Rent and housing measures to go before Cabinet

Jaketherake

gizmo555 wrote: »

The government could change that reality with the stroke of a pen. We'll see on Tuesday.

And thats an even bigger problem in itself, if they can do that.

I wonder how many rent increases are going out on Monday, just in case.

Darkest Horse

gizmo555 wrote: »

That doesn't tally with what the Irish Times reported on Thursday last:

It [the government proposal] effectively means that anyone who had their rent increased in the summer this year will not face another increase until summer 2017.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rents-to-be-increased-only-every-two-years-under-housing-plan-1.2419019


The government is really just making this stuff up as it goes along.

The point is that when the time comes, landlords will just compensate for any perceived deficits, no matter what the timescale.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

gizmo555

Jaketherake wrote: »

I wonder how many rent increases are going out on Monday, just in case.

If the Irish Times has it right, the government's action could potentially invalidate any such increases.

Bob24

gizmo555 wrote: »

If the Irish Times has it right, the government's action could potentially invalidate any such increases.

Not all of them.

If a landlord last increased the rent 13 months ago, reviewing the rent on Monday would not be an issue and would not be invalidated by the new rules (at least according to what the IT wrote). However if they wait until the rules comes into effect, they would then be stuck and have to wait another 11 months before they can do anything.

So there is in incentive for landlords who haven't reviewed the rent in the past 13-20 months to issue an increase notice on Monday as if they don't do it now they could then be stuck for couple of months.

Jaketherake

I can see a lot of rents now being set up something like this.

Monthly rent = €1200
Discretionary good tenant discount = €200 pm

Net payable €1000 pm


So in that case the landlord wants €1000 for rent, but has set the rent at €1200 and discounts it every month to make it €1000.
Now he has €200 a month to be able to add on by reducing the discount but not increasing the rent.

Bob24

Jaketherake wrote: »

I can see a lot of rents now being set up something like this.

Monthly rent = €1200
Discretionary good tenant discount = €200 pm

Net payable €1000 pm


So in that case the landlord wants €1000 for rent, but has set the rent at €1200 and discounts it every month to make it €1000.
Now he has €200 a month to be able to add on by reducing the discount but not increasing the rent.

Seems tricky.

Firstly if the contract says 1200 but the tenant can demonstrate payments have been 1000 for several months in a row, could there not be a case to raise with the PTRB saying there was a verbal agreement to reduce the rent after the contract was signed and the correct rent is based on the most recent agreement?

Secondly, what do you declare for tax purposes? Not sure Revenue would be too please if you give them a different amount from what the contract/PTRB have. And if you tell them 1200 you will be somehow lying to them and they will charge you more tax than you should really pay.

Jaketherake

Bob24 wrote: »

Seems tricky.

Firstly if the contract says 1200 but the tenant can demonstrate payments have been 1000 for several months in a row, could there not be a case to raise with the PTRB saying there was a verbal agreement to reduce the rent after the contract was signed and the correct rent is based on the most recent agreement?

Secondly, what do you declare for tax purposes? Not sure Revenue would be too please if you give them a different amount from what the contract/PTRB have. And if you tell them 1200 you will be somehow lying to them and they will charge you more tax than you should really pay.

Businesses do this all the time. Banks, insurance companies being the most visible and lots more.

Rent is still €1200 pm.
Landlord is just giving a "no claims discount" so to speak.
Or something like "Pay for 11 months get 1 month free" or "Pay by DD discount"

Tenant can refuse the discount if they want.

Wait and see. There will be many and varied charging structures for rents now.
Ive been experimenting with Air BnB myself.

April 73

There's a lot of unanswered questions on the two year freeze. How exactly will it work?
1) if rent was increased anytime in 2015 then it cannot be increased until the same date in 2017? That gives one year's respite to tenants whose rent increased in 2015 as there will be no increase until 2017. But it seems like a retrospective law.
What if the tenant signed a new lease agreeing to a rent review on Jan 1st 2016? Will this law overuse this lease agreement.

2) an increase rent due anytime in 2016 then applies for two years so that tenants know where they stand until 2018. Without a shadow of a doubt this will lead to steep increases in 2016.

It's a minefield & I see only steep increases either straight away or as soon as the 1st of Jan 2017. But it pushes the can down the road for a year beyond the next election.

_Kaiser_

April 73 wrote: »

But it pushes the can down the road for a year beyond the next election.

And that's the point - while telling us they've provided rent certainty and claiming another boost in the coffers as a result of their "Recovery"

Meanwhile (as usual with this current Government) the ordinary citizen foots the bill and suffers the consequences.

Bad as FF were/are, FG/LAB are a lot worse!

Darkest Horse

April 73 wrote: »

There's a lot of unanswered questions on the two year freeze. How exactly will it work?
1) if rent was increased anytime in 2015 then it cannot be increased until the same date in 2017? That gives one year's respite to tenants whose rent increased in 2015 as there will be no increase until 2017. But it seems like a retrospective law.
What if the tenant signed a new lease agreeing to a rent review on Jan 1st 2016? Will this law overuse this lease agreement.

2) an increase rent due anytime in 2016 then applies for two years so that tenants know where they stand until 2018. Without a shadow of a doubt this will lead to steep increases in 2016.

It's a minefield & I see only steep increases either straight away or as soon as the 1st of Jan 2017. But it pushes the can down the road for a year beyond the next election.

Exactly. As a landlord, to me the rule is an irritant, to my tenant it's a "stay of execution". Nobody wins.

grass_grower

what happens i i bought an apartment two weeks ago with a tenant in situ under the previous land lord

lets assume the lease expires in january , can i the new owner raise the rent ?

Bob24

April 73 wrote: »

But it pushes the can down the road for a year beyond the next election.

I think that's a fair summarry of what it is. Labour can thick the "rent certainty" box, but in practice it will be of use to very few renters, alienate more landlords, and is not address the high rents issue in the slightest.

quadrifoglio verde

I wonder what happens where a lease was renewed in January 15. Landlord didn't increase the rent.
As we know, The landlord is allowed to increase the rent up to market rates once every twelve months.
However if they signed a new lease with the same tenants in January 2015 for 12 months, have they effectively carried out a rent review and therefore not allowed increase the rent until January 2017.

My understanding of a new lease being signed by a tenant upon expiration of the previous lease where the rent stays the same (we'll exclude part 4 leases as it doesn't apply to the scenario), is that the landlord can't increase the rent after 6 months, even if it's been over 12 months since the last increase, as they've signed a contract.

So would that be a rent review?

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Deer

Question..

We are in the process of selling our house and should be closed next week. We had agreed to rent from the new owners for 6 weeks until we have our own draw down and gotten contractors in to do bits and pieces etc. we had agreed a particular sum for the 6 weeks rent.

If the new owners do not increase the rent with us for the 6 weeks we are renting from then (it will be through prtb, security deposit, the works) - are they stuck with the rate they charge us for the next two years with new tenants?

Just trying to forecast if we have to pay them more rent under the circumstances as I am trying to micromanage Christmas costs this month as next month will be a heavy month due to moving

April 73

I wouldn't think so. New tenants, new lease, new rent.

Heisenberg.

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the fact FG have dragged us out of a recession also, it's hilarious reading nonsense like the quoted post.

5 point gain in today's polls for FG since the last poll too. No chance they won't be in power after the next election.

Darkest Horse

Josue Limited Room wrote: »

And the fact FG have dragged us out of a recession also, it's hilarious reading nonsense like the quoted post.

5 point gain in today's polls for FG since the last poll too. No chance they won't be in power after the next election.

I agree with you but I'd be of the opinion that recessions tend to pass. No matter who is in power, there would have come a day when the corner was turned. It just so happens that they were sitting there when it did.

mickoneill31

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I agree with you but I'd be of the opinion that recessions tend to pass. No matter who is in power, there would have come a day when the corner was turned. It just so happens that they were sitting there when it did.

I agree that recessions pass. That's obvious. The government do have a hand in how well or quickly they pass though. Just ask Greece.

With that said though I don't know if FF would have done a better or worse job. FG seem to have fallen back into the Irish rut of populist politics. That's what shagged us up the last time.

A Shaved Duck?

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I agree that recessions pass. That's obvious. The government do have a hand in how well or quickly they pass though. Just ask Greece.

With that said though I don't know if FF would have done a better or worse job. FG seem to have fallen back into the Irish rut of populist politics. That's what shagged us up the last time.

FF made all the really hard decisions for this goverment before they left, people seem to forget that all the heavy lifting and real cuts etc were done for noonan and kenny which has enabled them to take all the credit for the tax revenues they are getting in.

FG are great at taking all the credit but lets just face the reality of the situation they have implemented few real changes in the way the country is running and are relying on the short memories of the irish voters.

A Shaved Duck?

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I agree that recessions pass. That's obvious. The government do have a hand in how well or quickly they pass though. Just ask Greece.

With that said though I don't know if FF would have done a better or worse job. FG seem to have fallen back into the Irish rut of populist politics. That's what shagged us up the last time.

FF made all the really hard decisions for this goverment before they left, people seem to forget that all the heavy lifting and real cuts etc were done for noonan and kenny which has enabled them to take all the credit for the tax revenues they are getting in.

FG are great at taking all the credit but lets just face the reality of the situation they have implemented few real changes in the way the country is running and are relying on the short memories of the irish voters. Irish politics has not changed and kenny is still playing games trying to drop his supporters into the seanad/committees etc..

Bob24

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

FF made all the really hard decisions for this goverment before they left,

Ask a FF future candidate whether it was their party's idea to implement property tax or water charges and see what they say.

And who was in charge for a long period before the country went downhill?

Won't elaborate further as it is not the right place and I'm not here to support a party or another, but talk about short term memory ...

A Shaved Duck?

Bob24 wrote: »

Ask a FF future candidate whether it was there party's idea to implement property tax or water charges and see what they say.

And who was in charge for a long period before the country went downhill?

Won't elaborate further as it is not the right place and I'm not here to support a party or another, but talk about short term memory ...

Who brought in the USC? im not arguing for FF and we all know the unholy mess they brought upon the country my point is FG like to paint themselves as some sort of saviour of the economy when they are getting a handy 4.5 billion a year from a tax they didnt implement.

A Shaved Duck?

Bob24 wrote: »

Ask a FF future candidate whether it was there party's idea to implement property tax or water charges and see what they say.

And who was in charge for a long period before the country went downhill?

Won't elaborate further as it is not the right place and I'm not here to support a party or another, but talk about short term memory ...

Who brought in the USC? im not arguing for FF and we all know the unholy mess they brought upon the country my point is FG like to paint themselves as some sort of saviour of the economy when they are getting a handy 4.5 billion a year from a tax they didnt implement.

Also FF were going to bring in the water taxes as per their 2011 manifesto, nothing has changed and FG are FF in another jumper..

robp

Josue Limited Room wrote: »

And the fact FG have dragged us out of a recession also, it's hilarious reading nonsense like the quoted post.

5 point gain in today's polls for FG since the last poll too. No chance they won't be in power after the next election.

The only claim FG can make is that they stayed the course. FF took all the hard decisions, prior to 2011.

robp

robp wrote: »

The only claim FG can make is that they stayed the course. FF took all the hard decisions, prior to 2011.

The FF lapdogs are out in force now :rolleyes:

robp

Josue Limited Room wrote: »

The FF lapdogs are out in force now :rolleyes:

Just describing history as it happened.

Butters1979

Well this is turning into a political FF versus FG debate. It doesn't help this thread.

From what I understand from the article yesterday, any rent increase in 2015 is now subject to a 2 year freeze, this means any LL who did an increase this year and intended to follow up with one next year are kinda screwed. Can anyone confirm I have this right?

Also I assume anyone who had not had an increase in 2015 but was due one will probably get a much bigger one now as it will be pre loaded.

Bob24

Butters1979 wrote: »

Well this is turning into a political FF versus FG debate. It doesn't help this thread.

From what I understand from the article yesterday, any rent increase in 2015 is now subject to a 2 year freeze, this means any LL who did an increase this year and intended to follow up with one next year are kinda screwed. Can anyone confirm I have this right?

Also I assume anyone who had not had an increase in 2015 but was due one will probably get a much bigger one now as it will be pre loaded.

Pretty much. And my understanding is that if a landlord last increased the rent sometimes in 2014 and doesn't rush into increasing it right now, they could be stuck with the 2014 rent level for another few months.