Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rent increase above 4% in RPZ

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    3DataModem wrote: »
    If you really want to get the money back, then wait until you are moving out and raise it with RTB. They will investigate. If the previous tenancy was registered, the rent will be registered, and they can act (and award you the whole lot back).

    If you don't agree with RPZs and feel your landlord is doing you a good deal with the 1300 and should be allowed charge market rate, then do nothing.

    Will the rent paid by the previous tenant be registered? Not according to the RTB website.

    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/register-a-tenancy/how-to-register-a-tenancy/

    Seems the op will still need proof of what the previous tenant was paying, if that is not part of information necessary to register a tenancy, then LL does not have to provide it. There are new legislative requirements coming into force, but according to the RTB website they have not yet been enacted.


  • Options
    #33
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    L1011 wrote: »
    Are you intending to take the constitutional challenge then?

    Because until then the legislation stands

    It is fair to assume that if the legislation was unconstitutional, the large funds which have enormous holdings and would gain most from it being struck down would have challenged it by now as they would have the means to do it.

    What should be of more concern is whether it has actually made the rental situation worse by ensuring LLs increase rent yearly instead of when a new tenancy begins which was often the case, and the fact that LLs activity ignore it, or worse, leave the sector/don’t enter it because of it, therefore reducing stock further.


  • Options
    #34
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Will the rent paid by the previous tenant be registered? Not according to the RTB website.

    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/register-a-tenancy/how-to-register-a-tenancy/

    Seems the op will still need proof of what the previous tenant was paying, if that is not part of information necessary to register a tenancy, then LL does not have to provide it. There are new legislative requirements coming into force, but according to the RTB website they have not yet been enacted.

    Section 3, part 13 requires the rental amount, 14 looks for the deposit amount.

    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/forms/Tenancy_Registration_Application_Form_RTB1.pdf


  • Options
    #35
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    10pennymixup wrote: »
    Section 3, part 13 requires the rental amount, 14 looks for the deposit amount.

    https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/forms/Tenancy_Registration_Application_Form_RTB1.pdf

    According to the RTB website that information is not a requirement even though it is on the form.

    Edit: the form says it must be included, yet the link I posted on their website about info which must be provided makes no mention of it. Go figure. It’s possible the new legislation has been enacted and they haven’t updated their site, that does not however mean the previous tenants rent was registered.


  • Options
    #36
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    Dav010 wrote: »
    According to the RTB website that information is not a requirement even though it is on the form.

    Edit: the form says it must be included, yet the link I posted on their website about info which must be provided makes no mention of it. Go figure. It’s possible the new legislation has been enacted and they haven’t updated their site, that does not however mean the previous tenants rent was registered.

    Not really arguing with you, it's a crap system. I remember having to declare the rent a few times in the past when registering a new tenancy. The last time was maybe three years ago.

    I don't recall ever having to register any rent increases though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,784 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Dav010 wrote: »
    It is fair to assume that if the legislation was unconstitutional, the large funds which have enormous holdings and would gain most from it being struck down would have challenged it by now as they would have the means to do it.

    What should be of more concern is whether it has actually made the rental situation worse by ensuring LLs increase rent yearly instead of when a new tenancy begins which was often the case, and the fact that LLs activity ignore it, or worse, leave the sector/don’t enter it because of it, therefore reducing stock further.

    There is an opinion, that I'm not sure I fully agree with, that the large funds believe their tax situation will be made significantly more onerous than it currently is if there's a challenge.


  • Options
    #38
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Would the large funds be considered a 'citizen' afforded the property protections of the constitution?


  • Options
    #39
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    3DataModem wrote: »
    You don’t need proof. You can just raise a concern, and they investigate.

    They work for the tenant. Have you ever heard of a landlord getting compensation and actually receiving it ?


  • Options
    #40
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    handlemaster wrote: »
    They work for the tenant. Have you ever heard of a landlord getting compensation and actually receiving it ?

    There are more awards to landlords (in 2018) than tenants- however, and despite knowing several landlords who have successfully brought cases, I am not personally aware of any who ever received a penny from their erstwhile tenants (regardless of the damage to the units).

    Landlords are viewed as having an asset upon which they can draw to pay tenants (for whatever shortcoming). Tenants are viewed as not having any assets- and simply plead penury, even if they have caused structural damage to a unit- and get off scott free.........

    One rule for landlords and a different rule for tenants.

    The only surprising thing is landlords continue (and in increasing numbers) to bring cases against tenants. Why bother, when even when they win, they get nothing?


  • Options
    #41
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    There are more awards to landlords (in 2018) than tenants- however, and despite knowing several landlords who have successfully brought cases, I am not personally aware of any who ever received a penny from their erstwhile tenants (regardless of the damage to the units).

    Landlords are viewed as having an asset upon which they can draw to pay tenants (for whatever shortcoming). Tenants are viewed as not having any assets- and simply plead penury, even if they have caused structural damage to a unit- and get off scott free.........

    One rule for landlords and a different rule for tenants.

    The only surprising thing is landlords continue (and in increasing numbers) to bring cases against tenants. Why bother, when even when they win, they get nothing?

    I would suspect a lot of cases form part of the process of eviction. The RTB is the best database for tenants you want to avoid renting to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    banchang
    Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭banchang


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I would suspect a lot of cases form part of the process of eviction. The RTB is the best database for tenants you want to avoid renting to.

    Is this database available to view ? Can I see names of tenants who have had cases against them ?


  • Options
    #43
    3DataModem
    Registered Users Posts: 3,997 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    the only realistic option open to them is to end tenancies, freshen up properties, and sell for whatever the market will bear.

    But of course the low rent affects the resale value too.... as the rent rules apply to the new owners just as much as the seller. Sigh.


  • Options
    #44
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    3DataModem wrote: »
    But of course the low rent affects the resale value too.... as the rent rules apply to the new owners just as much as the seller. Sigh.

    The low rent affecting the selling price is only really an issue if you're selling it into the rental market. The fact of the matter is- the number of landlords abandoning the sector has not let up (save through the impossibility of doing anything at all at the moment). Landlords are not in the market for BTL units- they (as a group) are far more likely to be simply disposing of units- most frequently to owner occupiers. I can point at 23 units that have sold like this in the last 12 months within 200m of my front door.

    Low rent- is a factor if your property is only suitable for the BTL market- which is why I was suggesting properties would have to be sufficiently spruced up to enable the landlords to dispose of them (to owner occupiers- many of whom might not be willing to look beyond a poorly kept rental property appearance).


  • Options
    #45
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    It is fair to assume that if the legislation was unconstitutional, the large funds which have enormous holdings and would gain most from it being struck down would have challenged it by now as they would have the means to do it.

    What should be of more concern is whether it has actually made the rental situation worse by ensuring LLs increase rent yearly instead of when a new tenancy begins which was often the case, and the fact that LLs activity ignore it, or worse, leave the sector/don’t enter it because of it, therefore reducing stock further.

    The large funds were gaining from it because most of them had new units which were not caught an the rent cap. It also had the effect of driving the smaller operators out of the market, which suited them as well.


Advertisement