It should work that way but it doesn't. My wife was telling me last night about her friends sister & children moving in with her sister. Mother works in a good job. Landlord told her house is being sold & she has to move out. She's in her sisters. Same house is up for rent for hundreds more. Yes she can report him but she's still in her sisters with nowhere to live & wherever she rents she'll pay the higher rent.
There are cases here on boards daily or weekly where the landlord has done something like this. If a rent isn't registered in the first place then how does the government know what the increase is?
It's all well & good saying that we have rules in place put there is no governing body with real teeth to investigate & punish rogue landlords. There are thousands of tenants paying top up rent in cash so the landlord can avoid the cap. Tenants do this because they don't want the trouble of flat hunting again with the possibility of having to crash on someones couch for weeks while hunting, only to end up paying as much in the new place as the old.
You have to understand there are two types of landlords. Good & bad. The bad tend to make a lot more than the good.
Ask anyone flat hunting or house hunting if they feel rents are only 4 percent higher than last year. Not people moving into new apartments as stated in other posts but people looking in regular Dublin rentals.
I made a mistake with Dublin's average rent increase in an earlier post. It's not 8 percent. It's actually 13.4 percent year on year in Dublin
The Student Registered User
Yes but by reporting him your wife's friends sister in law has nothing to loose. It will put a message out that the rules are there to be followed.
A tenancy does not have to be registered to be covered by the RTB. If a tenant knows the old rent and can prove it then the RTB will take a case.
There are both good and bad tenants and landlords. What you find is that those of us who actually abide by the rules get mixed with those who don't. The term Landlord is toxic these days, you would swear you were the devil himself. Unless both bad tenants and landlords are driven from the sector you run the risk of only having bad landlords and fair landlords like myself (at least I consider myself a fair landlord) will leave the market because of the anti landlord stance and legislation.
The State refuses to evict bad tenants (they don't have a problem going after landlords). It is political suicide to evict anybody and no politician will sanction it. Even the courts wont evict mortgage holders without giving them a number of stays of execution.
As a society we need to change our mindset if we are to even go some way to solving the accommodation crisis we have. Unless all parties accept some changes are needed we will be having the same discussions next year on boards.
I don't know what she is going to do about it. I'd push for reporting but that's not her priority right now.
I edited a previous post to stress that most property I am in seems to be well run. If I talk about the bad ones all the time people might think I believe that all are bad and this is furthest thing from the truth.
If people don't report it and rogue landlords get away with it. What message is that saying to landlords who obey the rules and have a rent stuck far below the market rent.
Its makes them a fool and it's costing them tens of thousands.
There was a time when it was the opposite tenants just kept breaking leases once they found something cheaper. No one remembers that.
Something seems up with the figures though. The stories here don't seem to match the figures being released
nox001 Registered User
I already pay way too much tax on top of having to pay for my own accomidation out of my own pocket and far too much of that tax is going towards housing people for free who appear to think they are entitled to be housed by the government.
The last thing we need is driving out private LLs and even more hard earned tax payers money going into housing people, it’s a completely idiotic idea. It’s reducing state funded housing and forcing more people to pay for their accomidation we should be doing rather than going the other way.
Browney7 Registered User
Who says it has to be for social housing only? Why doesn't the government build and rent to middle income earners for sensible rents like 1000 a month for a nice modern well built one bed apartment - we all know that could drive property prices and rents down though so won't happen.
If they keep flogging the "market will provide" mantra and continue to have working people gouged for rents of 1500 plus for Celtic tiger tinderboxes in Coolock and Poppintree (ballymun), whilst saying "we have a plan and the plan is working" people will get sh1t sick of it (and continue to pay HAP to house social housing eligible people in the short term private market).
This situation has gone on for years and shows no signs of abating and will continue to get worse. There is no political will there to drastically increase the supply of houses - landlords are p1ssed, tenants are p1ssed and I see nothing on the cards that will change this.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Govt stopping providing housing is largely what caused this mess to begin with. The private rental market doesn't not have the capacity to provide the housing required. Its that simple.
Social housing and perhaps even affordable housing is loss making. You can't out source that to private market and not expect it not push the market higher.
Old diesel Registered User
The problem with building regs is (for HAP) having to meet 2018 standards at big cost on an older home.
If the council can stand over the justification for it - they could help towards the cost of it - ideally 100 percent of it.
There are two sides to this issue....
1) the landlord has a house they would happily live in themselves and is "in nice order" but HAP want 20 k worth of work and the landlord can't put their hand on 20 k right now. Even if they could - it's "work that isn't needed".
The other side is......
2) in tacking climate change etc one of the likely measures will likely be retrofit of existing homes to a higher energy standard. This is because we want to ideally reduce fossil fuel use - and make the best use of renewables by reducing energy demand.
Unfortunately it looks like HAP/LAs havent a clue what they are at. What's the aim of just drilling walls????. What's the gain in making the property better to live in.
Is the gain worth the expense????.
A nice refurb can enhance a property but does officialdom know what that is or should be.
There is a longer term need to upgrade as many properties as possible in a way that suits the individual property. But its something that property owners need support with. Not a kick in the privates.
BTW when I say need to upgrade properties i mean in longer term owner occupied etc as well not just rentals
I agree & I'm not talking about now. Any changes are years away. The government won't rock the boat with such a short of property. This can will be kicked fur down the road.
What he said. Tks.
What you said was that you paid 61 percent of the rent in tax. This obviously isn't true. You made a mistake & no big deal. I'm wondering if you have a mortgage & how much interest relief you got as this will bring the percentage of the rent paid in tax down to 20 or 30 percent. About half of the 61 percent you mistakenly mentioned earlier.
Based on the figures you gave you might pay 43 percent of the rent in tax. Obviously with interest relief it's possible to cut this in half, depending on how much interest you pay or don't pay.
Samuel T. Cogley Registered User
You're massively overestimating how much a 15% increase in allowable interest will help. Sweet FA in many cases as the LL's are on trackers.
I'm not asking the poster about the 15 percent increase. I'm asking what interest relief he got this year because I'm pretty certain that we can get that original 61 percent cut in half. I already have it down to about 43 percent I think
Can’t see why you want to push this argument so much, disputing that 61% of my rent doesn’t end up in my pocket - a fact you can’t know anything about, especially when you’re clearly not a landlord, nor know much about my taxes.
But hey, I’ll bite:
Firstly, my income tax rate on the rent in 2017 was 52% (40+4+8).
Pre tax Deductibles came to 9% of total rent. A very good year.
Thats roughly income tax of 52% of 91% = 48%
+ USC which was 3% of total rent, not deductible.
+ Then the non-deductible parts of repairs and maintence
60% of the 9% above = 5.5%
+ recurring capital allowances were 3% of rental income. Roughly
+ There are always other costs not deductible, small cash work etc. That wasn’t much last year, just 2%. Roughly
But that’s just my case, everyone will be different. I own all houses outright, except for one with a small mortgage.
Hey I own a business yet 99 percent of my takings don't end up in my pocket. It makes no sense to describe it this way and is quite deceiving as my tax rate will be almost identical to you. My 99 percent doesn't mean that I pay more or less tax than you & it makes no sense to quote these facts
What you originally posted was that 61 percent of the rent went in tax. This is why I'm pushing it.
Back of the envelope calculation for you suggests that 43 percent of the rent goes in tax. There is a big difference between 61 and 43 percent. I like clarity