Rent Review

JaMarcusHustle

Quick question, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer but just wanted to run it by people who may be more knowledgable about this or have had a similar situation.

Imagine the following scenario:

Couple living in an apartment, lease expires in 2 weeks. Landlord texts them:

"Hi XX and YY, as you know your lease expires on 15th December. If you would like to renew for another year, the rent will remain at €XXXX per month. Please let me know your plans."

The couple inform the landlord that they intend to remain as Part IV tenants. The couple did not give the 3 months to 1 month notice required, but there does not appear to be any cost to the landlord (apartment was not re-listed, letting agent was not hired etc). Landlord insists on a new lease, the couple quote the relevant section of the RTA that allows them to stay under Part IV. Landlord, clearly frustrated at not getting a new lease, informs the couple that "in that case, rent will be increased by €100 per month".

Am I right in saying that as the landlord had initially informed the couple that rent would stay the same, and the couple accepted this (by saing that the non-increase was appreciated and that they would be staying in the apartment), then the landlord cannot further increase the rent for another 12 months? Or has the fact that the landlord has worded it as "If you would like to renew for another year, the rent will remain at €XXXX per month." allowed them to do this?

Thanks,

hfallada

I think the landlord just wanted to see where they staying or leaving. My parents are LLs and the amount of tenants that will either A) tell you last minute after you advertised it( as they were certain they were going back home to Eg Germany after 12 months) decide they want to stay for another year. Or dont bother telling you they are leaving after they saying a few months ago that they are staying for at least a year.

I dont why the couple stated that they wanted a lease. They were protected by law from eviction. I think the LL might have rents have risen in the area and now whats an increase because they want a lease. They should have just said they were staying

JaMarcusHustle

hfallada wrote: »

I dont why the couple stated that they wanted a lease.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The couple stated...........ah feck it, why am I persisting with this "the couple" shíte.....WE stated that we appreciated that there would be no increase, but that we wanted to stay as Part IV tenants and that is what we will do.

My question is, does the fact that the landlord has phrased the increase as "if you renew for another year, the rent will remain the same" mean that they can raise it further if we don't sign a new lease and remain as Part IV?

The_Morrigan

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The couple stated...........ah feck it, why am I persisting with this "the couple" shíte.....WE stated that we appreciated that there would be no increase, but that we wanted to stay as Part IV tenants and that is what we will do.

My question is, does the fact that the landlord has phrased the increase as "if you renew for another year, the rent will remain the same" mean that they can raise it further if we don't sign a new lease and remain as Part IV?

Yes - you are not renewing for another year (as in signing a lease) so the terms are now being renegotiated.

murphaph

Silly tenants really. LL in the right here. He offered them same rent in a landlord's market in exchange for further lease and it was thrown back in his face. Let the tenants now stay on under part four but at the market rate.

drumswan

Technically you are correct, no change in rent has been agreed and he must accept part 4. Of course, you wont have the protections of a fixed term and he can use any of the reasons allowed for under part 4 to give you notice. In todays market a fixed term is more desirable for the tenant IMO.

JaMarcusHustle

murphaph wrote: »

Silly tenants really. LL in the right here. He offered them same rent in a landlord's market in exchange for further lease and it was thrown back in his face. Let the tenants now stay on under part four but at the market rate.

Not silly at all. We don't intend on staying for anywhere near another 12 months so it would have been silly to agree to a new lease. I should probably have mentioned in the OP that was why we didn't want to sign a new lease!

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Yes - you are not renewing for another year (as in signing a lease) so the terms are now being renegotiated.

Rent has already been negotiated and tenant has accepted the terms. Tenant is under no obligation to sign a new lease.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

Rent has already been negotiated and tenant has accepted the terms. Tenant is under no obligation to sign a new lease.

They didn't accept the terms - they rejected the 'renew for another year' element of the offer. Counteroffer is now on the table.

JaMarcusHustle

drumswan wrote: »

Rent has already been negotiated and tenant has accepted the terms. Tenant is under no obligation to sign a new lease.

That's the thing though, the way the Landlord has phrased it, it could also be implied that a rent review was carried out, and there was scope to raise the rent but it would remain the same if we commited to a new lease.

We're not trying to be difficult at all. In all likelihood, we will be moving in the near future and giving the required notice - and have been model tenants up to now. We just didn't want to commit to a new lease and I just wanted clarification if the above counted as a rent review. It seems it hasn't and that's fine. This isn't one of those threads where the OP will only accept an answer that suits them

Arbiter of Good Taste

drumswan wrote: »

Rent has already been negotiated and tenant has accepted the terms. Tenant is under no obligation to sign a new lease.

It's not a pick-n-mix scenario for the tenant to choose at will.

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

They didn't accept the terms - they rejected the 'renew for another year' element of the offer. Counteroffer is now on the table.

I see what you are saying but permission is not needed from the landlord to obtain Part 4 rights - the tenant is automatically entitled to the statutory protection of Part 4 after 6 months. There is no requirement to negotiate that element.

http://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/part_4_rights_and_the_residential_tenancies_act_2004.pdf

drumswan

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

That's the thing though, the way the Landlord has phrased it, it could also be implied that a rent review was carried out, and there was scope to raise the rent but it would remain the same if we commited to a new lease.

We're not trying to be difficult at all. In all likelihood, we will be moving in the near future and giving the required notice - and have been model tenants up to now. We just didn't want to commit to a new lease and I just wanted clarification if the above counted as a rent review. It seems it hasn't and that's fine. This isn't one of those threads where the OP will only accept an answer that suits them

If you are only staying another month or so then I'd just accept the increase, doesnt seem worth the hassle. If its a bit longer I'd ask for a fixed term for that period, maybe meet in the middle on the rent.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

I see what you are saying but permission is not needed from the landlord to obtain Part 4 rights - the tenant is automatically entitled to the statutory protection of Part 4 after 6 months. There is no requirement to negotiate that element.

http://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/part_4_rights_and_the_residential_tenancies_act_2004.pdf

Yes, I know that.
The landlord was agreeable to keeping the rent the same if they signed a new lease, they didn't want to sign a new lease so the rent is being increased as an alternative of the fixed term offer as the landlord doesn't have the same stability for the next 12 months.

The review was conditional on the fixed term lease, the tenants rejected those terms and a counteroffer was provided. The 'review' isn't complete until an agreement is reached.

Arbiter of Good Taste

drumswan wrote: »

I see what you are saying but permission is not needed from the landlord to obtain Part 4 rights - the tenant is automatically entitled to the statutory protection of Part 4 after 6 months. There is no requirement to negotiate that element.

http://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/part_4_rights_and_the_residential_tenancies_act_2004.pdf

A contract is made up of an offer and acceptance. The LL offered keep the rent at the same amount in exchange for commitment to a 12 month lease. The OP did not accept the 12 month lease, and as such the offer of the rent no longer stands.

JaMarcusHustle

Just to clarify this, we were expecting the rent to be raised as a result of not committing to a new lease so this question was about getting some advice/info in preparation for that.

However, this has now gotten very messy in the past couple of hours after the landlord has sent us an email requesting us to vacate the apartment in 13 days time! All because we didn't want to sign a new lease and would rather become Part IV tenants, if that's the correct way of phrasing it.

Obviously this isn't legal so I've gotten back to her, but we're a bit miffed. We've always had a very courteous and rather friendly relationship with our landlord. We've been model tenants and she has been a model landlord up to this point. And now because we wouldn't sign a new lease, she's trying to illegally evict us. Madness.

The_Morrigan

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Just to clarify this, we were expecting the rent to be raised as a result of not committing to a new lease so this question was about getting some advice/info in preparation for that.

However, this has now gotten very messy in the past couple of hours after the landlord has sent us an email requesting us to vacate the apartment in 13 days time! All because we didn't want to sign a new lease and would rather become Part IV tenants, if that's the correct way of phrasing it.

Obviously this isn't legal so I've gotten back to her, but we're a bit miffed. We've always had a very courteous and rather friendly relationship with our landlord. We've been model tenants and she has been a model landlord up to this point. And now because we wouldn't sign a new lease, she's trying to illegally evict us. Madness.

Not necessarily - your lease comes to an end and you've already admitted that you didn't notify her of your intention to remain on Part IV under the terms of the lease. What does your lease say about termination or the ending of the lease?

Ring your landlord and try to have a discussion about it without it getting emotional.

ted1

drumswan wrote: »

Rent has already been negotiated and tenant has accepted the terms. Tenant is under no obligation to sign a new lease.

No it wasn't , they were offered a new lease at X, which they rejected.

drumswan

ted1 wrote: »

No it wasn't , they were offered a new lease at X, which they rejected.

They dont need a new lease, they already have part 4 rights. Its not a case of 'rejecting' anything.

OP needs to have rational discussion with the LL and sort this out.

ted1

drumswan wrote: »

I see what you are saying but permission is not needed from the landlord to obtain Part 4 rights - the tenant is automatically entitled to the statutory protection of Part 4 after 6 months. There is no requirement to negotiate that element.

http://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/part_4_rights_and_the_residential_tenancies_act_2004.pdf

The tent can be increased every 12 months, what part don't uou

drumswan

ted1 wrote: »

The tent can be increased every 12 months, what part don't uou

Landlord is entitled to raise the rent, yes. OP is entitled to continue the tenancy under part 4.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

Landlord is entitled to raise the rent, yes. OP is entitled to continue the tenancy under part 4.

Once they notify the landlord of their intention.

Claiming a Part 4 tenancy at the end of a lease
If you have a fixed-term contract or lease (for example of 1 year) and you wish to remain in the property under the rights acquired under Part 4, you must notify your landlord of your intention to stay in the property between 3 months and 1 month before the expiry of your fixed–term tenancy or lease agreement. You can use this sample letter of notification to remain in the property under Part 4.

If you do not notify your landlord you cannot be refused coverage under Part 4 but you may have to compensate the landlord for any financial loss she/he has incurred because you did not notify him/her of your intention to remain in the tenancy.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Once they notify the landlord of their intention.


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/types_of_tenancy.html

"If you do not notify your landlord you cannot be refused coverage under Part 4 but you may have to compensate the landlord for any financial loss she/he has incurred because you did not notify him/her of your intention to remain in the tenancy."

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

"If you do not notify your landlord you cannot be refused coverage under Part 4 but you may have to compensate the landlord for any financial loss she/he has incurred because you did not notify him/her of your intention to remain in the tenancy."

Right now, they are governed by the lease agreement. In 14 days the Part IV rights come into play after the lease has expired. Right now they have to play by the rules of the lease agreement because they didn't notify the landlord on time.

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Right now, they are governed by the lease agreement. In 14 days the Part IV rights come into play after the lease has expired. Right now they have to play by the rules of the lease agreement because they didn't notify the landlord on time.

And? Ive already said that. Right now they are under fixed term rules. The landlord cannot evict them within 14 days, after which they come under Part 4 rules.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

And? Ive already said that. Right now they are under fixed term rules. The landlord cannot evict them within 14 days, after which they come under Part 4 rules.

They could, depending on the terms of the lease.

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

They could, depending on the terms of the lease.

What makes you think that this is anything other than a standard lease? The OP has made no mention of any clause which provides for shorter notice times.

Tenancies do not end when fixed term leases expire, they automatically become part 4 tenancies.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

What makes you think that this is anything other than a standard lease? The OP has made no mention of any clause which provides for shorter notice times.

Tenancies do not end when fixed term leases expire, they automatically become part 4 tenancies.

Experience tells me that 'standard' documents are often not standard.

Although you may claim that tenancies do not end when the fixed term lease expires and that they automatically become part IV tenancies, without sight of the lease noone can say that for certain.

Beaner1

The fact that he offered a ceratain rent sets the market level so he is obliged to keep it at this.

The_Morrigan

Beaner1 wrote: »

The fact that he offered a ceratain rent sets the market level so he is obliged to keep it at this.

OMG - no they don't!

The initial offer was based on the renewal of the fixed term lease, the OP didn't agree to those terms, therefore a counter offer was made.
There was no agreement and there is definitely no obligation.

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Experience tells me that 'standard' documents are often not standard.

Although you may claim that tenancies do not end when the fixed term lease expires and that they automatically become part IV tenancies, without sight of the lease noone can say that for certain.

Ive never seen a lease which included a clause kicking me out after a year of fixed term. Why would anyone sign away the basic security of tenure provided for in four year cycles under the RTA? Im not sure thats even legal.

Tenant should have notified LL of intent, but for some reason didnt.
What happens then is the LL can conduct a rent review, tenant can sign a new lease or continue under part 4.
Simple enough I would have thought.
I can see why a LL would make rent price dependent on tenant signing a new fixed term, makes sense I suppose.

Beaner1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

OMG - no they don't!

The initial offer was based on the renewal of the fixed term lease, the OP didn't agree to those terms, therefore a counter offer was made.
There was no agreement and there is definitely no obligation.

They OP can ignore his offer and stay on a part four. The fact that the landlord agreed to the rent remaining the same closes the door on a rental increase. How can the landlord go to the PRTB and argue that the market rate had gone up when he just offered a tenant a lower rent. Simples.

Beaner1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Experience tells me that 'standard' documents are often not standard.

Although you may claim that tenancies do not end when the fixed term lease expires and that they automatically become part IV tenancies, without sight of the lease noone can say that for certain.

Dangerously inaccurate advice. The residential tenancies act trumps any such clause in a lease. It is the de facto terms of a rental agreement.

The_Morrigan

drumswan wrote: »

Ive never seen a lease which included a clause kicking me out after a year of fixed term. Why would anyone sign away the basic security of tenure provided for in four year cycles under the RTA? Im not sure thats even legal.

Tenant should have notified LL of intent, but for some reason didnt.
What happens then is the LL can conduct a rent review, tenant can sign a new lease or continue under part 4.
Simple enough I would have thought.
I can see why a LL would make rent price dependent on tenant signing a new fixed term, makes sense I suppose.

I've been sending legal documents to people to execute for years - 95% of these people never read the contents, only look for the signature line. In some cases these people have 'executed' templates contained in the back of the contracts (notices for amendments/renewals etc).

If you sign a fixed term lease that has an automatic termination there is really nothing you can do. Hence the advice for the OP to read their lease agreement.

The_Morrigan

Beaner1 wrote: »

They OP can ignore his offer and stay on a part four. The fact that the landlord agreed to the rent remaining the same closes the door on a rental increase. How can the landlord go to the PRTB and argue that the market rate had gone up when he just offered a tenant a lower rent. Simples.

This has already been discussed on the thread. Stop trying to cause trouble.

The landlord is well within their rights to review the rent and ask for an increase, we are not debating whether the increase is above market rent.

Beaner1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I've been sending legal documents to people to execute for years - 95% of these people never read the contents, only look for the signature line. In some cases these people have 'executed' templates contained in the back of the contracts (notices for amendments/renewals etc).

If you sign a fixed term lease that has an automatic termination there is really nothing you can do. Hence the advice for the OP to read their lease agreement.

I'm sorry but you are wrong again.

After six months it becomes a part four tenancy and the landlord can only terminate a tenancy under the appropriate conditions. The lease terms are irrelevant because the legislation supersedes the lease.

drumswan

Beaner1 wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are wrong again.

After six months it becomes a part four tenancy and the landlord can only terminate a tenancy under the appropriate conditions. The lease terms are irrelevant because the legislation supersedes the lease.

Would tend to agree. You cannot sign away your Part 4 rights in a lease. One of the purposes of the RTA is to give people more security of tenure in four year cycles.

The_Morrigan

Beaner1 wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are wrong again.

After six months it becomes a part four tenancy and the landlord can only terminate a tenancy under the appropriate conditions. The lease terms are irrelevant because the legislation supersedes the lease.

drumswan wrote: »

Would tend to agree. You cannot sign away your Part 4 rights in a lease. One of the purposes of the RTA is to give people more security of tenure in four year cycles.

Part IV hasn't kicked in yet - the lease is still valid and the tenant and landlord are governed by that right now.

JaMarcusHustle

Having spoken to Threshold this afternoon, they have confirmed to me that Part 4 rights come into effect after 6 months of a fixed term lease, even if the lease is for 12 months.

The_Morrigan

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Having spoken to Threshold this afternoon, they have confirmed to me that Part 4 rights come into effect after 6 months of a fixed term lease, even if the lease is for 12 months.

But they are only 'live' when your lease expires.

Beaner1

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Part IV hasn't kicked in yet - the lease is still valid and the tenant and landlord are governed by that right now.

Three times a charm.

28.—(1) Where a person has, under a tenancy, been in occupation of a dwelling for a continuous period of 6 months then, if the condition specified in subsection (3) is satisfied, the following protection applies for the benefit of that person.

Ie part 4.

26.—Nothing in this Part operates to derogate from any rights the tenant enjoys for the time being (by reason of the tenancy concerned) that are more beneficial for the tenant than those created by this Part.

Leases can only benefit a tenant not remove their rights.

its all here.

http://puuush.me/?id=78dad854-155d-6401-013cce32d766d42c

JaMarcusHustle

The_Morrigan wrote: »

They could, depending on the terms of the lease.

This isn't true.

Section 69 of the Act states:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the landlord or tenant may agree to a lesser period of notice being given than that required by a preceding provision of this Chapter and such lesser period of notice may be given accordingly.

(2) Such an agreement to a lesser period of notice being given may only be entered into at, or after, the time it is indicated to the tenant or landlord (as appropriate) by the other party that he or she intends to terminate the tenancy.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, a term of a lease or tenancy agreement cannot constitute such an agreement.

And the Explanatory Memorandum published alongside the official text of the Act clarifies this:

Section 69 allows the parties to agree to any lesser notice period that they choose but this can only be done when one party has been advised of the other party’s decision to terminate and such an agreement cannot be made when a tenancy is being entered into.

TL;DR - notice periods stipulated in a lease don't mean anything unless they are in line Part 5, Chapter 3, Table 1 of the Act.

drumswan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Part IV hasn't kicked in yet - the lease is still valid and the tenant and landlord are governed by that right now.

Part 4 comes in after 6 months. Tenant has been there 11. When the lease expires they will lose the "extra protections" of a fixed term lease - e.g. price cannot be increased during that period and fewer reasons landlord can use to evict.

People losing basic sight of what the legislation is for - to avoid scenarios like this LL just "deciding" they want the tenant out in 13 days.

ted1

drumswan wrote: »

Landlord is entitled to raise the rent, yes. OP is entitled to continue the tenancy under part 4.

At the rent set down by the landlord. If he fails to agree to it then he is out

JaMarcusHustle

Didn't want to create a new thread so just thought I'd pose a new question here - we've received written notice of our rent increase which will be an additional €150 a month. We've also been provided with 2 Daft.ie links to a couple of apartments in the same complex that are going for this increased rent (and thus, proof that this is market value).

My only point of concern is that these apartments have features/inclusives that give them added value over ours. The main one being that they both come with assigned parking spaces in the underground car park to the complex. Our current apartment doesn't, so we are renting a space from another resident who doesn't use theirs. And from looking at Daft again, spaces in the car park in this complex range from between €125 - €140 per month.

Other differences would be the fact that ours is a ground floor apartment whereas the 2 we have been provided with are not, and that the other apartments are all behind security doors whereas ours is not (we have our own front door). I don't know if these can be taken into account, but surely the parking space can and this can be grounds to challenge the increase? I ask in here first because unfortunately our landlord has become very nasty to deal with now so I just want to do as much research as possible before communicating.

Happy to hear broader answers on this too, as in what should be considered a "comparable" property and what else to look out for?

And as an aside, the landlord had enlisted an estate agent to try get us into a new 1 year lease but they gave up when they saw that we were familiar with how Part IV tenancy rights work. Now they want us to sign a Part IV tenancy agreement which is supposedly just an agreement that we are in Part IV - I've never heard of such a thing and they haven't sent it yet, but it sounds dodgy to me. I was under the impression we don't have to sign anything at all, no?
Thanks.

Michael D Not Higgins

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

parking spot

The parking spot is the difference and you're right to think it's unreasonable to compare with that. Make sure the parking spot of the other two places is definitely included in the price and go back with a counter offer.

JaMarcusHustle

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The parking spot is the difference and you're right to think it's unreasonable to compare with that. Make sure the parking spot of the other two places is definitely included in the price and go back with a counter offer.

Cheers, that's the one thing I'm pretty confident we have a right to feel aggrieved with. I just wasn't sure how much more detail I'm allowed complain about, i.e. ours is ground floor, the others aren't. T

The others have added security that ours is lacking (alarms, behind security doors etc.), and even the finishing and furnishing is of a much higher standard (i.e. dishwasher - these apartments have them whereas we do not. Hardwood flooring - again, these apartments have them, we don't. Other things like leather dining chairs, general quality of furniture etc. seems to be much better in the other apartments).

Is there a general consensus on where you draw the line when it comes to comparable properties, and where genuine differences become nitpicking?

Michael D Not Higgins

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Cheers, that's the one thing I'm pretty confident we have a right to feel aggrieved with. I just wasn't sure how much more detail I'm allowed complain about, i.e. ours is ground floor, the others aren't. T

The others have added security that ours is lacking (alarms, behind security doors etc.), and even the finishing and furnishing is of a much higher standard (i.e. dishwasher - these apartments have them whereas we do not. Hardwood flooring - again, these apartments have them, we don't. Other things like leather dining chairs, general quality of furniture etc. seems to be much better in the other apartments).

Is there a general consensus on where you draw the line when it comes to comparable properties, and where genuine differences become nitpicking?

I think there's a bit of give and take here. You have a quantifiable amount for the parking spot and a gap in quality with no associated cost, so you can argue the toss on the quality/security issues, but the one that's really important is the parking spot.

I would reply to the landlord saying you will not accept the rent increase because of a, b, c, with associated costs x, y, z. If they argue with you on this, open a PRTB dispute and get as much of your documentation in order as you can. Print out the other ads, look at other places nearby and print those out too.

How much are you actually renting the parking spot for if you don't mind me asking?

The Spider

Why not rent one of the other apartments, you wouldn't have far to move?

Michael D Not Higgins

The Spider wrote: »

Why not rent one of the other apartments, you wouldn't have far to move?

Because there's hassle in moving, no matter how far it is. He's currently paying €150 less than those places and let's say he's getting the parking spot for €100 a month, it's saving him €600/year.

JaMarcusHustle

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think there's a bit of give and take here. You have a quantifiable amount for the parking spot and a gap in quality with no associated cost, so you can argue the toss on the quality/security issues, but the one that's really important is the parking spot.

I would reply to the landlord saying you will not accept the rent increase because of a, b, c, with associated costs x, y, z. If they argue with you on this, open a PRTB dispute and get as much of your documentation in order as you can. Print out the other ads, look at other places nearby and print those out too.

How much are you actually renting the parking spot for if you don't mind me asking?

Thanks for the advice. We're renting our spot for €100 for about a year now, and it's very much a verbal agreement (no lease). The average price was around €100 back then, and seems to have gone up lately as our apartments are getting bombarded with flyers from companies who want to take unused parking spaces off our hands the past few months.