Got a rent reduction

circular flexing

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.

Assuming OP has signed a lease for 1 year, how would you propose kicking them out?

Great to see. I know there’s a lot of times Landlords are hard done by with the law favouring non paying tenants, etc but this one was completely in the wrong and deserved what they got.

I’d encourage tenant in a zone to send proof of the amount they were paying to the address a couple of months after they move out.

Jurgen Klopp

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

The Student

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

Some generalization there.

daithiK1

circular flexing wrote: »

Assuming OP has signed a lease for 1 year, how would you propose kicking them out?

I was assuming there was not one, its in the LL favour not to issue one, but sure when such a messer of a LL is involved its probably best not to assume anything

The Student

The Student wrote: »

Some generalization there.

I don’t think they were quite serious, but you’d have to find it strange the way landlords generally get unconditional support here.

Yellow_Fern

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I don’t think they were quite serious, but you’d have to find it strange the way landlords generally get unconditional support here.

Why, because they are dark wretched demons? maybe its just that they are more invested in this topic than tenants and are more chatty about it.

Assetbacked

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 .

My feelings about the beef farmers and their subsidised business!

The rental market is unfair on the players that follow the rules on the LL and tenant side. LLs paying far too much tax and not being able to kick out bad tenants easily. Tenants who take care of the place, pay rent on time but don't want to pay 40%+ of their after tax salary. The rules benefit the institutionals who pay no tax on rental income; no tax! Bad tenants know they can get away with paying no rent for months at a time without getting kicked out.

handlemaster

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

Hardly any decent landlord who has been in the business for a few years would know tenants dont appreciate getting rents below market rate. As in this case the old tenants paid well below market rent , then the landlord was screwed when he wanted to increase. While what he dont was not legal you can.appreciate how frustrated he must feel. That is a good lesson to all landlords. .charge full rent possible at all times. Of course while operating within the law.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Why, because they are dark wretched demons? maybe its just that they are more invested in this topic than tenants and are more chatty about it.

No, don’t be ridiculous. It’s because if someone is in the wrong they’re in the wrong.

Yellow_Fern

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

No, don’t be silly. It’s because if someone is in the wrong they’re in the wrong.

You are missing the dynamic. No one is justifying the landlord's actions here. Instead they are basically hinting it is law that is the real issue and thus implying that inevitably landlords will do this due to the legal regime. Its like the war on drugs. No matter how hard you try some laws dont work because they work against human nature. It is time we stop criminalizing Irish people for deciding whats best for them.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are missing the dynamic. No one is justifying the landlord's actions here. Instead they are basically hinting it is law that is the real issue and thus implying that inevitably landlords will do this due to the legal regime. Its like the war on drugs. No matter how hard you try some laws dont work because they work against human nature. It is time we stop criminalizing Irish people for deciding whats best for them.

But a non paying tenant is doing what’s best for themselves. Someone driving without insurance is doing what’s best for themselves.

Suiting yourself isn’t always the right thing to do or the place is anarchy.

The Student

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

But a non paying tenant is doing what’s best for themselves. Someone driving without insurance is doing what’s best for themselves.

Suiting yourself isn’t always the right thing to do or the place is anarchy.

But the law in this instance is not balanced. A landlord who breaks the law is fined and has assets that will pay the fine. A tenant who breaks the law can live rent free before evicted and has nothing to pay a fine. How exactly is this a fair balance?

The Student

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I don’t think they were quite serious, but you’d have to find it strange the way landlords generally get unconditional support here.

Maybe because there is no support for landlords at all. We have charities, housing bodies etc in the media every single day about housing yet we rarely hear of landlords destroyed by rogue tenants etc.

When this happens its just seen as a failed business trans. Nothing is mentioned about overholding tenants that led to this "failed business trans". What about outstanding arrears for both private and social housing tenants. These figs are not referencedreferencedas much in the media.

Perhaps some balanced reporting my reveal a different story than those portrayed in the media.

Assetbacked

It’s a disgrace that LLs are forced to subsidise tenants by not being able to maxamise the rent. The previous tenants were obviously paying disgracefully low rent and the LL did his best to try improve the income to his very costly and over regulated (in favour of tenants) business.

It’s the LL I feel sorry for and the op on gloating will get a karma kick at some stage I’m sure. If I were the LL I would be making a move to evict the op immediately.

Assetbacked wrote: »

My feelings about the beef farmers and their subsidised business!

Ha ha good one! I’m afraid to tell you that it’s consumers that are being subsidised not beef farmers.

bridest

The Student wrote: »

But the law in this instance is not balanced. A landlord who breaks the law is fined and has assets that will pay the fine. A tenant who breaks the law can live rent free before evicted and has nothing to pay a fine. How exactly is this a fair balance?

I actually agree with you. The laws should be fair and balanced. A tenant who doesn't pay should be perused. Everyone needs to be responsible.

cursai

Vada Melted Smallpox wrote: »

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

Everyone harps on righteously about what they are owed and not what they might owe.

jay1988

Fox Elegant Leper wrote: »

It’s a disgrace that LLs are forced to subsidise tenants by not being able to maxamise the rent. The previous tenants were obviously paying disgracefully low rent and the LL did his best to try improve the income to his very costly and over regulated (in favour of tenants) business.

It’s the LL I feel sorry for and the op on gloating will kick a karma kick at some stage I’m sure.

Karma did kick in, the landlord acting illegally was forced to act within the law.

bridest

Fox Elegant Leper wrote: »

It’s a disgrace that LLs are forced to subsidise tenants by not being able to maxamise the rent. The previous tenants were obviously paying disgracefully low rent and the LL did his best to try improve the income to his very costly and over regulated business.

It’s the LL I feel sorry for and the op on gloating will kick a karma kick at some stage I’m sure.

I'm not gloating, I'm stating facts. I'm a working professional in Dublin who is struggling to make sense of living in this overpriced city. Unfortunately, the specialised work I do cannot be got easily elsewhere. I'd gladly move out of Dublin and take a salary cut to live somewhere more affordable. So no, I don't think karma will kick in, as I've been straight up and honest with the landlord and we both shook hands on an agreement that we are both happy with.

handlemaster

jay1988 wrote: »

Karma did kick in, the landlord acting illegally was forced to act within the law.

No one is disputing the LL has been corrected correctly . We have moved on from that. What when the issue is with the tenant. Nothing happens ever.

Fol20

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?

How new is this law.
Is the government not breaking the law by enforcing it as it is unconstitutional?
Does the original protections not supersede this.
It is meant to be temporary yet the government extended it.

I suspect if someone challenged it. They would win.

Fol20

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

Or more reinforcement not to keep rent below market rate for a good tenant and instead increase the rent as much as possible every year to avoid a situation like this.

circular flexing

Fol20 wrote: »

How new is this law.
Is the government not breaking the law by enforcing it as it is unconstitutional?
Does the original protections not supersede this.
It is meant to be temporary yet the government extended it.

I suspect if someone challenged it. They would win.

It has yet to be found unconstitutional. There was talk of a legal challenge if the RPZs were extended but I'm not aware if anything happened.



On what basis do you believe they would win?

The Student

bridest wrote: »

I actually agree with you. The laws should be fair and balanced. A tenant who doesn't pay should be perused. Everyone needs to be responsible.

Thank you but what a lot of people forget is that a lot of landlords are just your average Joe. People who are trying to provide for themselves long term. The middle income who pay for everything work all their lives who when they retire either will not get a state pension or if they do will end up giving it all ball back in tax.

circular flexing

Fox Elegant Leper wrote: »

It’s the LL I feel sorry for

Don't feel sorry for LL, they had the choice to sell up when the old tenant's moved out but decided to break the law instead and has been caught out.

circular flexing

circular flexing wrote: »

Don't feel sorry for LL, they had the choice to sell up when the old tenant's moved out but decided to break the law instead and has been caught out.

Why should they have to sell because of an almost certainly unconstitutional law interfering in private business. This is the LLs business which they are trying to maxamise their income from. It’s insane they can’t charge what the market will pay like anyone in any other business can.

Imagine a shop where told they had to sell bread for a certain price, while the shop next door were told they had to sell at a different price it would be laughed at and immediately rules as anti competitive, illegal interference etc etc.

Fol20

bridest wrote: »

I'm not gloating, I'm stating facts. I'm a working professional in Dublin who is struggling to make sense of living in this overpriced city. Unfortunately, the specialised work I do cannot be got easily elsewhere. I'd gladly move out of Dublin and take a salary cut to live somewhere more affordable. So no, I don't think karma will kick in, as I've been straight up and honest with the landlord and we both shook hands on an agreement that we are both happy with.

You were happy to pay the original rent when you first moved in.
Yea the ll did break the new law by doing this.

If you honestly think the ll will just sit idling by, then you really don’t know human nature. I had one dispute with one of my tenants many years ago where he was abusing the system and put me into a bind. (Not related to rpz). Let’s just say that the moment his contract end, he was handed a termination notice. I refused to give a reference and I was delighted to hear that he had broken up with his partner and was house sharing after he moved out.

handlemaster

The Student wrote: »

Thank you but what a lot of people forget is that a lot of landlords are just your average Joe. People who are trying to provide for themselves long term. The middle income who pay for everything work all their lives who when they retire either will not get a state pension or if they do will end up giving it all ball back in tax.

Because again the state doesn't provide enough in old age to have a decent life.

Bigmac1euro

Why is it that a lot of people feel it is ok for the landlord to charge what he wants?

Rents are way above a normal level and it’s down to greed of landlords and many many other factors.

While the RTB favoring tenants and the non payment issue is a joke, I agree. Tax is high on rental income yes.

On boards it seems to have become the cool thing to support landlords now because of the horror stories we see of tenants not paying.

But it’s not ****ing acceptable to shoot the price of your property up for the next tenant because you feel like it.
Why didn’t they do this back in 2007 or 2006 ?

Rents have never been so high and landlords are now profiting off the housing shortage and young people are left shafted because of lack of regulation to begin with.


In 2007 my apartment was renting for 900 euro
It’s now going for 1450 which I’m not paying and nowhere near thank god. I’m paying 1150 which is below the 14000 threshold so the landlord is dodging tax and I’m happy because below market rates.10 more weeks left here. Great landlord, great experience.
Anyway.

How about this one?

Imagine in 2007 I had an apartment and I put it on the market for 1450 euro but every other one in the area is advertised at 9-950.

Would I look like a greedy ****?
Absolutely...
Now what has changed in that time?
Oh yeah a housing crisis.

So what has changed since then?

Why where Landlords able to survive with 950 rent in 2007 but now deserve 1450 a month in 2020.
I felt sorry for landlords for the last year or 2 reading countless posts on here and high taxes and the whole lot but I’m back to what I originally thought.
**** them. It’s their own fault. They wanted to be a landlord and now they rip people off expecting over 50% of their salary a month for a **** hole.

Sell up and let the big boys move in and quite your moaning.
Well done to the OP
Following the rules and getting the LL to reduce his illegal increase the cheeky ****.

If anyone can honestly answer this because I know there’ll be loads of smart arse replies.

Why could so many landlords afford 900 per month but now poor me cannot manage getting 1450 ??
What has changed since then?


Also why should rent cover the full cost of the mortgage?
How is that ok? Why should the LL get a free property?

Duke of Url

Fol20 wrote: »

You were happy to pay the original rent when you first moved in.
Yea the ll did break the new law by doing this.

If you honestly think the ll will just sit idling by, then you really don’t know human nature. I had one dispute with one of my tenants many years ago where he was abusing the system and put me into a bind. (Not related to rpz). Let’s just say that the moment his contract end, he was handed a termination notice. I refused to give a reference and I was delighted to hear that he had broken up with his partner and was house sharing after he moved out.

You say it’s a new law. How old is this new law?