Rent Increase

uli84

Anyone else been informed of a rent increase as household charge registration deadline is coming? I just got a letter (!) yesterday, cheeeky-well we all knew it'd be tenants who will pay this way or another, unluckily (or luckily) enough my contract is finishin in 1 month.
Looking for a new place it does seem though that the prices all over Dublin increased, might be time for getting my own place soon...

Crash Override

uli84 wrote: »

Anyone else been informed of a rent increase as household charge registration deadline is coming? I just got a letter (!) yesterday, cheeeky-well we all knew it'd be tenants who will pay this way or another, unluckily (or luckily) enough my contract is finishin in 1 month.
Looking for a new place it does seem though that the prices all over Dublin increased, might be time for getting my own place soon...

How much of an increase was it? The whole thing? I just signed the lease on my apartment yesterday and there was no mention of it so I'm wondering if the landlord is going to be sneaky about it and add it in at the end of the first month.

djimi

Crash Override wrote: »

How much of an increase was it? The whole thing? I just signed the lease on my apartment yesterday and there was no mention of it so I'm wondering if the landlord is going to be sneaky about it and add it in at the end of the first month.

Does the lease not have an agreed rent amount in it? If so then the landlord cannot increase that amount until the lease is up.

Im not sure how many landlords will bother adding the household charge to the rent tbh, for the sake of €8.30 per month...

Crash Override

djimi wrote: »

Does the lease not have an agreed rent amount in it? If so then the landlord cannot increase that amount until the lease is up.

Im not sure how many landlords will bother adding the household charge to the rent tbh, for the sake of €8.30 per month...

It does but I was under the impression from the post that this didn't matter - I should probably mention this is my first apartment I'm renting with friends but yeah agreed rent amount. I was just making sure we weren't get screwed over by the charge.

daltonmd

Crash Override wrote: »

It does but I was under the impression from the post that this didn't matter - I should probably mention this is my first apartment I'm renting with friends but yeah agreed rent amount. I was just making sure we weren't get screwed over by the charge.

You may want to check your lease:

http://www.ipoa.ie/

Clarification
The Competition Authority has approved the following statement in the Clarification Notice published below:- “the relationship of landlord and tenant is a matter of contract between the parties and it is for the parties to any letting agreement to agree between themselves its terms, including the settlement of any charges levied to fund local services.”
The following is an extract from a standard form Lease Agreement

The Tenant agrees with the Landlord as follows:-
“To pay and discharge Rates in respect of the Premises and to pay and discharge all applicable charges in respect of any Services used or consumed on the Premises without prejudice to the foregoing to pay and discharge charges for any additional service whether specified in the definition of Services or not which is or which may be rendered by a local authority in respect of the premises and to indemnify the Landlord against any charges which are or which may be payable by him in respect of the premises during the period of the Lease.”...

Pawwed Rig

The price you pay for rent and the household charge are two completely separate payments. It falls on the landlord to pay the household charge (which is strange). The landlord will set your rent based on the market rate at the time. At the moment rents in good areas of Dublin are rising. Therefore the landlord will adjust the rent accordingly. On the other hand rents are still falling in areas predominantly consisting of social welfare tenants as these rates have been cut.

To suggest rents have gone up 'because' of the household charge would be to ignore market economics.

Spiritofthekop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The price you pay for rent and the household charge are two completely separate payments. It falls on the landlord to pay the household charge (which is strange). The landlord will set your rent based on the market rate at the time. At the moment rents in good areas of Dublin are rising. Therefore the landlord will adjust the rent accordingly. On the other hand rents are still falling in areas predominantly consisting of social welfare tenants as these rates have been cut.

To suggest rents have gone up 'because' of the household charge would be to ignore market economics.

Im in a good area of Dublin and my rent came down at the start of the year. My landlord is paying the €100 for HIS property as well.

Not sure were all this rent increase is coming from, Ive other friends renting whose rent has gone down too.

Cost of living is still going up and wages are not increasing. We have just entered another recession!

Zamboni

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

At the moment rents in good areas of Dublin are rising.

Hi,

What is your source for that?

Thanks

Pawwed Rig

Zamboni wrote: »

Hi,

What is your source for that?

Thanks

Daft report 2012

"Nationally rents have remained notably stable for the last twelve months. Indeed, rents have stabilised as far back as December 2009, with little change since that date. This quarter under review mirrors this trend. As previous quarterly reports have shown, national rent indices still appear to mask a rural/urban split within the Irish rental market, with rural prices continuing to fall, albeit at a slow pace, and these falls being offset by increasing rents in urban areas. Similarly, the stock of available properties available for rent continues to fall. In January, the total number of rental properties stood at 16,023 (v 16,932 January 2011); a 5.7% decline on the previous year's levels."

Spiritofthekop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Daft report 2012

Nationally rents have remained notably stable for the last twelve months. Indeed, rents have stabilised as far back as December 2009, with little change since that date. This quarter under review mirrors this trend. As previous quarterly reports have shown, national rent indices still appear to mask a rural/urban split within the Irish rental market, with rural prices continuing to fall, albeit at a slow pace, and these falls being offset by increasing rents in urban areas. Similarly, the stock of available properties available for rent continues to fall. In January, the total number of rental properties stood at 16,023 (v 16,932 January 2011); a 5.7% decline on the previous year's levels.

Ah good old Daft.ie

Who stats are of course always right!!

I would not listen to a word this lot say...well know vested interested party whose CEO was only calling the bottom on TV last year as per usual.

I cant see how Daft have any idea whats the actual agreed rent and sale of a house is??

My friend who is a landlord advertised her apartment on daft but actually agreed the rent for 100 less that what she put up on daft, she never got asked by daft how much she actually agreed on...

They use the ridiculous asking prices of houses & rents that have in some situations been sitting on there site for years as there actual fact for stats??

Anyway...as I said my rent & a few of my friends rents went down maybe we are just lucky to have good landlords cause we are good tenants

Zamboni

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Daft report 2012

"Nationally rents have remained notably stable for the last twelve months. Indeed, rents have stabilised as far back as December 2009, with little change since that date. This quarter under review mirrors this trend. As previous quarterly reports have shown, national rent indices still appear to mask a rural/urban split within the Irish rental market, with rural prices continuing to fall, albeit at a slow pace, and these falls being offset by increasing rents in urban areas. Similarly, the stock of available properties available for rent continues to fall. In January, the total number of rental properties stood at 16,023 (v 16,932 January 2011); a 5.7% decline on the previous year's levels."

Ah right.
You said

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

At the moment rents in good areas of Dublin are rising.

What you should have said

Rental asking prices increased in urban areas in 2011.

readyletsgo

My rent is at €400pm. It was €425 before I moved in 10 months ago, got landlord down to €400. Now two new people moved in 2 months ago both paying €450 for two rooms half the size of mine.
Landlord told me before he got people in, that rent was lower when I moved it and he wont be changing my rent, but the market has gone up(at the time) a bit so these two rooms will fetch more, which they did, never seen so many people throwing deposits at him right away!

I dont really care as he has said he will never raise my rent(doubt he'll lower it tho) as thats what we agreed.

He also has said nothing about the housing tax, guess thats because he has raisen the rent in the two other rooms, nothing to worry about, but as he has said he has been renting houses/apt for the past 30 years, he repects people if they repect him, but its his business at the end of the day, he wants to make money out of it. For once I have a nice landlord in my eyes. Over at a drop of a hat to fix or help with anything.

ANYWAY, the new tennents are paying the housing tax without even know it, I dont care lol.

EDIt: Also, if the two new people had asked to lower the asking rent price he would have, but they didnt.

Pawwed Rig

Zamboni wrote: »

Ah right.
You said



What you should have said

Rental asking prices increased in urban areas in 2011.

Yes and in more desireable areas of Dublin they are going up proportionaly more than in parts of Dublin with bad access to the city centre. A glance through letting adds will show that clearly.

Are you trying to claim that asking prices bear no relation at all to the actual price? There will be a certain negotiation around asking price (say 10-15%) but it would be stretching credibility to think that numbers are just being plucked out of the air. For example if I had €1k per month to rent an apartment, I would view a place advertised at €1100 per month and offer my €1k. I wouldn't be viewing somewhere for €1600 pm and offering €1k. Therefore if asking prices have gone up this implies that rents have gone up. Otherwise there would be empty properties as the appropriate people are priced out of the appropriate accomodation.

3DataModem

Landlord costs change all the time... maintenance, interest rates, insurance, tax, etc.

A deal is a deal, a lease is a lease. I am perfectly entitled to ask my tenants for 8.30 a month more AT LEASE RENEWAL and my tenants are more than entitled to tell me to take a hike. So... I won't.

Zamboni

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes and in more desireable areas of Dublin they are going up proportionaly more than in parts of Dublin with bad access to the city centre. A glance through letting adds will show that clearly.

Are you trying to claim that asking prices bear no relation at all to the actual price? There will be a certain negotiation around asking price (say 10-15%) but it would be stretching credibility to think that numbers are just being plucked out of the air. For example if I had €1k per month to rent an apartment, I would view a place advertised at €1100 per month and offer my €1k. I wouldn't be viewing somewhere for €1600 pm and offering €1k. Therefore if asking prices have gone up this implies that rents have gone up. Otherwise there would be empty properties as the appropriate people are priced out of the appropriate accomodation.

No. I do not regard DAFT as an independent factual source.
DAFT is website with (paying and biased) user generated asking prices.
It is not a factual representation of reality.
And to be honest it is as reliable/unreliable as any anecdotal evidence given here.

daltonmd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes and in more desireable areas of Dublin they are going up proportionaly more than in parts of Dublin with bad access to the city centre. A glance through letting adds will show that clearly.

It's fair to say that of course if property is in the right location, in good condition, close to amenties and good travel lines - then these will always rent well and landlords can try to ask for more. Whether they succeed is another thing.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Are you trying to claim that asking prices bear no relation at all to the actual price? There will be a certain negotiation around asking price (say 10-15%) but it would be stretching credibility to think that numbers are just being plucked out of the air.

No - the landlord advertises the asking price. But if there are 10 properties asking 1000 and someone comes along asking 1100 - that doesn't mean that this is a rental increase.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

For example if I had €1k per month to rent an apartment, I would view a place advertised at €1100 per month and offer my €1k. I wouldn't be viewing somewhere for €1600 pm and offering €1k. Therefore if asking prices have gone up this implies that rents have gone up. Otherwise there would be empty properties as the appropriate people are priced out of the appropriate accomodation.

Using your logic here - if rents are rising then this means that less people would be able to afford to rent in that area - so this would have to mean rental increase elsewhere as demand grows.


The huge flaw with DAFT and with these comparisons is -the findings are based on property that is on the market, i.e not rented out - you (nor anyone else) can say for sure that rents are rising.

Daith

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The price you pay for rent and the household charge are two completely separate payments. It falls on the landlord to pay the household charge (which is strange). The landlord will set your rent based on the market rate at the time. At the moment rents in good areas of Dublin are rising. Therefore the landlord will adjust the rent accordingly. On the other hand rents are still falling in areas predominantly consisting of social welfare tenants as these rates have been cut.

To suggest rents have gone up 'because' of the household charge would be to ignore market economics.

Why is it strange that the Landlord pays the household charge? Its his property?

Pawwed Rig

Daith wrote: »

Why is it strange that the Landlord pays the household charge? Its his property?

Because in other jurisdictions the tenant pays it. ie UK. Also the landlord already has to pay the NPPR so it is hardly fair to lob another charge onto them.

daltonmd wrote: »

No - the landlord advertises the asking price. But if there are 10 properties asking 1000 and someone comes along asking 1100 - that doesn't mean that this is a rental increase.

Using your logic here - if rents are rising then this means that less people would be able to afford to rent in that area - so this would have to mean rental increase elsewhere as demand grows.

Assuming consistency in that last year the 10 properties were advertised at 950 and one landlord comes along asking for 1050.
It would mean that landlords in an area who priced themselves too high would price themselves out of the market and would need to reduce their advertised asking price to get good tenants.

Zamboni wrote: »

No. I do not regard DAFT as an independent factual source.
DAFT is website with (paying and biased) user generated asking prices.
It is not a factual representation of reality.
And to be honest it is as reliable/unreliable as any anecdotal evidence given here.

I made a point. You asked me for a source which I provided. You rejected that source as biased. So now please provide an alternative source that contradicts this one.


When I was renting which was November 2010 (D2, D4) there were queues outide many of the properties. This says that people were willing to spend ballpark the advertised price to get that property. It would also tell me (if i ownded the property) that maybe I advertised it too low.

daltonmd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because in other jurisdictions the tenant pays it. ie UK. Also the landlord already has to pay the NPPR so it is hardly fair to lob another charge onto them.

No it's not, but here's my theory on the reasoning - I truly believe that once they get their database up and running then the "household charge" will remain, where everyone pays and the property tax for homeowners will be introduced.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Assuming consistency in that last year the 10 properties were advertised at 950 and one landlord comes along asking for 1050.
It would mean that landlords in an area who priced themselves too high would price themselves out of the market and would need to reduce their advertised asking price to get good tenants.

But isn't this your basis for your argument - you see this higher rental asking price as a clear indication that rents have risen.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I made a point. You asked me for a source which I provided. You rejected that source as biased. So now please provide an alternative source that contradicts this one.

Well, without a proper database - there isn't a reputable source either way - making do with the sources that are there isn't enough.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

When I was renting which was November 2010 (D2, D4) there were queues outide many of the properties. This says that people were willing to spend ballpark the advertised price to get that property. It would also tell me (if i ownded the property) that maybe I advertised it too low.

Where I rent there is a very low supply of a specific type of family property - these types of properties were asking 300 euro more a couple of years ago - they are static now at the price they are renting well for. Any increase and people don't even view as a couple came on lime in the last few weeks asking more - and then had to reduce.

The market will take what it will take and no more.

Zamboni

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I made a point. You asked me for a source which I provided. You rejected that source as biased. So now please provide an alternative source that contradicts this one.

That is not how it works.
You made the claim. You back it up.

Pawwed Rig

Zamboni wrote: »

That is not how it works.
You made the claim. You back it up.

Ok. Not arguing with you over this. I made a claim, gave a source that is also backed up by anecdotal evidence which you are rejecting.

Lets just say you're right then

daltonmd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ok. Not arguing with you over this. I made a claim, gave a source that is also backed up by anecdotal evidence which you are rejecting.

Lets just say you're right then

In fairness I can see how you think that might be the case - but here's the thing, if you go into recent let agreeds for a 2 bed apartment in Foxrock you will see that the first let agreed is "asking" 1500pm.
When you look at available 2 bed apartments in Foxrock the first one is "asking" 1250pm. Using your logic wouldn't this clearly indicate that prices in Foxrock are falling?

Zamboni

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ok. Not arguing with you over this. I made a claim, gave a source that is also backed up by anecdotal evidence which you are rejecting.

Lets just say you're right then

Right about what? I didn't make any claim.
You made a claim backed up by an unreliable source and hearsay.
You should retract it.

I apologise for what probably appears as picking on you. I am just sick of the misrepresentation and general false statements made as a result of misinterpretation of reports by bodies with a conflict of interest.
Nothing personal

Crash Override

I'm a little confused.

What I'm getting so far is that the Household charge cannot be applied to the rent as the rent is an agreed price in the lease and can't be changed for the duration of the lease, but, the landlord can still make you pay the charge in a different way as per which ever term in the contract/lease says so?

Is that correct?

daltonmd

Crash Override wrote: »

I'm a little confused.

What I'm getting so far is that the Household charge cannot be applied to the rent as the rent is an agreed price in the lease and can't be changed for the duration of the lease, but, the landlord can still make you pay the charge in a different way as per which ever term in the contract/lease says so?

Is that correct?

It cannot be applied to the rent as then it will be taxed. There is a little confusion here however, in the clarification I posted it reads like this, : if it's in the lease that you are liable for these charges then you must pay a seperate amount. (As I said it's my reading) "- now the confusion and legal issue is - that it's called a "Household charge" but it's for local services, yet it's a pre property tax and the government have clearly stated that the homeowner is liable, not the tenant.

Best thing to do is read your lease and if neccasary look for clarification.

ShadowHearth

Well this clearly depends fro landlord.

If he is a prick he can put charge on tenant. Though this excuse for increase in rent is as bad as asking bigger rent, because landlord wants and extra 3 pints per week in his favourite pub.

So far I got my rent down from 650 to 580 last month and there was not even mentioning about any property charge.

Pawwed Rig

daltonmd wrote: »

No it's not.

Why?

daltonmd wrote: »

But isn't this your basis for your argument - you see this higher rental asking price as a clear indication that rents have risen.

No my basis of argument is that rents are going up in desireable areas of Dublin which I have seen in the last couple of years. When asked for a source I provided Daft. I never mentioned asking prices

Zamboni wrote: »

Right about what? I didn't make any claim.
You made a claim backed up by an unreliable source and hearsay.
You should retract it.

So then are you disagreeing with me that rents in in desireable areas of Dublin? What is your argument exactly as as soon as I said it you jumped on me looking for a source, I assume you have a counter argument rather than just attacking Daft as a source?

To get back onto the point it would be a daft landlord (ahem:P) that would say to a tenant that he is adding the household charge to the rent. If the market will take a rent increase then it will be applied by a landlord. Whether that covers the household charge or not is irrelevant.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well this clearly depends fro landlord.

If he is a prick he can put charge on tenant. Though this excuse for increase in rent is as bad as asking bigger rent, because landlord wants and extra 3 pints per week in his favourite pub.

That is buying into the myth that there is a conspiracy amongst landlords to bleed tenants dry (which in fairness even the regulation agency has bought into) whereas many landlords are currently making large losses on their properties per annum. These are not big instiutional investers but people who bought one property as a pension fund (which btw will now have to be picked up by the state ie you and me).

Daith

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because in other jurisdictions the tenant pays it. ie UK. Also the landlord already has to pay the NPPR so it is hardly fair to lob another charge onto them.

Regardless it's a tax on properties owned. Don't see any relevance comparing it to other countries.

daltonmd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why?

Why is it unfair to landlords? Well it's being touted as a charge payable to local authorities to provide services to the area - we (tenants) use these services.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

No my basis of argument is that rents are going up in desireable areas of Dublin which I have seen in the last couple of years. When asked for a source I provided Daft. I never mentioned asking prices

Yes, but you used DAFT as your source - and DAFT use "asking" prices only. There's no way to know for sure until we see a database which clearly shows actual rents paid.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To get back onto the point it would be a daft landlord (ahem:P) that would say to a tenant that he is adding the household charge to the rent. If the market will take a rent increase then it will be applied by a landlord. Whether that covers the household charge or not is irrelevant.

But it can't be used as a rental increase - I have said previously that if the landlord puts the charge onto the rent then he pays tax on it. It has to be an extra service charge agreed with the tenant.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If the market will take a rent increase then it will be applied by a landlord. Whether that covers the household charge or not is irrelevant.

Absolutely correct.

Old Tom

Zamboni wrote: »

No. I do not regard DAFT as an independent factual source.
DAFT is website with (paying and biased) user generated asking prices.
It is not a factual representation of reality.

And so I was saying here a couple of years ago, but once it comes to proving that the prices are going down, all the scaremongers, "wait 18 months" and "multiply income by X to know the real price" types do not hesitate to use it.

Comfortable.

Duggys Housemate

if the household charge becomes a tenant tax then the tenants will have to declare where they reside, and pay the charge depending on where they move to. Like in the UK. In france there is also a property tax. In the former case it has nothing to do with the landlord, the councils know where you are and charge the renters.

ProudDUB

Crash Override wrote: »

I'm a little confused.

What I'm getting so far is that the Household charge cannot be applied to the rent as the rent is an agreed price in the lease and can't be changed for the duration of the lease, but, the landlord can still make you pay the charge in a different way as per which ever term in the contract/lease says so?

Is that correct?

No. The only amount that you have to pay to the landlord is the amount set out in the lease. End of story. If the lease has a specific clause that says that the tenant is on on the hook for additional owner expenses such as the NPPR tax or the household charge then yes, you are liable for them. Get out your lease contract and read it cover to cover. If there is no such clause (and I very much doubt that there is in it) you are good to go.

The household charge is just another expense that property owners have to pay, along with the NPPR tax, their mortgage, costs of maintaining the property, paying an estate agent to manage the tenancy etc etc. It is up to him to decide ahead of time how much rent he needs to ask for to cover these expenses and make a profit. Once he and the tenant agree to that amount and sign a lease that stipulates it, that is it. That is all the tenant has to pay. The landlord can not come in later on and demand additional monies to cover any additional expenses that he has.

Once the term of the lease is up & the current tenant leaves, he can try to increase the rent by as much as he wants to try to cover his additional expenses. Market forces and what properties similar to his own are renting for, will determine whether or not he can find tenants who will agree to the higher rent. Dividing the 100 euro household charge over the term of a 12 month lease is only 8 quid more a month. It's not much, but whether it is 8 quid or 800 quid, he has to include it in the original rental amount agreed to. He can't just demand it after the fact.

daltonmd

ProudDUB wrote: »

No. The only amount that you have to pay to the landlord is the amount set out in the lease. End of story. If the lease has a specific clause that says that the tenant is on on the hook for additional owner expenses such as the NPPR tax or the household charge then yes, you are liable for them. Get out your lease contract and read it cover to cover. If there is no such clause (and I very much doubt that there is in it) you are good to go. .

I think it should be clarified here that a standard lease says:

The Tenant agrees with the Landlord as follows:-
“To pay and discharge Rates in respect of the Premises and to pay and discharge all applicable charges in respect of any Services used or consumed on the Premises without prejudice to the foregoing to pay and discharge charges for any additional service whether specified in the definition of Services or not which is or which may be rendered by a local authority in respect of the premises and to indemnify the Landlord against any charges which are or which may be payable by him in respect of the premises during the period of the Lease".

It doesn't ahve to specify the exact name of the charge but the household charge is different from the NPPR. The NPPR is a definate tax on a property that is not the owners PPR. The Household charge is payable to a local authority for "services" such as Fire Brigade, Libraries and so on.

ProudDUB wrote: »

The household charge is just another expense that property owners have to pay, along with the NPPR tax, their mortgage, costs of maintaining the property, paying an estate agent to manage the tenancy etc etc. It is up to him to decide ahead of time how much rent he needs to ask for to cover these expenses and make a profit. Once he and the tenant agree to that amount and sign a lease that stipulates it, that is it. That is all the tenant has to pay. The landlord can not come in later on and demand additional monies to cover any additional expenses that he has..

My reading is that he can:

"which are or which may be payable by him in respect of the premises during the period of the Lease"

ProudDUB wrote: »

Once the term of the lease is up & the current tenant leaves, he can try to increase the rent by as much as he wants to try to cover his additional expenses. Market forces and what properties similar to his own are renting for, will determine whether or not he can find tenants who will agree to the higher rent. Dividing the 100 euro household charge over the term of a 12 month lease is only 8 quid more a month. It's not much, but whether it is 8 quid or 800 quid, he has to include it in the original rental amount agreed to. He can't just demand it after the fact..

No, it is not added onto the rent because as I have stated earlier, the landlord would have to pay tax on this. It's not "extra" rent - it's an extra charge payable to a local authority.

I think we should always be careful when "stating" things as "fact" when it comes to leases. As I have posted, there are "standard" leases that could be construed as making the tenant liable for this extra charge. It is up to each tenant to check their lease carefully and seek clarification from Threshold for example.

Pawwed Rig

daltonmd wrote: »

Why is it unfair to landlords? Well it's being touted as a charge payable to local authorities to provide services to the area - we (tenants) use these services.

You answered your own question. The landlord is not there to provide services for the tenant. He is there to have a rental agreement with the tenant. Tenants pay for their services such as bins, gas, electric etc. Why should other services be different. The landlord will also probably be paying the charge for hios own house for his services so it is effect a double tax on the landlord.

daltonmd wrote: »

Yes, but you used DAFT as your source - and DAFT use "asking" prices only. There's no way to know for sure until we see a database which clearly shows actual rents paid.

What source do you suggest? I would guess that you will dismiss every source. Unfortunately I don't have the resources to do a house to house survey for your benefit. AFAIK Daft are the only ones to produce this info which pretty much makes it the information of record unless you have an alternative?

daltonmd wrote: »

But it can't be used as a rental increase - I have said previously that if the landlord puts the charge onto the rent then he pays tax on it. It has to be an extra service charge agreed with the tenant.

Is the household charge deductible as a letting expense? I know the NPPR is not.

Zamboni

Old Tom wrote: »

And so I was saying here a couple of years ago, but once it comes to proving that the prices are going down, all the scaremongers, "wait 18 months" and "multiply income by X to know the real price" types do not hesitate to use it.

Comfortable.

I take your point.
I would not like to see it used a source for indicating either direction.
Whilst there may be a lot of accurate data within the site stats there is simply too much room for error, manipulation and no facility to enter agreed rent (and even if that was a facility it could still be manipulated).

Whatever about a new property database detailing sales and prices, I don't believe there is any scope for dealing with the rental market.
And as such, the uneducated (think joe public), the incompentent (think lazy journo), and the malevolent (think EA and/or any VI) will use DAFT stats in the absence of, well, anything better.

daltonmd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You answered your own question. The landlord is not there to provide services for the tenant. He is there to have a rental agreement with the tenant. Tenants pay for their services such as bins, gas, electric etc. Why should other services be different. The landlord will also probably be paying the charge for hios own house for his services so it is effect a double tax on the landlord.

I'm a little confused : ). I didn't ask a question, I agreed with you when you said the charge was unfair to landlords, you asked me why and I gave you my reasons. You're actually saying exactly what I said when I said that the charge is being touted for services in the area - services which tenants use.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What source do you suggest? I would guess that you will dismiss every source. Unfortunately I don't have the resources to do a house to house survey for your benefit. AFAIK Daft are the only ones to produce this info which pretty much makes it the information of record unless you have an alternative?

I didn't suggest any source - I said it is hard to tell whether rents are falling or rising because of the lack of a credible database.

You are using a source that relies only on asking prices - I've agreed with you insofar as when we talk about supply, demand, good properties in good locations etc, that landlords could ask for higher prices, but it's whether the tenants can pay it that is the real question.
Tenants do not have an infinite amount of money to pay housing costs - the upside of renting is that you can move to reduce your rent. If rents are rising to a level where it pushes people out of these areas, then there would be rises showing there as well.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Is the household charge deductible as a letting expense? I know the NPPR is not.

Whether it is or not is not really the point here - if the landlord adds it to the rent then it is rental income which is taxed. If a landlord has a standard lease which has the clause above in it then the tenant may find themselves with a landlord who is demanding payment. The issue here is that the government hae expressly stated that homeowners, not tenants are liable.
I would say we will see a PRTB hearing in due course.

daltonmd

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

if the household charge becomes a tenant tax then the tenants will have to declare where they reside, and pay the charge depending on where they move to. Like in the UK. In france there is also a property tax. In the former case it has nothing to do with the landlord, the councils know where you are and charge the renters.

I believe that is the ultimate aim of the government and why they are so insistent on getting this through asap - create the database for owners, then apply the household charge to tenants which will capture everybody.

Pawwed Rig

daltonmd wrote: »

I'm a little confused : ). I didn't ask a question, I agreed with you when you said the charge was unfair to landlords, you asked me why and I gave you my reasons. You're actually saying exactly what I said when I said that the charge is being touted for services in the area - services which tenants use.

Ah I see what happened there
I said - Also the landlord already has to pay the NPPR so it is hardly fair to lob another charge onto them.
You said -No it's not, but here's my theory on the reasoning
Presuming you meant No it's not fair rather than what I understood as you contradicting the fairness of it.

daltonmd wrote: »

Whether it is or not is not really the point here - if the landlord adds it to the rent then it is rental income which is taxed. If a landlord has a standard lease which has the clause above in it then the tenant may find themselves with a landlord who is demanding payment. The issue here is that the government hae expressly stated that homeowners, not tenants are liable.
I would say we will see a PRTB hearing in due course.

Was asked out of interest more than making a point. As I said it would be a dumb landlord that explicity states to a tenant that they should pay the charge

daltonmd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ah I see what happened there
I said - Also the landlord already has to pay the NPPR so it is hardly fair to lob another charge onto them.
You said -No it's not, but here's my theory on the reasoning
Presuming you meant No it's not fair rather than what I understood as you contradicting the fairness of it.

Lol - I said - no it's not in response to you saying "so it is hardly fair to lob another charge onto them"!!

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Was asked out of interest more than making a point. As I said it would be a dumb landlord that explicity states to a tenant that they should pay the charge

I know but I was trying to clarify the whole issue of people saying that landlords will put the charge onto the rent.

Some landlords may feel entitled to if it's in their lease. It really is another cock up by this government - they should have said it was a pre property taxc which will eventually be used for local services, or it's a household charge payable by everyone.

To many exemptions though - it is hitting property owners unfairly.