New Lease with Rent Increase -- 2 days notice?

stateofflux

Hi, i am living in Rented accomodation for the last 14 months.

The landlord rang me yesterday saying he wants to renew my lease and that there will be an increase pf rent also,. He will be collecting rent/bringing over new lease tomorrow,.

Can i agree to sign the new lease but refuse to pay the increase until next month as the 28 days notice was not given?

any advice appreciated.

The_Conductor

Correct- he has to give you at least 28 days notice of the increase in rent.

handlemaster

what is the format for the letter if the landlord wanted to up the rent without issuing a new contract

Aka Ishur

stateofflux wrote: »

Hi, i am living in Rented accomodation for the last 14 months.

The landlord rang me yesterday saying he wants to renew my lease and that there will be an increase pf rent also,. He will be collecting rent/bringing over new lease tomorrow,.

Can i agree to sign the new lease but refuse to pay the increase until next month as the 28 days notice was not given?

any advice appreciated.

You should know also that you are not obliged to sign a new lease either. It does offer additional security alright but you can continue on a more flexible Part 4 if you want. It is more flexible (but for the landlord also.)

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

what is the format for the letter if the landlord wanted to up the rent without issuing a new contract

There isn't a standard format- it just has to state that the rent is going up to X Euro from (Stated Date)- which has to be at least 28 days hence.

It doesn't have to be the Magna Carta.

Mellor

Aka Ishur wrote: »

You should know also that you are not obliged to sign a new lease either. It does offer additional security alright but you can continue on a more flexible Part 4 if you want. It is more flexible (but for the landlord also.)

In what way is it more flexible for the landlord?
Just curious, as here in australia, if you go past the initial lease term, the landlord now needs to give you 90 days notice instead of 30 days. But the tenants notice only increases from 14 to 21 days.

stateofflux

Thanks for the help. much appreicated

Aka Ishur

Mellor wrote: »

In what way is it more flexible for the landlord?
Just curious, as here in australia, if you go past the initial lease term, the landlord now needs to give you 90 days notice instead of 30 days. But the tenants notice only increases from 14 to 21 days.

The most typical example is that under Part 4 the landlord can evict to sell the property, give to family member or make substantial renovations. Under a fixed term lease this is not possible. Selling from under a fixed term tenant means hoping for a very accommodating tenant or buying them out of their lease. Almost impossible to sell to someone with a mortgage if there is a sitting tenant.

Mellor

Aka Ishur wrote: »

The most typical example is that under Part 4 the landlord can evict to sell the property,

Well yeah, that's a given. The LL is entitled to sell.
They works similarly in my case, but they need to give set notice.

Under a fixed term lease this is not possible. Selling from under a fixed term tenant means hoping for a very accommodating tenant or buying them out of their lease. Almost impossible to sell to someone with a mortgage if there is a sitting tenant.

Same as here too. Selling isn't a reason to end an lease early.
However, in the case of an investment property, I don't think there is anything preventing a house ownership specifically with the tenants in-stu.

The_Conductor

Mellor wrote: »

Same as here too. Selling isn't a reason to end an lease early.However, in the case of an investment property, I don't think there is anything preventing a house ownership specifically with the tenants in-stu.

The government have effectively killed that one here- by setting an unusually large deposit requirement for investment properties (over and above the deposit requirements for first time buyers or owner occupiers). Aka- an investor has to fund a minimum of 30% of the purchase with cash- which- alongside our prices which are wholly out of kilter with fundamentals- mean investors are pretty much non-existent (and current holders of investment property- are trying to sell into the market at the moment- before the last of the AIPs issued last year expire).

Mellor

The_Conductor wrote: »

The government have effectively killed that one here- by setting an unusually large deposit requirement for investment properties (over and above the deposit requirements for first time buyers or owner occupiers). Aka- an investor has to fund a minimum of 30% of the purchase with cash- which- alongside our prices which are wholly out of kilter with fundamentals- mean investors are pretty much non-existent (and current holders of investment property- are trying to sell into the market at the moment- before the last of the AIPs issued last year expire).

Oh yeah, I read about that a while ago. 30% is pretty hefty.
But don't feel too bad, I'll need over a half a million dollars for a one bed apartment. :eek: