Do you think that tenants are ready for Property Tax-inspired rent increases?

Pkiernan

As per the title?

Given that rents can be reviewed once per year, and that most landlords will be upping the rent in line with the new Public Service Pension ChargeP Property Tax, are renters ready?

Baralis1

Absolutely not! Property tax is as it's named, a tax on the property and should be paid by the property owner. Why should it be passed on? If my landlord tried passing it on, I'd be out the door. Plenty more places to rent.

kkelliher

Baralis1 wrote: »

Absolutely not! Property tax is as it's named, a tax on the property and should be paid by the property owner. Why should it be passed on? If my landlord tried passing it on, I'd be out the door. Plenty more places to rent.

I think its a bit of dreamland to think lanlords generally will not pass it on. The market will decide and if the majority of lanlords increase then tenants will not have a choice.

As a property tax based on funding local authoritites I personally believe it should be paid by the occupier of the property but we will have to wait and see

Jumpaddict

Pkiernan wrote: »

As per the title?

Given that rents can be reviewed once per year, and that most landlords will be upping the rent in line with the new Public Service Pension ChargeP Property Tax, are renters ready?

Property Tax...the tax that goes to your local council? or are you insinuating something else?

irishguy

Baralis1 wrote: »

Absolutely not! Property tax is as it's named, a tax on the property and should be paid by the property owner. Why should it be passed on? If my landlord tried passing it on, I'd be out the door. Plenty more places to rent.

I think your living in dreamland any extra costs a landlord will have will be passed on to tenants, they are in it to make money not to subsidise housing for people.

Also no one said that its up to the landlord to pay it, the new tax could be like in the UK where the person living there pays it.

murphaph

In practice it's a cost of being in the business, so it'll be passed on eventually.

Victor

Given that there is an overhang of vacant properties, it will be difficult for landlords to pass on the full amount.

StillWaters

Victor wrote: »

Given that there is an overhang of vacant properties, it will be difficult for landlords to pass on the full amount.

If these vacant houses are not in the rental sector it makes no odds.
Nothing surer that LL will pass it on. Likely to be another exodus of LL from RA provision also

theteal

I would have assumed that it would be viewed like council tax over here (i could show you a bill ) - it is supposed to go on local services isn't it? I would be expecting it to be passed on. Also as already mentioned, if all the LLs pass it on, where is the occupant to move to to avoid it?

OMD

Victor wrote: »

Given that there is an overhang of vacant properties, it will be difficult for landlords to pass on the full amount.

Not really. According to the Daft report rent in Dublin has increased about 3% in last year. That is about €400 a year which would be about the same as many estimates for a property tax. The number of vacant properties hasn't effected this in the last year

mikemac1

Daft is asking price though

Doesn't every haggle on rent when they go to view it?

I have done anyway on any place I've ever rented

rubberdiddies

As an accidental landlord I am hoping that the property tax will be implemented properly so that the occupier of the property will pay for it as in other countries. After all if it is for local authorities/services as we are ring told then the user if those services should be paying.

If its not done this way I will be passing on the increase. I can't afford not to.

As we all know though this isn't a local authority tax but a 'pay back the troika tax', as the money being paid to coUncils from this tax is simply being taken from councils by central government and used to service the troika loan.

mikemac1

rubberdiddies wrote: »

After all if it is for local authorities/services

And yet people in social housing don't have to pay..
Do they not use any services?

But that's more politics forum then here I think

rubberdiddies

mikemac1 wrote: »

And yet people in social housing don't have to pay..
Do they not use any services?

But that's more politics forum then here I think

Do we know yet though who has to or doesn't have to or is that just this years tax?

afatbollix

In Northern Ireland and UK the tenant pays the council tax. Why not the same in the Republic?

The Idyl Race

afatbollix wrote: »

In Northern Ireland and UK the tenant pays the council tax. Why not the same in the Republic?

Because Official Ireland loves fúcking those who have marginally more than nothing in the ass. Gotta keep those public servants in jobs :rolleyes:

OMD

mikemac1 wrote: »

Daft is asking price though

Doesn't every haggle on rent when they go to view it?

I have done anyway on any place I've ever rented

But it was asking price last year too and people haggled last year. It compares like with like and is a fair reflection of the increase in rents. It may not accurately reflect the actual rent but should show any changes

Victor

Pkiernan wrote: »

Public Service Pension Charge

rubberdiddies wrote: »

As we all know though this isn't a local authority tax but a 'pay back the troika tax', as the money being paid to coUncils from this tax is simply being taken from councils by central government and used to service the troika loan.

On-topic please. There are enough threads elsewhere to discuss that.

Moderator

irishguy

StillWaters wrote: »

If these vacant houses are not in the rental sector it makes no odds.
Nothing surer that LL will pass it on. Likely to be another exodus of LL from RA provision also

Lots of parts of Dublin it's very hard to even get rental property. I know a couple of people lookin with fairly large budgets and they are finding it hard. The tables have turned from a couple of year ago when you could knock a few quid off the price, at least in some parts of Ireland.

CommanderC

rubberdiddies wrote: »

As an accidental landlord I am hoping that the property tax will be implemented properly so that the occupier of the property will pay for it as in other countries. After all if it is for local authorities/services as we are ring told then the user if those services should be paying.

If its not done this way I will be passing on the increase. I can't afford not to.

As we all know though this isn't a local authority tax but a 'pay back the troika tax', as the money being paid to councils from this tax is simply being taken from councils by central government and used to service the troika loan.

Are you trying to say that landlords are not going to benefit from a tax paid to the local authority for the provision of services in the area. The local authority area is what makes your property rentable. No one is going to rent your property, no matter how lovely it is, if the area is a **** hole/run down and neglected by the LA. This money is going to stop that from happening.

A loan that came about through bailing out banks, who loaned to people like youself, so they could buy up properties, at prices that a monkey could see were ridiculous, which continued to fuel the housing bubble......so on and so forth...

peter_dublin

CommanderC wrote: »

Are you trying to say that landlords are not going to benefit from a tax paid to the local authority for the provision of services in the area. The local authority area is what makes your property rentable. No one is going to rent your property, no matter how lovely it is, if the area is a **** hole/run down and neglected by the LA. This money is going to stop that from happening.

A loan that came about through bailing out banks, who loaned to people like youself, so they could buy up properties, at prices that a monkey could see were ridiculous, which continued to fuel the housing bubble......so on and so forth...

What are you on about, the OP stated he is an "accidental Landlord" so we can assume like most of us he bought a home in the boom and not an investment property or seven as you imply.

In addition the tax is supposed to be to make up the funding shortfall that local authorities now have due to central goverment reducing their payment so no this will make no differance in terms of "The local authority area is what makes your property rentable". i.e. it is the area that make the property rental not the LA. They will still provide the same services as before just now the money the budget they lost from central goverment is supposed to come from the tax. Maybe we can get back on track if your finished ranting.

As others have said, LA aside. There is more demand for then properties available in certain areas of Dublin and indeed as I found even in "select" towns in "North" Kildare with rents rising in line with demand as is pure and simple "Supply and Demand". Any business of which renting a property "is" at the end of the day have to pass on costs, the tax is a cost which will effect "EVERY" business i.e. property, when every business faces a new cost especially those in an area when demand outstrips supply then they can and most likely will pass that cost to the consumer.

People here forget that desirable areas have become no less desirable than they were before and that fact 500 apartments were built in some town in the middle of nowhere in Mayo has no effect on this.

Clarify North Kildare Statement. Boom Time Rent: 1000pm, fell to 700pm average post bust. Now getting 800pm (within scope in increase as is now below the market rate for the immediate area) with min ten people per viewing and had choice of tenants and deposits offered at viewing. RA/RS already priced out of the immediate area.

MistyCheese

I'm trying to imagine a conversation with my landlord that begins with him saying "Misty, I'm putting up the rent..." Every single version ends up with him having an empty property for a lwhile.

rubberdiddies

MistyCheese wrote: »

I'm trying to imagine a conversation with my landlord that begins with him saying "Misty, I'm putting up the rent..." Every single version ends up with him having an empty property for a lwhile.

if thats the case then so be it.
i'm sure in your ideal scenario you would like that to be the case.

we had a tenant leave in august, put the rent up by 5% to reflect market value and had 8 groups of people wanting to move in. the property was vacant for 24 hours between changeovers.

I'm not out to screw people. I dont even want to be a landlord, however I will have to charge what I have to charge. If I am landed with a €600 per year property tax, then the rent will go up €50 per month accordingly at the end of the term.

Like I said, hopefully the 'council tax' will be charged to the occupiers, as it should be

peter_dublin

MistyCheese wrote: »

I'm trying to imagine a conversation with my landlord that begins with him saying "Misty, I'm putting up the rent..." Every single version ends up with him having an empty property for a lwhile.

That's a massive assumption on your part as for "every" landlord it won't, for a lot say in South Dublin it will end up with "you" looking for a new property and the landlord with a new tenant in days at a new higher rent.

Why is it on "Boards" especially, two years ago people were nearly screaming Ask (read demand) a rent reduction, and now they refuse to believe in certain areas market conditions/demand are reflected in increasing prices. At the end of the day if you rent for 700 and the going rate is 800 then said Landlord would be an idiot as a business person not too seek the market rate for his property. It is a not a charity. Just as the same landlord would be stupid to seek 800 when the market rate was 700.

MistyCheese

rubberdiddies wrote: »

if thats the case then so be it.
i'm sure in your ideal scenario you would like that to be the case.

Not ideal at all. I'd prefer to have a roof over my head.

peter_dublin wrote: »

That's a massive assumption on your part as for "every" landlord it won't, for a lot say in South Dublin it will end up with "you" looking for a new property and the landlord with a new tenant in days at a new higher rent.

Erm, I didn't say anything about "every landlord". I specifically said "my landlord". For you see I was talking about my landlord, my flat and my situation, no-one else's. That's a massive misreading of my post on your part there.

BTW, someone moved out of a flat in my building and the landlord tried to rent their flat for the same price as the ex-tenant was paying. It lay vacant until he lowered the rent by €50 a month.

peter_dublin

MistyCheese wrote: »

Not ideal at all. I'd prefer to have a roof over my head.



Erm, I didn't say anything about "every landlord". I specifically said "my landlord". For you see I was talking about my landlord, my flat and my situation, no-one else's. That's a massive misreading of my post on your part there.

BTW, someone moved out of a flat in my building and the landlord tried to rent their flat for the same price as the ex-tenant was paying. It lay vacant until he lowered the rent by €50 a month.

This is a "general" discussion on the property tax and it's effect on tenants so it is appropriate to assume that your stance refects your opinon on the matter in the general sense of the thread. As for your building or landlord and such, again this is a general discussion not about your building or your personal circumstances, for all we know that apartment could have been over priced to begin with for the area, finish etc so my original points stand when we are discussing the topic based on the average property in an area. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

That is, in an area where demand outstrips supply, prices will rise and as a tenant you have two options, pay up or leave when the rent is increased in line with the "market rate".

MistyCheese

peter_dublin wrote: »

This is a "general" discussion on the property tax and it's effect on tenants

Whereas my post clearly is talking only about my flat. There is no ambiguity there. "I can imagine my landlord..." is not a post about "flats in general" regardless of what you are talking about and I am not barging in telling you what you mean so maybe less assuming of what I mean when I've clearly stated what I mean. Three times now.

OMD

MistyCheese wrote: »

I'm trying to imagine a conversation with my landlord that begins with him saying "Misty, I'm putting up the rent..." Every single version ends up with him having an empty property for a lwhile.

Does it end up with you paying less elsewhere? If so how will that happen?

MistyCheese

OMD wrote: »

Does it end up with you paying less elsewhere? If so how will that happen?

Yes. How will it happen? I will move out of here and into another property. There is no other option. I'm already paying too much to live here, I'm not paying more.

djimi

MistyCheese wrote: »

Yes. How will it happen? I will move out of here and into another property. There is no other option. I'm already paying too much to live here, I'm not paying more.

If youre already overpaying for your property then thats a seperate issue entirely. But if you think that your landlord, and every other landlord in your area/the country, is not going to pass on a significant charge like a property tax to their tenants then you are living in cloud cuckoo land Im afraid.

I dont know how much this charge is going to be, but if for arguements sake it is €600 a year then you can be damn sure that virtually every tenancy in Ireland will rise by €50 a month. Leave your current place if you dont want to pay it to your current landlord but you will end up paying it to someone.

OMD

MistyCheese wrote: »

Yes. How will it happen? I will move out of here and into another property. There is no other option. I'm already paying too much to live here, I'm not paying more.

But that only works if the property you move to does not have property tax included in rent. As you are already paying too much for your property (not sure why you haven't moved already) the landlord may not need to add property tax to the monthly rent.

MistyCheese

Sounds like I'll have to downgrade so and rent somewhere that will be the same price I'm paying now after the charge is added. I'm going to miss having my own toilet.

ABajaninCork

In the UK, if the tenant (or indeed homeowner) is on benefits, then the council tax is paid in part or in full depending on the benefits claimed. Is the same thing to happen here I wonder?

djimi

MistyCheese wrote: »

Sounds like I'll have to downgrade so and rent somewhere that will be the same price I'm paying now after the charge is added. I'm going to miss having my own toilet.

Youre problem is that you already feel you are paying too much for your current property. Take that issue up with your landlord rather than trying to fight a battle that you have no hope of winning.

MistyCheese

djimi wrote: »

Youre problem is that you already feel you are paying too much for your current property. Take that issue up with your landlord rather than trying to fight a battle that you have no hope of winning.

Who's fighting now? I don't recall fighting any battles. I can't be bloody bothered getting on my horse and charging at windmills.

You'd think it was all of you guys potentially moving the big deal you're making of it. I had no idea so many Boardsies cared about my address.

P. Breathnach

Tenants are not interested in their landlords' costs, nor do most of them care whether a letting yields a profit. They pay the minimum rent they need to pay to get the sort of accommodation they want.

That minimum is determined by supply and demand. Where there is excess supply, rents tend to be low; where supply is scarce, rents are higher. In the medium-to-long term, if landlords can not make money from renting, they will exit the rental market - provided there is a possibility of selling the property at a satisfactory price.

There are some places where landlords are trapped. If they rent a place out, they are losing money, but increasing the rent will cause the tenants to leave; but if they leave the property vacant, they lose even more; and they cannot sell at a price high enough to bail them out of their predicament.

There are other places where it may be possible to increase rents.

The market is too varied for generalisations to have much relevance to particular cases.

gurramok

If landlords pass this tax onto the tenants, the tenants should withhold last months rent as a punishment. Treating the tenant as a cashcow for a LL's financial problems is not on.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

If landlords pass this tax onto the tenants, the tenants should withhold last months rent as a punishment. Treating the tenant as a cashcow for a LL's financial problems is not on.

That is just a ridiculous post. The equivalent is maintaining that when rents drop landlords should keep the deposit to punish the tenant.

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

That is just a ridiculous post. The equivalent is maintaining that when rents drop landlords should keep the deposit to punish the tenant.

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

peter_dublin

gurramok wrote: »

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

What is your point, owning a property is a business. Apply your logic to all business and come back to us, Audi should drop their prices because people can't afford one, not while demand is high, the same applies to the rental market, can't afford the rent in an area, rent elsewhere, can't afford a Audi, Get a Ford or an "older" Audi.

It's simple business not charity, the landlord owes you nothing. We're back to this attitude that is prevelant here (Boards.ie) that somehow the landlord owes people some dues. It's business, simple as. Prices are decided by the market in the area as a whole and as such they will rise and fall with demand and other social factors such as an area becomming more desirable. Should it reach a point where you can't afford it, then tough, the landlord owes you nothing as a tenant and you should move to a more affordable property so that landlord can pratice what is "standard" business pactice in any other area but raises such emotive responces on Boards.

Also your statement that all tenants are not rolling in money is pointless as neither are a lot of landloards and most people are "not" tenants because they are "poor" as you seem to imply. I never choose to rent because I was poor, I rented in selected areas because I had a requirement or desire to live in the area. I bought because I desired to live long term in the area, when work forced my move I rented the property and now rent another myself.

Villa05

kkelliher wrote: »

I think its a bit of dreamland to think lanlords generally will not pass it on. The market will decide and if the majority of lanlords increase then tenants will not have a choice.

As a property tax based on funding local authoritites I personally believe it should be paid by the occupier of the property but we will have to wait and see

The market is the number of properties, not the number of owners of properties. Nama is keeping a significant amount of properties off the market, this will change as the countries financial position worsens.

Property Tax is a tax on ownership, there is a separate charge scheduled to come in 2016 for services which the occupiers will pay, be they owners or renters. Irish people tend to loose there brains when it comes to property buying decisions. The property tax is tool to help people keep their head when buying.

rubberdiddies

gurramok wrote: »

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

how do you know tenants aren't rolling in money? same as how do you know landlords are? You're generalising.

Landlords are also human beings. I used to be a tenant too.

I'm being very realistic. I cant afford to pay a property tax on my home and also on the property that I rent out, along with the service charge that we currently pay on that property.

To counter that I will be passing on the tax in the form of a rent increase. Simple. If my current tenants wont pay it, then so be it.

At the end of the day there are approx 1.4million private households in Ireland. At a conservative guesstimate of €300 average property tax, thats €420million being taken out of someones pockets (be it tenant or Landlord), which in turn will affect the economy as a whole very negatively. my point here is that if I end up paying the €600, then that's €600+ less that I will have to spend in the economy next year.

Anyways, I'm rambling now, but regardless of the outcome of the discussion here, i will be passing on the tax.

djimi

gurramok wrote: »

If landlords pass this tax onto the tenants, the tenants should withhold last months rent as a punishment. Treating the tenant as a cashcow for a LL's financial problems is not on.

Aside from the fact that withholding the last months rent is going to serve to do nothing more than ensure that you wont get your deposit back, why on earth should a landlord be out of pocket so that you can rent for cheaper? Stop and think about it for a second. And I say that as a tenant, not a landlord.

OMD

Villa05 wrote: »

Property Tax is a tax on ownership, there is a separate charge scheduled to come in 2016 for services which the occupiers will pay, be they owners or renters. Irish people tend to loose there brains when it comes to property buying decisions. The property tax is tool to help people keep their head when buying.

If the aim of the tax is to help people keep their head when buying, then surely stamp duty should have been better. Property tax will average eventually at about €1500-2000 I would have thought. Why do you believe this is a better than being charged an upfront fee of up to 9% of the properties value?

gurramok

peter_dublin wrote: »

It's simple business not charity, the landlord owes you nothing....

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal and an own goal for the LL. A LL depends on a tenant to pay the rent to help their business. The tenant has a few avenues available to counteract this, one is withdrawing the last months rent in lieu of deposit before moving out.(yes that's illegal too)

This means the LL will have to go to the PRTB(assuming regged) to chase the last months rent and to chase any damage costs, that can take a very long time, is it worth it for the LL?
While this is going on, does a LL want a property vacant for a month while getting a new tenant? That's the loss of 2 months rent already. Then they have the agency costs of procuring a new tenant, add in the cost of refurbishing their property to attract that new tenant. Then add that the LL might have lost a good tenant and their new tenant could be a nightmare, its a big risk. That's the real world situation.

All these costs add up because the LL was not abiding by the law in the first place treating the tenant like a cashcow, the LL's financial situation is not the tenants problem, renting is a business. Going down the path of increasing rent due to the property tax is an own goal for the LL.

djimi

gurramok wrote: »

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal and an own goal for the LL. A LL depends on a tenant to pay the rent to help their business. The tenant has a few avenues available to counteract this, one is withdrawing the last months rent in lieu of deposit before moving out.(yes that's illegal too)

This means the LL will have to go to the PRTB(assuming regged) to chase the last months rent and to chase any damage costs, that can take a very long time, is it worth it for the LL?
While this is going on, does a LL want a property vacant for a month while getting a new tenant? That's the loss of 2 months rent already. Then they have the agency costs of procuring a new tenant, add in the cost of refurbishing their property to attract that new tenant. Then add that the LL might have lost a good tenant and their new tenant could be a nightmare, its a big risk. That's the real world situation.

All these costs add up because the LL was not abiding by the law in the first place treating the tenant like a cashcow, the LL's financial situation is not the tenants problem, renting is a business. Going down the path of increasing rent due to the property tax is an own goal for the LL.

Its a business agreement. Look at it that way and it will become a lot clearer to you. Property costs landlord x amount per month, they are allowed to set the rent at that amount provided it is not higher than the market value. No business operates on a loss; I have no idea why you would think that this would be any different.

Also its not illegal for the landlord to pass any cost onto the tenant in the form of a rent increase, provided the rent is within the market rent. Given that the majority of landlords are going to pass this cost on, expect market rental prices to rise accordingly.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal a

No it's not. You are misinterpreting the rules. Increasing the rent to reflect increased costs(such as tax) is totally legal. It is even expected and the government have made this clear frequently.

rubberdiddies

gurramok wrote: »

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal and an own goal for the LL. A LL depends on a tenant to pay the rent to help their business. The tenant has a few avenues available to counteract this, one is withdrawing the last months rent in lieu of deposit before moving out.(yes that's illegal too)

This means the LL will have to go to the PRTB(assuming regged) to chase the last months rent and to chase any damage costs, that can take a very long time, is it worth it for the LL?
While this is going on, does a LL want a property vacant for a month while getting a new tenant? That's the loss of 2 months rent already. Then they have the agency costs of procuring a new tenant, add in the cost of refurbishing their property to attract that new tenant. Then add that the LL might have lost a good tenant and their new tenant could be a nightmare, its a big risk. That's the real world situation.

All these costs add up because the LL was not abiding by the law in the first place treating the tenant like a cashcow, the LL's financial situation is not the tenants problem, renting is a business. Going down the path of increasing rent due to the property tax is an own goal for the LL.

firstly, it's not a business for me.
secondly, show me the documentation that states that increasing rent by €50 per month is illegal?

the tenant can of course withhold the last months rent, but then will face court down the line. And yes I've seen this happen many times. Tenant will eventually find it hard to rent if subsequent potential LL's look for references.

you say that all those costs add up because the LL didnt abide by the law in the first place. what law is this you speak of?

What you are suggesting doing is illegal. Why do you advocate theft?

murphaph

MistyCheese wrote: »

I'm trying to imagine a conversation with my landlord that begins with him saying "Misty, I'm putting up the rent..." Every single version ends up with him having an empty property for a lwhile.

Even if all landlords do the same?

gurramok

djimi wrote: »

Its a business agreement. Look at it that way and it will become a lot clearer to you. Property costs landlord x amount per month, they are allowed to set the rent at that amount provided it is not higher than the market value. No business operates on a loss; I have no idea why you would think that this would be any different.

Also its not illegal for the landlord to pass any cost onto the tenant in the form of a rent increase, provided the rent is within the market rent. Given that the majority of landlords are going to pass this cost on, expect market rental prices to rise accordingly.

OMD wrote: »

No it's not. You are misinterpreting the rules. Increasing the rent to reflect increased costs(such as tax) is totally legal. It is even expected and the government have made this clear frequently.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

firstly, it's not a business for me.
secondly, show me the documentation that states that increasing rent by €50 per month is illegal?

the tenant can of course withhold the last months rent, but then will face court down the line. And yes I've seen this happen many times. Tenant will eventually find it hard to rent if subsequent potential LL's look for references.

you say that all those costs add up because the LL didnt abide by the law in the first place. what law is this you speak of?

What you are suggesting doing is illegal. Why do you advocate theft?

A few contradictions there, some of ye say its a business and some say its not, which is it? And where does it say that the govt expect the tenant to pay for the property tax?

So what ye are saying is that a landlord cartel which passes the property tax onto the tenant hence helping to increase the market rate in a particular area results it being legal somehow. Nice loophole. That will not work in the real world as the tenant knows its a tax on ownership not occupancy. Tenants ain't stupid.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

A few contradictions there, some of ye say its a business and some say its not, which is it? And where does it say that the govt expect the tenant to pay for the property tax?

So what ye are saying is that a landlord cartel which passes the property tax onto the tenant hence helping to increase the market rate in a particular area results it being legal somehow. Nice loophole. That will not work in the real world as the tenant knows its a tax on ownership not occupancy. Tenants ain't stupid.

There is no loophole. It is totally completely legal. Not a loophole, not some sneaky way around rules, it is totally within the rules. You simply don't understand it. That is not our problem. Do a little research, inform yourself then come back and take part in the discussion. By the way I am not a landlord and never have been. I have been a tenant