Landlord increased room rent by 11%

Outcastangel

Hi folks

I've seen a landlord advertising a room for 800 euro a point. The same room she advertised back in March for 720. That's an 11% increase in a rent pressure zone where the allowed increase is 4%.

I am one of the many incredibly fed up and stressed out by rent situation in Ireland. I have screenshot of both advertisements. I want to start doing something about greedy landlords and encourage others to do the same.

However, I need some guidance and advice on where to report this to.

Browney7

Outcastangel wrote: »

Hi folks

I've seen a landlord advertising a room for 800 euro a point. The same room she advertised back in March for 720. That's an 11% increase in a rent pressure zone where the allowed increase is 4%.

I am one of the many incredibly fed up and stressed out by rent situation in Ireland. I have screenshot of both advertisements. I want to start doing something about greedy landlords and encourage others to do the same.

However, I need some guidance and advice on where to report this to.

If the landlord lives in the property they can do what they like so I wouldn't be getting too het up over it.

Ash.J.Williams

I’m paying decent rent now and observing rents going up around me rapidly

Outcastangel

Browney7 wrote: »

If the landlord lives in the property they can do what they like so I wouldn't be getting too het up over it.

It's no it's not owner occupied

Dav010

Outcastangel wrote: »

It's no it's not owner occupied

Is the landlord advertising the room or the lead tenant?

Outcastangel

Dav010 wrote: »

Is the landlord advertising the room or the lead tenant?

It seems to be the landlord, but actually not a 100%. But I have seen tenants advertising rooms at a higher price to reduce their own rent.

I just really think their needs to be a way of reporting these kinds of things. More so the landlords than the tenants as I know contacting the landlord regarding sublets is really the only way to deal with that

Dav010

Outcastangel wrote: »

It seems to be the landlord, but actually not a 100%. But I have seen tenants advertising rooms at a higher price to reduce their own rent.

I just really think their needs to be a way of reporting these kinds of things. More so the landlords than the tenants as I know contacting the landlord regarding sublets is really the only way to deal with that

If it’s the lead tenant then it is a licensee agreement they are advertising and not covered by the RTA nor RPZ legislation. Subletting is where the tenant moves out of a term letting and lets the property to someone else, if the LL is being paid rent in accordance with RTA/RPZ legislation, not much wrongdoing there.

You also don’t mention if the room was let to someone in March, and when the last rent review was.

Outcastangel

Dav010 wrote: »

If it’s the lead tenant then it is a licensee agreement they are advertising and not covered by the RTA nor RPZ legislation. Subletting is where the tenant moves out of a term letting and lets the property to someone else, if the LL is being paid rent in accordance with RTA/RPZ legislation, not much wrongdoing there.

You also don’t mention if the room was let to someone in March, and when the last rent review was.

Yeah, I completely get that. All I was asking is there an avenue to report landlords like this.

Dav010

Outcastangel wrote: »

Yeah, I completely get that. All I was asking is there an avenue to report landlords like this.

Like what? Do you actually know anything about this letting apart from 2 ads two months apart?

Outcastangel

Dav010 wrote: »

Like what? Do you actually know anything about this letting apart from 2 ads two months apart?

All you have to say is no or not comment? Maybe you're not experiencing the effects of the housing crisis at the moment which if that's the case, fair play its good to see, but can you not see how wrong this is.

Bubbaclaus

It's 4% per annum max rent increase, so if they haven't increased rent in a few years then an 11% increase is perfectly legal.

Dav010

Outcastangel wrote: »

All you have to say is no or not comment? Maybe you're not experiencing the effects of the housing crisis at the moment which if that's the case, fair play its good to see, but can you not see how wrong this is.

This isn’t about me, you are making assumptions without basis.
You don’t know who is advertising the room, if it’s for a tenancy or license, when the last rent review was, what the last occupant of the room was paying etc. So what are you basing your complaint of wrong doing on?

Outcastangel

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It's 4% per annum max rent increase, so if they haven't increased rent in a few years then an 11% increase is perfectly legal.

Could you point me towards where I can get further info on this please? Can't seem to find anything other than the 4% per year. Cheers

Vestiapx

Is it the rent per property unit that counts ?

Dav010

Outcastangel wrote: »

Could you point me towards where I can get further info on this please? Can't seem to find anything other than the 4% per year. Cheers

R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m)

Where:

R = initial rent.
T = months since last increase.
M = 12.

So before accusing anyone of wrong doing, you need to know the rent paid by the last tenant, when the last rent review was and most importantly, whether the occupant of the room is going to be a tenant or a licensee, otherwise the RPZ calculation above may not apply.

https://www.rtb.ie/calculator/rpz

hurleronditch

Outcastangel wrote: »

All you have to say is no or not comment? Maybe you're not experiencing the effects of the housing crisis at the moment which if that's the case, fair play its good to see, but can you not see how wrong this is.

It’s just being pointed out to you that legally wrong and your view of what is morally wrong are possibly materially different. Not to say that there hasn’t been some wrong doing here, but finding sufficient proof of that and then finding a body or agency willing to pursue it is remote at best.

Outcastangel

Dav010 wrote: »

R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m)

Where:

R = initial rent.
T = months since last increase.
M = 12.

So before accusing anyone of wrong doing, you need to know the rent paid by the last tenant, when the last rent review was and most importantly, whether the occupant of the room is going to be a tenant or a licensee, otherwise the RPZ calculation above does not apply.

https://www.rtb.ie/calculator/rpz

Thanks for the info, I understand how the calculations work. So by this logic they can increase the rent by 11% if the rent has not been increased in the last 6 years.

I've found info on this on citizens information, its just not very back and white if you get me.

Honestly, I just want to be informed so I can inform my friends too as there's too many people being taken advantage of when it comes to the rent increases. And if so be it, I want to know how to report these landlords. Its the only way to stop them

Dav010

Outcastangel wrote: »

Thanks for the info, I understand how the calculations work. So by this logic they can increase the rent by 11% if the rent has not been increased in the last 6 years.

I've found info on this on citizens information, its just not very back and white if you get me.

Honestly, I just want to be informed so I can inform my friends too as there's too many people being taken advantage of when it comes to the rent increases. And if so be it, I want to know how to report these landlords. Its the only way to stop them

6 years?

Bubbaclaus

Outcastangel wrote: »

Thanks for the info, I understand how the calculations work. So by this logic they can increase the rent by 11% if the rent has not been increased in the last 6 years.

I've found info on this on citizens information, its just not very back and white if you get me.

Honestly, I just want to be informed so I can inform my friends too as there's too many people being taken advantage of when it comes to the rent increases. And if so be it, I want to know how to report these landlords. Its the only way to stop them

Where are you getting 6 years from? An increase of 26.5% would be allowed if it hadn't been increased in 6 years.

con747

Not sure the OP will be responding anytime soon.

dennyk

Outcastangel wrote: »

Hi folks

I've seen a landlord advertising a room for 800 euro a point. The same room she advertised back in March for 720. That's an 11% increase in a rent pressure zone where the allowed increase is 4%.

Back in March of this year? Are you sure the room was actually let to a tenant for €720? Unless a long-term tenancy actually commenced at that rent amount, it doesn't fall under the RPZ legislation. It's possible the landlord didn't find any suitable tenants at the time, or changed their mind about letting it out for a couple more months.

You also don't know if this is actually a tenancy or if it is a license agreement. If the "tenant" is renting the room from another tenant who is also living in the property, rather than to the owner of the property, it is a license agreement, and as such the RPZ regulations don't apply.

You also don't know when the rent was actually set last. As others have pointed out, the RPZ regulations allow for a 4% increase per year over the last rent amount set. If it had been let for €720 for the past few years, such a rent increase would generally be allowed even if it was a tenancy subject to RPZ regulations and even if there was actually a tenant in there a couple months ago.

Basically, you don't really have enough information about this particular situation to come to a conclusion that any regulations are actually being breached. If you still feel the need to pursue the matter, however, you can report your suspicions to the RTB and they will review the information you provide and determine whether it warrants an investigation.

Del2005

Dav010 wrote: »

If it’s the lead tenant then it is a licensee agreement they are advertising and not covered by the RTA nor RPZ legislation. Subletting is where the tenant moves out of a term letting and lets the property to someone else, if the LL is being paid rent in accordance with RTA/RPZ legislation, not much wrongdoing there.

You also don’t mention if the room was let to someone in March, and when the last rent review was.

dennyk wrote: »

Back in March of this year? Are you sure the room was actually let to a tenant for €720? Unless a long-term tenancy actually commenced at that rent amount, it doesn't fall under the RPZ legislation. It's possible the landlord didn't find any suitable tenants at the time, or changed their mind about letting it out for a couple more months.

You also don't know if this is actually a tenancy or if it is a license agreement. If the "tenant" is renting the room from another tenant who is also living in the property, rather than to the owner of the property, it is a license agreement, and as such the RPZ regulations don't apply.

You also don't know when the rent was actually set last. As others have pointed out, the RPZ regulations allow for a 4% increase per year over the last rent amount set. If it had been let for €720 for the past few years, such a rent increase would generally be allowed even if it was a tenancy subject to RPZ regulations and even if there was actually a tenant in there a couple months ago.

Basically, you don't really have enough information about this particular situation to come to a conclusion that any regulations are actually being breached. If you still feel the need to pursue the matter, however, you can report your suspicions to the RTB and they will review the information you provide and determine whether it warrants an investigation.

If a tenant is leasing the room and they have a Part 4 lease then once the person moves in they can get onto the lease, the landlord can't reasonably refuse, and have the full protection of the RTB. See Section 50 (7) of the Residential Tenancies Act

(7) A person who is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling concerned as a licensee of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be, during the subsistence of a Part 4 tenancy may request the landlord of the dwelling to allow him or her to become a tenant of the dwelling.

Dav010

Del2005 wrote: »

If a tenant is leasing the room and they have a Part 4 lease then once the person moves in they can get onto the lease, the landlord can't reasonably refuse, and have the full protection of the RTB. See Section 50 (7) of the Residential Tenancies Act

There used to be a 6 month waiting period before the licensee could apply for tenancy rights, I’m not sure if that still applies. But that would not alter the fact that initially the person renting the room from a lead tenant would be a licensee and not covered by RTA/RPZ legislation.

dennyk

Del2005 wrote: »

If a tenant is leasing the room and they have a Part 4 lease then once the person moves in they can get onto the lease, the landlord can't reasonably refuse, and have the full protection of the RTB. See Section 50 (7) of the Residential Tenancies Act

Sure, but again, we don't know if a hypothetical licensee here has ever made such a request. No one here knows the actual facts of the situation in question, so we can't say whether there's anything going on that violates the current regulations. If the OP reports it to the RTB and they deem it worth looking into, they can probably find out, but in this thread it's all just pure guesswork and speculation based on very limited information (the extent of which is that the room was listed for €720 in March and was listed for €800 in May, and the property owner doesn't live in the dwelling...).

Del2005

Dav010 wrote: »

There used to be a 6 month waiting period before the licensee could apply for tenancy rights, I’m not sure if that still applies. But that would not alter the fact that initially the person renting the room from a lead tenant would be a licensee and not covered by RTA/RPZ legislation.

Did you read the statute I quoted?

(7) A person who is lawfully in occupation of the dwelling concerned as a licensee of the tenant or the multiple tenants, as the case may be, during the subsistence of a Part 4 tenancy may request the landlord of the dwelling to allow him or her to become a tenant of the dwelling.

A licencee can't get part 4 so it's the tenants status that counts. If the tenancy is in Part 4 the licencee can apply to become a tenant. Once they sign a lease they are covered because Part 4 rights are automatic, the request is a formality as the landlord can't refuse and tenants enter part 4 after 6 months regardless of what's in the lease.

The 6 month waiting time came from incorrect information on the Threshold site. Because their sample letter references the statute above

Renting from a Tenant

If you are renting a room from one of the existing tenants, you may also be a licensee and the normal landlord and tenant laws do not apply. After six months however you can apply to become a tenant on the same terms and conditions as the existing tenants.

Claw Hammer

Del2005 wrote: »

Did you read the statute I quoted?

the request is a formality as the landlord can't refuse and tenants enter part 4 after 6 months regardless of what's in the lease.

Look at Subsection 8.
(8) The landlord may not unreasonably refuse to accede to such a request.

The landlord can refuse.

Del2005

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Look at Subsection 8.
(8) The landlord may not unreasonably refuse to accede to such a request.

The landlord can refuse.

Unreasonably is the important bit. What is a reasonable reason to refuse to add someone to the lease who has just moved in after being vetted by the current residents, especially when the RTB is proven to be biased against landlords, another person on the lease is good for the landlord.

Tenants have gotten out of leases by reassigning them, the landlord can't reasonably refuse to let someone they've never met or vetted into their property so the tenant can walk away from the lease if the landlord refuses to reassign.

Claw Hammer

Del2005 wrote: »

Unreasonably is the important bit. What is a reasonable reason to refuse to add someone to the lease who has just moved in after being vetted by the current residents, especially when the RTB is proven to be biased against landlords, another person on the lease is good for the landlord.

Tenants have gotten out of leases by reassigning them, the landlord can't reasonably refuse to let someone they've never met or vetted into their property so the tenant can walk away from the lease if the landlord refuses to reassign.

The landlord can refuse assignment for any or no reason. The landlord can refuse to accept a tenant brought in by the other tenants on reasonable grounds. The fact that the existing tenants have evtted the person would not make it an open and shut case.

JimmyVik

OP check out twitter.
Lots of like minded people looking to be outraged about all sorts of things, without knowing the full story on there too.
There is so much information missing from this issue that you have it will be impossible to figure it out.

Bubbaclaus

It appears the OP may have deleted their account.