I think there was a provision in legislation in September 2017 for landlords charging abnormally low rents to seek an increase greater than 4%. Does anybody know any more about this? Thanks for any advice
No. You are the only person who seems to have heard of it.
You can in many cases increase more than 4% depending on the last increase. There is a formula online for this. I like to tell people because the RTB screwed over a friend of mine by telling them they could only increase the rent by 4% when they hadn't increased rent for about ten years.
That has nothing to do with the rent being abnormally low in the first place!
Surely when a landlord is accepting the very modest HAP payment the rent should not be less than that decided on by HAP for the area. People might prefer to sell the property.
And if they sell the property the new owner remains bound by the rent cap - which obviously reduces the market price/demand for the property.
So the best solution is to serve notice according to the length of occupation, to move into your property and to let your present house at a viable rent. Seems so unnecessary, and unfair to nice tenants, but with the expenses of letting out a house being so onerous what else can you do. Ridiculous situation.
The other option would be to do some significant work to the property that justified raising the rent. The criteria for what is allowed is a bit loose but potentially an attic conversion or extension would do the job. Depending on how abnormal the rent is it could well be worth doing.
What do you mean by that? Yes there is a cap for HAP payouts from the cc but the tenant has to cover the difference themselves ie top up...
The cap is criminally low in most cases and the rent charged in line with the local value
I am on Disability Allowance and my top up is almost half of my weekly allowance (on top of my weekly contribution). In Westmeath the cap for a single parent with one child is only €600 and most rents are around €1000 or more
There is a massive shortage of rented accommodation available so the alternative for me & my daughter is homelessness
To clarify- the top up goes directly to the landlord not to the cc
If a landlord were being greedy or unreasonable you would have no sympathy, but when a person is willing to accept the basic HAP payment they should receive that. You regularly hear of people being served with the PRTB notice of termination on one of the legal grounds and you wonder at the morality of the decision. Many of these cases are probably not the result of greed but reflect the frustration of owners struggling with the unfavourable regulations and conditions.
All landlords should recieve the maximum HAP payment? That hardly makes sense? It's an upper bound not a minimum payment?
The HAP payments as listed on their website are several hundred euros less per month than the market rent(admittedly the latter is ridiculously over-inflated) of properties in most locations at present. So the landlord is getting less than if she/he were not on HAP. If the government were serious about keeping private landlords on board they would ensure that the gap did not become too wide.
Of course its less than the market rate, HAP properties should be the most affordable housing, not the average rent in an area?
That is true, GingerLily, and it is great to be sure of payment as one is when the local authority is in charge. Once the gap is not too wide. Rents are bordering on the immoral at present, totally ridiculous. Having said that, there is a need to recognize that it is not the responsibility of the private citizen to provide housing. Many people have sold out, moved back into their own property, had a family member do so or finally, changed the nature of the property because of the prevalent attitude to landlords and the costs involved in letting a house. 52% of rent goes back to the state in the form of income tax, USC and PRSI. Insurance, property tax, PRTB registration and repairs also need to be factored into the equation. Last but not least there is time, which would cost the state dearly if it were being expended on local authority housing.