rents. It also only effects those with very low rents if they try to circumvent the rules.
It also reinforces that LL should always keep their rents at the maximum they can achieve.

If the market is at its peak and seems to be softening, its probably time to sell up if capital appreciation was the objective.

At this point this ship has well and truly sailed. So its a bit pointless discussion the implications.

So, an illegal rent increase is fine because the tenants agreed to it? That's not how the law works.

beauf

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So, an illegal rent increase is fine because the tenants agreed to it? That's not how the law works.

Why do you suggest an illegal rent increase is fine if the tenants agreed to it? I don't agree with you. Though many seem to think the same as yourself and think the risk is worth it.

However it does seem might be cheaper to put the cost of a probable penalty into the property, thus then it would be legal rent increase and adding value to the property. Is this what the market wants?

AlmightyCushion

beauf wrote: »

Why do you suggest an illegal rent increase is fine if the tenants agreed to it? I don't agree with you. Though many seem to think the same as yourself and think the risk is worth it.

However it does seem might be cheaper to put the cost of a probable penalty into the property, thus then it would be legal rent increase and adding value to the property. Is this what the market wants?

I'm not suggesting illegal rent increases are fine. It seems like you were in the post I quoted.

mrslancaster

voluntary wrote: »

This is the thing. The new tenants cannot be sure. How would they know? There's no way for them to know. They only suspect. The other thing is that the house is a relatively new build, maybe 10 years old so I suppose structural improvements are not that much likely....

In fairness, sometimes it can be difficult to see if there was substantial works done.

Internal insulation looks like a new paint job when in fact all the old plaster boards are removed and replaced with better / higher spec to current regulations and when the walls are replastered and painted, it looks exactly the same as before, just looks like it was freshened up.

External insulation is not that obvious either likewise re-wiring, re-plumbing, new rads, new boilers etc etc. As other poster said, it's not always easy to see when substantial works like that are carried out. Does anyone get up into an attic to check out the insulation?

IMO, it makes sense for a LL to take photos before during and after any work they have done at any time.

If both LL's and tenants had signed photos of the property at the start of the tenancy, at inspections and at the end of a tenancy it would save disputes about any damage / rents and a lot of stress on both sides.