Got a rent reduction

bridest

Moved into an apartment in Drumcondra back last August. Previous tenants contacted me in November looking for post.
Asked them how much they where paying before I moved in. It was significantly lower than what I was paying. 50% lower. I couldn't make contact with the landlord so intiated a case with the RTB.

Long story short, landlord bricked it, we came to an agreement and now my rent is significantly lower. I don't think a lot of new tenants are looking for evidence what previous tenants were paying before them, which under new rules is obliged to be given by the landlord. From tresholds website:

"the landlord is required to give you written information outlining the amount of rent and date it was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling and a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula. If you don't get this the landlord is in breach and you can take further action through the RTB. "

I really feel there should be an advertising campaign or something about this, because a lot of landlords seem to think that a new tenancy means they can put up the rent by whatever they like. They are not allowed to. Has to be the same as previous tenant or only increased by 4% if it wasn't increased on previous tenancy, I hope this helps some people get rents lowered and money back.

Graces7

Well done!

q85dw7osi4lebg

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

Enter name here

With any luck he puts the apartment up for sale and issues you a termination notice. About time tenants stopped depending on LL's to support them.

cosybeach

while it is the law to distort the market Id terminate move a family member in why should any business be required to subsidize some one else's living especially when they gloat about it .

handlemaster

Vada Melted Smallpox wrote: »

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

So true. No mention ever of how a landlord should get said rent when a tenant refuses to pay.

handlemaster

bridest wrote: »

Moved into an apartment in Drumcondra back last August. Previous tenants contacted me in November looking for post.
Asked them how much they where paying before I moved in. It was significantly lower than what I was paying. 50% lower. I couldn't make contact with the landlord so intiated a case with the RTB.

Long story short, landlord bricked it, we came to an agreement and now my rent is significantly lower. I don't think a lot of new tenants are looking for evidence what previous tenants were paying before them, which under new rules is obliged to be given by the landlord. From tresholds website:

"the landlord is required to give you written information outlining the amount of rent and date it was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling and a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula. If you don't get this the landlord is in breach and you can take further action through the RTB. "

I really feel there should be an advertising campaign or something about this, because a lot of landlords seem to think that a new tenancy means they can put up the rent by whatever they like. They are not allowed to. Has to be the same as previous tenant or only increased by 4% if it wasn't increased on previous tenancy, I hope this helps some people get rents lowered and money back.

And our course the campaign would be funded by landlords with their payments to RTB. What would your suggestion be for landlords to deal with tenants who are anti social and refuse to pay rent. Perhaps tenants could all pay into a fund for that??

Old diesel

Well done OP.

Unfortunately it's the idea that a landlord might circumvent the law or Cosybeachs thinking re just move a family member in on purpose.....

That encourages more rules and regulations.

If a minister saw evidence of deliberately moving a family member in just to get rid of a tenant......

Then it's not long before we get to a point where the landlord or family member has to prove a need for the house. THAT exact house - not a house.

And need it for a reasonable amount of time.

The problem is that tenants and landlords are in a forced relationship and neither side trusts the other.

lawred2

handlemaster wrote: »

So true. No mention ever of how a landlord should get said rent when a tenant refuses to pay.

Relevance to this thread? Did the OP threaten to withhold rent?

Old diesel

lawred2 wrote: »

Relevance to this thread? Did the OP threaten to withhold rent?

It was a reply to someone saying who'd be a landlord so perfectly relevant reply imo.

He was agreeing with the comment and citing an example of why he agreed.

It's a known issue that the system is too slow to deal with non payment of rent.

listermint

cosybeach wrote: »

while it is the law to distort the market Id terminate move a family member in why should any business be required to subsidize some one else's living especially when they gloat about it .

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

handlemaster

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

A large chunk of that rental goes in tax, mortgage payments , insuranceand repairs. This money is not in the pocket of the landlord but instead is supporting employment either directly or indirectly.

There are many big high paying positions in Dublin for example, rents are all relative.

Google employ 8000
Facebook employ 5000
LinkedIn 2000

The Student

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

That's a ridiculous post. Anybody can purchase a property who can afford to. If you can't afford to then let the State house you. We all know how well that works out.

handlemaster

The Student wrote: »

That's a ridiculous post. Anybody can purchase a property who can afford to. If you can't afford to then let the State house you. We all know how well that works out.

Exactly it's like the man or woman who save up and purchase a property to possible supplement their retirement are super humans and are doing the extraordinary. Landlords are not the social housing keepers fornths state that responsibility lies solely with the state.

Dodge

Vada Melted Smallpox wrote: »

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

And yet there are no shortage of landlords in Ireland...

Graces7

handlemaster wrote: »

And our course the campaign would be funded by landlords with their payments to RTB. What would your suggestion be for landlords to deal with tenants who are anti social and refuse to pay rent. Perhaps tenants could all pay into a fund for that??

Relevance to the OP?

Old diesel

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

It's a bit of a mess....

The cost of having the property if a landlord is high.

Landlords report having to put in too much of their own money and it's a financial strain on them.

For example the "excellent tenant" thread that's currently running.

There's also the risk factor of non payment of rent.

It's a headscratcher because we just don't know how to calculate what fair rent to BOTH parties actually is.

Just because the tenant is paying a marker rent of 2000 euros a month doesnt mean the tenant thinks it's fair.

And if a tenant thinks rent is fair then a landlord will think its too low.

It would be interesting to see an expert run a model based on no RPZ - rent at 2000 euro a month.

Covering the following.....

How the market moves from 2 k a month naturally - how high rent goes.

What's the trigger rent for more investment.

What's the expectation of that investment - ie does it expect continued increases.

What's the lifetime rental income at changed rent when market responds naturally - ie no RPZ.

If we take 2 k as a monthly rent - and we have no change - then......

It's 240 k over 10 years

480 k over 20 years.

720 k over 30 years.

960 k over 40 years.

1200 k over 50 years.

Those are not small sums of money.

The actual sums of money that comes in will differ as rent goes up and down as a result of market conditions.

So there is a need for both sides to be clear on what's needed and why.

Graces7

Old diesel wrote: »

Well done OP.

The problem is that tenants and landlords are in a forced relationship and neither side trusts the other.

Not always true thankfully. Landlord before last and I had a good relationship. I handled his paperwork for him, so when he told me he needed to sell the house I knew he was being truthful and was in a financial bind and with a large family to support . So I moved as soon as was feasible. Kept an eye on daft ie and was so glad when it sold well for him.

Now my last private landlord was a very different matter! Thankful to be in council accommodation now - something I would never have sought a few years ago

lawred2

Old diesel wrote: »

It was a reply to someone saying who'd be a landlord so perfectly relevant reply imo.

He was agreeing with the comment and citing an example of why he agreed.

It's a known issue that the system is too slow to deal with non payment of rent.

The OP in question found evidence that the landlord operated well outside regulations and was called out on it..

And the response is "who'd be a landlord"

Give me a break.. the OP showed no desire or intent to withhold rent.. so yeah irrelevant.

daithiK1

bridest wrote: »

Moved into an apartment in Drumcondra back last August. Previous tenants contacted me in November looking for post.
Asked them how much they where paying before I moved in. It was significantly lower than what I was paying. 50% lower. I couldn't make contact with the landlord so intiated a case with the RTB.

Long story short, landlord bricked it, we came to an agreement and now my rent is significantly lower. I don't think a lot of new tenants are looking for evidence what previous tenants were paying before them, which under new rules is obliged to be given by the landlord. From tresholds website:

"the landlord is required to give you written information outlining the amount of rent and date it was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling and a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula. If you don't get this the landlord is in breach and you can take further action through the RTB. "

I really feel there should be an advertising campaign or something about this, because a lot of landlords seem to think that a new tenancy means they can put up the rent by whatever they like. They are not allowed to. Has to be the same as previous tenant or only increased by 4% if it wasn't increased on previous tenancy, I hope this helps some people get rents lowered and money back.

probably should have waited until the end of Feb before going down that route.

bridest

handlemaster wrote: »

So true. No mention ever of how a landlord should get said rent when a tenant refuses to pay.

What a silly comment. Always pay my rent in time.

The fact of the matter is the landlord was breaking the law. Simple

bridest

daithiK1 wrote: »

probably should have waited until the end of Feb before going down that route.

Why is that?

handlemaster

Graces7 wrote: »

Relevance to the OP?

I was replying back to a post. If you have an issue take it up with the mod.

jay1988

So the landlord in this instance broke rental regulations and was caught out and had to fix rent to a price within the regulations (that im sure he was aware of when re-letting the property) and all we're getting here is the poor landlord talk?

What planet are you people living on? What other section of the population should be allowed break rules and regulations?

colm_mcm

I wonder if the previous tenants were getting a half price tenancy, or the OP was paying on the double..

handlemaster

Old diesel wrote: »

It's a bit of a mess....

The cost of having the property if a landlord is high.

Landlords report having to put in too much of their own money and it's a financial strain on them.

For example the "excellent tenant" thread that's currently running.

There's also the risk factor of non payment of rent.

It's a headscratcher because we just don't know how to calculate what fair rent to BOTH parties actually is.

Just because the tenant is paying a marker rent of 2000 euros a month doesnt mean the tenant thinks it's fair.

And if a tenant thinks rent is fair then a landlord will think its too low.

It would be interesting to see an expert run a model based on no RPZ - rent at 2000 euro a month.

Covering the following.....

How the market moves from 2 k a month naturally - how high rent goes.

What's the trigger rent for more investment.

What's the expectation of that investment - ie does it expect continued increases.

What's the lifetime rental income at changed rent when market responds naturally - ie no RPZ.

If we take 2 k as a monthly rent - and we have no change - then......

It's 240 k over 10 years

480 k over 20 years.

720 k over 30 years.

960 k over 40 years.

1200 k over 50 years.

Those are not small sums of money.

The actual sums of money that comes in will differ as rent goes up and down as a result of market conditions.

So there is a need for both sides to be clear on what's needed and why.

Lots of variables.
Cost of acquiring the asset
Cost of finance
Demand and supply in the area
Public transport
Employment level
Income.level
Insurance
Government position on private rental housing
Registration costs
Repair costs
Tax on rental
Guarantees on rent / risks

bridest

jay1988 wrote: »

So the landlord in this instance broke rental regulations and was caught out and had to fix rent to a price within the regulations (that im sure he was aware of when re-letting the property) and all we're getting here is the poor landlord talk?

What planet are you people living on? What other section of the population should be allowed break rules and regulations?

They're living in the land of degenerate Ireland!

Yellow_Fern

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

Food is a commodity, who does it hurt?

handlemaster

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Food is a commodity, who does it hurt?

Good one

daithiK1

part 4 kicks in.. Not sticking up for the LL, (they were clearly in the wrong) but if you were my tenant and you had one over on me id be having you out. end off - would be cutting my losses and starting fresh on a clean slate, legally next time.

quickest way to do that is before part 4 kicks in, hope your not bricking it now.

handlemaster

daithiK1 wrote: »

part 4 kicks in.. Not sticking up for the LL, (they were clearly in the wrong) but if you were my tenant and you had one over on me id be having you out. end off - would be cutting my losses and starting fresh on a clean slate, legally next time.

quickest way to do that is before part 4 kicks in, hope your not bricking it now.

I think the op.is passed the 6 month period