Two different prices for the same sized room.

Ann-Marie

I'm paying more rent than my housemate (only two of us) for a room that is exactly the same size as theirs. I don't think it's fair that the the landlady can do this. The guy moved in late, so she claims that she had to reduce the price in order to find someone at such a late stage. As far as I'm concerned it still doesn't excuse the fact that we're paying different rates for the same sized rooms.

Any advice/experience of the same situation.

johndaman66

Judging by the way you are speaking you have approached your landlady already in this regard and she refused to reduce your rent. I could be wrong in saying this and please correct me if such is the case.

If you haven't being talking to her already and were just comparing notes with this guy I'd approach her regarding a rent reduction to the same as you house mates rent. Wouldn't necessairly go out all guns blazing sort attitude as there may well be no need but if she refuses you I'd threaten to move out and this may well work a threat. If you are a good tenant I'd be surprised if she wouldn't reduce your rent.

Also not sure what you mean when you say "the guy moved in late". I assume you mean lately but again could be wrong in making this assumption also.

Ann-Marie

Firstly, thanks for the quick reply.
I did confront her and she said that she will come and discuss the matter with me, bearing in mind that I'm unhappy with the situation. I haven't actually dealt with the situation with all guns blazing because I'm not sure what the landlady has the right to do in relation to such cases. It may well be that she has every right to vary the rent, only that I don't find it fair and refuse to pay more than someone else for the same thing.
In relation to the housemate arriving late. The landlady started looking for tenants in September (mostly students looking for rent) when the others moved out and the housemate only arrived last week, so her claim was that she had to reduce the rate in order to get someone to fill the room at such a late date.
You raise a very valid point there when asking about what I meant by late. There's no starting/ending point for looking for tenants technically speaking, thus I'm not sure if having to give the other housmate a lower rate due to late arrival is really a vaild excuse.

wyndham

“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

“So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.”

(Matt.20: 1-16)

JoeyJJ

wyndham wrote: »

(Matt.20: 1-16)

Nice quote but the Vineyard owner was being generous with his money, this is different this is charging people different amonts for the same thing not giving them the same money for working less hours of someone doing the same job.

Back to the point I would tell the landlady to reduce or find a new tennant and considering the time it took to get yer man i'd say the landylady would accomodate (bad pun) you.

monkeypants

All you can do is ask. If she doesn't agree, then you can move out. I wouldn't present it as an ultimatum.

00112984

Ann-Marie wrote: »

I'm not sure what the landlady has the right to do in relation to such cases. It may well be that she has every right to vary the rent

She does. It's an open market and subject to supply and demand. At the time she rented to you the supply was such that the room demanded €X. When she took on the new tenant, the supply had increased so the demand became €X-Y and that's what he's paying.

Ann-Marie wrote: »

so her claim was that she had to reduce the rate in order to get someone to fill the room at such a late date

That's exactly what she had to do and did.

Ann-Marie wrote: »

I don't find it fair and refuse to pay more than someone else for the same thing

That's fine too. There's nothing to stop you airing your problem with the landlady as you're doing and coming to a compromise with her. She's under no obligation to reduce the rent but you're also under no obligation to consider living there beyond the terms of the rental agreement/lease which you signed.

LittleBook

Ann-Marie wrote: »

Any advice/experience of the same situation.

Myself and a guy were sub-letting rooms from another guy. He was an odd housemate in any case but when we eventually discovered that the two of us were paying the rent for the entire house and he wasn't paying anything, we moved out and left him to it.

Whatever about what you can afford or what a room is worth, if you know something like this it grates.

Have a chat with your landlady and take it from there, she's perfectly entitled to charge what she wants for the room but you're not obliged to stay and pay it.

28064212

Your agreement with her is completely separate to any other. Even if you had both started renting at the same time, she was perfectly entitled to accept a lower offer from your flat-mate if, for example, he haggled her down and you didn't. You accepted her offer to rent at a given price. That doesn't become unfair because someone offered lower than that

You are perfectly entitled to ask for a reduction, but she's perfectly entitled to say no, and would be right to. You have no leverage here, other than a threat to walk out, in which case you lose your deposit and have to find somewhere else to live

Cathmandooo

You agreed to pay the rent you're paying now. It all depends on what sort of lease or agreement is in place now.

Your landlady doesnt have to reduce your rent, and you might not be entitled to leave the property either if you're tied into a lease.

00112984

LittleBook wrote: »

you're not obliged to stay and pay it.

Very much depends on the lease that the OP signed. She may not have to stay and pay rent but she could forfeit a deposit and possibly have to meet other conditions.

D3PO

Cathmandooo wrote: »

You agreed to pay the rent you're paying now.

^^ This

You cant come on here complaining because somebody negotioted a better deal for themselves than you did.

Christ whats next a queue of people looking for house refunds because they bought at a higher price. Its not fair my next door neightbour has the same sized house for less money ......

JonJoeDali

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

I'd start sending her cheques for the reduced amount and tell her to suck it up (in the nicest possible way of course).

28064212

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

First of all, yes they are. Secondly, the market rate is whatever the tenant has agreed to pay.

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'd start sending her cheques for the reduced amount and tell her to suck it up (in the nicest possible way of course).

That's a good way to get yourself evicted, lose your deposit, and have to pay the extra amounts you missed anyway

Cathmandooo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

I'd start sending her cheques for the reduced amount and tell her to suck it up (in the nicest possible way of course).

I assume you're joking

D3PO

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Landlords aren't allowed to charge more than the market rate.

Market rate = what somebody is willing to pay.

Economics 101. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

johndaman66

28064212 wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to ask for a reduction, but she's perfectly entitled to say no, and would be right to. You have no leverage here, other than a threat to walk out, in which case you lose your deposit and have to find somewhere else to live

I am at odds with these comments. Yes agreed that the Landlord is entitled to refuse when tenant asks for a rent reduction, that is the landlords prerogative. However to say the landlord would be right to refuse? There is a difference in saying the Lanlord has the right to refuse and the lanlord is right to refuse. Assuming that the OP has being a reasonably good tenant I don't think the landlord would be right to refuse a rent reduction either morally or from the Landlords own point of view if she wants to keep the room occupied...remember there is an abundance of empties out there in most parts of the country too.

As such are you not jumping the gun a wee bit to say that the OP has no leverage here? Granted I don't fully know the OP's exact circumstances but to say she has no leverage is a bit presumptious at best I reckon. I'm sure the OP can stay there for her notice period and collect her deposit at the end of it minus any breakages, possible cleaning bills, any money the landlord may need to hold back to cover bills etc etc. I am making the assumption that there is no lease in place. If there is the OP is obviously bound by its terms but would be free to walk or renegotiaite rent for new lease period when it ends.

Ann-Marie

Just so you know, My housemate didn't negociate the price. Please don't start spouting off without facts.

Ann-Marie

Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate it.

28064212

johndaman66 wrote: »

I am at odds with these comments. Yes agreed that the Landlord is entitled to refuse when tenant asks for a rent reduction, that is the landlords prerogative. However to say the landlord would be right to refuse? There is a difference in saying the Lanlord has the right to refuse and the lanlord is right to refuse. Assuming that the OP has being a reasonably good tenant I don't think the landlord would be right to refuse a rent reduction either morally or from the Landlords own point of view if she wants to keep the room occupied...remember there is an abundance of empties out there in most parts of the country too.

The landlord has no reason to give a reduction to the OP. If the OP wants to walk, the landlord has time (either through the deposit or a notice period) to find someone else, and at worst, ends up no worse off than if she had given the rent reduction

johndaman66 wrote: »

As such are you not jumping the gun a wee bit to say that the OP has no leverage here? Granted I don't fully know the OP's exact circumstances but to say she has no leverage is a bit presumptious at best I reckon. I'm sure the OP can stay there for her notice period and collect her deposit at the end of it minus any breakages, possible cleaning bills, any money the landlord may need to hold back to cover bills etc etc. I am making the assumption that there is no lease in place. If there is the OP is obviously bound by its terms but would be free to walk or renegotiaite rent for new lease period when it ends.

I specifically said she has exactly one piece of leverage.

Ann-Marie wrote: »

Just so you know, My housemate didn't negociate the price. Please don't start spouting off without facts.

To negotiate means to reach an agreement. Just because he had a different starting point than you, doesn't mean you have any entitlement to a rent reduction. By virtue of the fact that he didn't attempt to rent the room at the higher rate, he de facto negotiated a better price

johndaman66

2864212 wrote: »

The landlord has no reason to give a reduction to the OP. If the OP wants to walk, the landlord has time (either through the deposit or a notice period) to find someone else, and at worst, ends up no worse off than if she had given the rent reduction

I just don't agree with you on the above at all. Yes granted the landlord does not have to give the tenant a rent reduction. But to say the Landlord has no reason to give the OP a rent reduction might be a bit presumptious from point of view of recognising the landlords circumstances. Such as the way things are at the moment the Landlord may not be afforded this luxury if there was a very real threat of OP moving out. She may be depending on the rent money to pay the mortgage or other obligations. Of course conversly so such may not be the case either and as I say I recognise that the Landlord is not under any specific obligation legally to grant a rent reduction. I think its a bit naive to assume that the landlord would end up in no worse a situation if the OP were to walk now than if she didn't. She would most likely incur advertising costs and demands on her time to show room to prospective tenants. Absolutely no guarntee she would find somebody to move in immediately following Ann Maries departure. Furthemore what if the only tenant she finds is at least as good if not a whole lot better at bargaining as low or lower rent figure than guy who moved in lately. Can only assume she won't knock as much out of this new tenant ans Ann Marie with the way rents are going. She is taking the chance also that the person she gets is noisey, unclean and untidy, rough with household equipment, slow to pay rent, etc....I've seen this quite a lot.

2864212 wrote: »

I specifically said she has exactly one piece of leverage.

Reading your initial post which I quoted again I take your point...Its just such was not very clear to me the first time round;)

Just to mention also that I was renting a room for 3 - 4 months some time back and I did not pay a deposit or need to give any notice period whenever I left. Person I was renting of was not a friend or relation or any such acquaintance. No doubt such was the exception to the general rule but I'm sure there are others with similar arrangements out there all the same.

Distorted

OP - your contract with the landlord sounds as if it is totally individual to you, independent of that of your flatmate. It is nothing to do with you legally whether or not your flatmate pays more or less than you do. You have no "right" to a reduction in rent but you can try to negotiate one. In the present market, where I am based, I wouldn't entertain such a request - I'd also be worried about a tenant who signed a lease and then couldn't stick to the terms. However in your area tenants might be scarce and she might entertain a reduction - only she can make the decision.

I've done similar in that I ended up renting out an en suite room for the same cost as a normal bathroom. No complaints from either tenant. It was 6 months between the lettings and tbh there are sometimes factors that you can't mention to tenants for fear of hurting their feelings, such as them not coming across too well to other prospective tenants and putting them off (although obviously they're a good tenant in other respects and I made the decision to keep them as a tenant). Not saying this applies here, just pointing out there are sometimes unknown variables.

Ann-Marie

What I meant was that there was no negotiation process. The room was advertised at that price. (i.e the reduced rate).

amdublin

Cathmandooo wrote: »

You agreed to pay the rent you're paying now.

It's a bit like buying a coat at a price. And a week later a friend buys it at 40% off. Sh1t happens.

Suggest you ask your LL to reduce your rent. They may, rather than risk losing you and having to find a new tenant.

They may not as well : again, you agreed to pay the rent you're paying now.

Cathmandooo

Ann-Marie wrote: »

What I meant was that there was no negotiation process. The room was advertised at that price. (i.e the reduced rate).

That still doesn't mean your rent should be equal, put it this way, if there were less properties available, meaning landlords have their pick of tenants and rents are on the up, and the landlord advertised the other room for a higher rent than you're paying in line with other rooms available in the vicinity at that time would you be running after your landlord to pay the extra rent to keep in line with your housemate? I really don't think you would.

astrofool

Ann-Marie wrote: »

What I meant was that there was no negotiation process. The room was advertised at that price. (i.e the reduced rate).

Did you negotiate your price? Were you happy to pay it? If your flatmate paid more, would you want an increase?

JonJoeDali

D3PO wrote: »

Market rate = what somebody is willing to pay.

Economics 101. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The landlord will soon learn that lesson.

And besides, peoples homes aren't commodities. Landlords legally aren't allowed to charge more than the "market rate" for many good reasons.

Cathmandooo

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The landlord will soon learn that lesson.

And besides, peoples homes aren't commodities. Landlords legally aren't allowed to charge more than the "market rate" for many good reasons.

This landlord IS charging the market rate at the time of the signing of the lease. No lessons need to be learned here.

JonJoeDali

Cathmandooo wrote: »

This landlord IS charging the market rate at the time of the signing of the lease. No lessons need to be learned here.

The statutory rights of tenants supercedes any contract.

Cathmandooo

I'd love to see anyone be able to change their rent every single time the market rent dips or rises.

It's completely unworkable. It's one rent review per year. You go with the market rent when you sign your lease.

JonJoeDali

Cathmandooo wrote: »

It's one rent review per year.

Where's that written into law? The tenant is perfectly entitled to pay just the "market rent" and not a cent more. In this case, the "market rent" clearly is what his housemate is paying.

professore

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The landlord will soon learn that lesson.

And besides, peoples homes aren't commodities. Landlords legally aren't allowed to charge more than the "market rate" for many good reasons.

Are you any relation to Salvador, JonJoe ? As you are clearly delusional. The market rate is whatever the landlord says it is. If the landlord decides to charge € 5 million a week for a one bed flat in Terenure and the tenant is willing to pay then that's the market rate.

convert

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The tenant is perfectly entitled to pay just the "market rent" and not a cent more. In this case, the "market rent" clearly is what his housemate is paying.

From the PRTB handbook

MARKET RENTS
The maximum rent payable by a tenant may not be greater
than the open market rent, which is defined as the rent that a
willing tenant would give and a willing landlord would take for
vacant possession having regard to the tenancy terms and the
letting values of dwellings of a similar size, type and character
and located in a similar area.

convert

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Where's that written into law? The tenant is perfectly entitled to pay just the "market rent" and not a cent more. In this case, the "market rent" clearly is what his housemate is paying.

Again, from the PRTB handbook

RENT REVIEWS
After each 12 months of a tenancy, tenants, as well as landlords,
can seek a rent review. Reviews can take place no more
frequently than once a year unless there has been a substantial
change in the nature of the accommodation in the interim.

3DataModem

So what about when privies were rising?

You move in for 200 per month.

Six month later a guy moves in at 225 per month.

Can the landlord raise your rent to match the market rate?

Meteoric

If you really feel the difference is not in line with current rents go look and find an alternative accommodation or have like 15 examples from Daft or similar websites showing you can move in the same area for less than you are paying.
But do not do this unless you are prepared to move if the landlord says no. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and if the landlord has any sense he/she will keep you but the threat to move out has to be a real one.
If your new house-mate just got a really good deal for your area you will just have to suck it up if you can move for less well then it is the landlords problem, they either have to reduce your rent or have an empty room but before you negotiate you need to know the current market rates.
It's not a situation where you can call their bluff, you have to be prepared to hand in notice and move if you want the reduction

00112984

Looking at it from a hypothetical angle as I'm not sure whether any of these conditions applied to the OP but...

If you were renting with one other person in the house and a vacancy was there for a third person, you were probably paying 50% of utility bills (ie splitting with the second person). Having a third person in would reduce your utilities to 33.3333...% so it was in your best interest for the landlady to fill the room, even at a lower rent.

djimi

JonJoeDali wrote: »

The landlord will soon learn that lesson.

And besides, peoples homes aren't commodities. Landlords legally aren't allowed to charge more than the "market rate" for many good reasons.

A landlord can charge whatever they desire for accomodation. As a tenant or potential tenant you are under no obligation to take up the accomodation if you feel the price is too high. But there is nothing to stop a landlord asking for €5000 a month for a 10x10 basement hovel if they so wish to do so. If the tenant agrees to pay it and signs a contract to that effect then it is the fault of the tenant, not the landlord.

Theres no such thing as market rate when it comes to renting. Im pretty sure Im probably paying €50-€100 less than some of my neighbours for my apartment, but that doesnt give them the right to go to the landlord and demand that their rent be reduced mid-lease.

djimi

Ann-Marie, you agreed to pay the price youre paying, and I assume signed a lease to that effect. Thus the landlord has no obligation to reduce your rent to meet the price of a similar of their accomodations. You can by all means ask, and you never know what their answer may be, but do not expect to get a reduction.

goat2

Ann-Marie wrote: »

I'm paying more rent than my housemate (only two of us) for a room that is exactly the same size as theirs. I don't think it's fair that the the landlady can do this. The guy moved in late, so she claims that she had to reduce the price in order to find someone at such a late stage. As far as I'm concerned it still doesn't excuse the fact that we're paying different rates for the same sized rooms.

Any advice/experience of the same situation.

hand in your notice, there are plenty beautiful apartments and houses going very reasonable, dont put up with this, and on giving notice, state this reason also, even though you are not obliged to give a reason

djimi

goat2 wrote: »

hand in your notice, there are plenty beautiful apartments and houses going very reasonable, dont put up with this, and on giving notice, state this reason also, even though you are not obliged to give a reason

And if the landlord decides to try withhold the deposit for breaking the lease early? Is it really worth the hassle, given that the difference between the rents over the year probably wouldnt come close to the price of the deposit lost?

goat2

djimi wrote: »

And if the landlord decides to try withhold the deposit for breaking the lease early? Is it really worth the hassle, given that the difference between the rents over the year probably wouldnt come close to the price of the deposit lost?

give one month notice in writing, keeping a copy and getting landlord to sign it, then the law is with you, you are entitled to that

djimi

Im not arguing with you (Im now curious) but what happens if the landlord refuses to accept the months notice, or starts to get sticky about it? Is it as easy as that to get out of a lease when renting or is there some other potential penalty involved for breaking a lease?

goat2

djimi wrote: »

Im not arguing with you (Im now curious) but what happens if the landlord refuses to accept the months notice, or starts to get sticky about it? Is it as easy as that to get out of a lease when renting or is there some other potential penalty involved for breaking a lease?

if they refuse the one months notice, they break the law, if they do not hand back deposit when the month is up, provided all is ok with their property they also break the law, you seem to be very afraid, is this your first time renting, i personally think so, and this landlord know that too, and is taking advantage of this fact, dont be walked on,

djimi

Im not the OP; Im just curious!

Im not that long renting tho, and its something Ive wondered about. So basically when they say "1 year minimum" on the lease it means very little then?

ztoical

goat2 wrote: »

if they refuse the one months notice, they break the law, if they do not hand back deposit when the month is up, provided all is ok with their property they also break the law, you seem to be very afraid, is this your first time renting, i personally think so, and this landlord know that too, and is taking advantage of this fact, dont be walked on,

How is the Landlord taking advantage? They advertised both room for the same price, I assume the OP viewed the room and was happy to pay the rent asked for it. No one offered to rent the second room, after a period the LL decided to lower the rent on it rather then have it sit empty. The OP has rented a room not the whole house/flat so they have no say in what contract the LL signs with other tenants. If people want to avoid something like this happening they should rent the whole property and find people to share rather then renting single rooms.

We also only know the rooms are the same size, there could be other differences between the two rooms that put people off renting the second one [I once rented a room in a house were the largest bedroom was painted a horrible pink colour and no one wanted it and the LL wouldn't paint it another colour even though the ended up finally having to rent it for less then the smaller rooms] Just because the two rooms are the same size does not mean they are equal.

astrofool

goat2 wrote: »

if they refuse the one months notice, they break the law, if they do not hand back deposit when the month is up, provided all is ok with their property they also break the law, you seem to be very afraid, is this your first time renting, i personally think so, and this landlord know that too, and is taking advantage of this fact, dont be walked on,

The notice periods for a part 4 tenancy are on www.threshold.ie, the notice periods for a fixed term lease, will be defined in the lease itself. If the lease does not give a 1 month notice, then they are stuck there until the end of the lease (or can be sued for the remainder of the lease if they leave early).

They can try and find someone else to take over the lease, at the price they are renting, and this person has to be acceptable to the landlord (has there been any PRTB cases where a landlord refused a replacement tenant and were then forced to take them?).

Anyway, you are wrong about your "one month notice is the law" claim.

goat2

djimi wrote: »

Im not the OP; Im just curious!

Im not that long renting tho, and its something Ive wondered about. So basically when they say "1 year minimum" on the lease it means very little then?

yes , as you can give one month notice to leave, you are not breaking any law there, and you are entitled to your full deposit back at the end of that month.

Cathmandooo

goat2 wrote: »

yes , as you can give one month notice to leave, you are not breaking any law there, and you are entitled to your full deposit back at the end of that month.

No you can't just give one months notice to get out of a fixed term lease. You would not be entitled to your deposit.

Can you please give us a source for your claims?

Cathmandooo

goat2 wrote: »

i have been renting out a small house with a long time now, never had problems so far, and there is no question but they would get their rent back on a notice to leave of one month, and that was always the case, when i did read up on this away back this was the requirement, when my children were renting while going to college, and one lady told one of them they could not walk out on a one yr lease, well she did 6 months later, and that was by giving one months notice in writing.

That's your personal experience on a handful of tenancies which we can't see and perhaps that particular tenancy had a break clause, but you were talking about the law. Can you give a source regarding the law to back up what you've said? Because it's misleading to be advising people that they can break a fixed term lease without penalty and that the law is behind them, when it's not.

goat2

Cathmandooo wrote: »

That's your personal experience on a handful of tenancies which we can't see and perhaps that particular tenancy had a break clause, but you were talking about the law. Can you give a source regarding the law to back up what you've said? Because it's misleading to be advising people that they can break a fixed term lease without penalty and that the law is behind them, when it's not.

i got it wrong, .[/QUOTE]</p>
but i always hand back deposit knowing they need it, and i guess i do have feelings for people in these bad times.Tenants can terminate a tenancy without giving a reason but must give notice.Length of tenancy Notice by tenant Less than 6 months 4 weeks (28 days) 6 months to 1 year 5 weeks (35 days) 1 – 2 years 6 weeks (42 days) 2 or more years 8 weeks (56 days) If tenants have a fixed-term agreement or a lease, they are also subject to the terms of this agreement. This means they may lose their deposit if they leave before the term stated in the lease, even if they give the correct amount of notice.