Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rent Review

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    The_Morrigan
    Moderators Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Beaner1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 819 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,329 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #49
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


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


  • Options
    #50
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    anonyanony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 481 ✭✭anonyanony


    JaMarcusHustle wrote: »
    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.

    I would say you are probably best just to pay the increase as it's market value or move to one of the others if you don't agree.


  • Options
    #53
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    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.

    Sounds like he's going to have to suck up the increase anyway, so he may as well get a better apartment out of it, no harm in having a look.


  • Options
    #54
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    The Spider wrote: »
    Why not rent one of the other apartments, you wouldn't have far to move?
    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    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.

    While that's true, we are planning on moving within the next year. We have been offered what we believe is a fantastic, high-quality apartment at a very good price but the only hold up is that the current tenant is in the process of buying his own place. Thus, we may not be able to move in for a number of months so we are happy to sit tight for the time being. But that's why we did not want to sign a new lease, and wanted to remain under Part IV. And obviously since we could be remaining in our current apartment for a few months yet, we want the rent to stay reasonable. We'd have no qualms about paying market rate if we believed it was a fair comparison.


  • Options
    #55
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    JaMarcusHustle wrote: »
    While that's true, we are planning on moving within the next year. We have been offered what we believe is a fantastic, high-quality apartment at a very good price but the only hold up is that the current tenant is in the process of buying his own place. Thus, we may not be able to move in for a number of months so we are happy to sit tight for the time being. But that's why we did not want to sign a new lease, and wanted to remain under Part IV. And obviously since we could be remaining in our current apartment for a few months yet, we want the rent to stay reasonable. We'd have no qualms about paying market rate if we believed it was a fair comparison.

    It's clearly not market rent as you're paying €100/month for a parking spot and that leaves €50/month. You can point to the higher spec of the other apartments and negotiate to meet in the middle, €25/month.


  • Options
    #56
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Can I just ask has anyone any idea that while the LL (IMHO) is perfectly within their rights why they've embarked on this course. The property is going to be vacant over Xmas while very few people are going to be moving and probably for January as no-one has any money. Why not just let the tenants stay put if they've been good tenants and simply let them give the required notice under Part 4.

    Come March or whenever the tenants leave there'll be a queue of people offering sexual favours, magic spells, first born's etc. for the place anyway.

    (To be fair assuming Dublin)


Advertisement