Rent Review and Notice

Richard571

laserlad2010 wrote: »

afaik he may only serve you notice of a rent review on the day when the 2 year period is up (either from the last rent increase or the commencement of the lease). On that day he may give you 90 days notice. Anything earlier is invalid and should be ignored.

Thats what I've gleaned from lurking on this forum! I am open to correction.

This is not quite accurate. Landlord can give notice of rent review i.e. issue letter etc giving due notice but cannot actually adjust rent until the 2 year period is up (the actual rent review).

However in this instance the landlord is taking the perverbial: if new legislation comes into place before rent review this would apply even if the landlord has given many months notice before - it is only if the actual rent has been adjusted that the new legislation would not apply until next review.

Ms Doubtfire1

Richard571 wrote: »

laserlad2010 wrote: »

afaik he may only serve you notice of a rent review on the day when the 2 year period is up (either from the last rent increase or the commencement of the lease). On that day he may give you 90 days notice. Anything earlier is invalid and should be ignored.

Thats what I've gleaned from lurking on this forum! I am open to correction.

This is not quite accurate. Landlord can give notice of rent review i.e. issue letter etc giving due notice but cannot actually adjust rent until the 2 year period is up (the actual rent review).

However in this instance the landlord is taking the perverbial: if new legislation comes into place before rent review this would apply even if the landlord has given many months notice before - it is only if the actual rent has been adjusted that the new legislation would not apply until next review.

Thats incorrect. he can't serve notice. Not until the 2 years have fully passed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

DubCount

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

Thats incorrect. he can't serve notice. Not until the 2 years have fully passed.

If it is a new rental, then the notice cannot be given until 2 years have expired and the 90 day notice means the new rent cannot start until 2 years and 90 days after the start of a new tenancy.

However, as far as I know, for rent reviews for existing tenancies, the notice period can begin within the 2 year period since the last review.

Like I said, there is a lot of confusion on this, and I would contact the RTB for a definitive view as to whether the notice is valid or not.

Ms Doubtfire1

mrsWhippy wrote: »

karloseqm wrote: »

Don't pay and wait 2 years then move out as he can't throw you out.

Can he not? Surely if he needs it for 'family' he could?

Yes there are specific cases where he can terminate-  but he does carry the burdon of proof on that. Frankly, I would send him a simple letter back pointing out the legislation currently valid and leave it at that. If he than all the sudden decides he needs the house for family or wants to sell - well, i wonder what the TB will have to say to that as it comes so short after a tried rent increase...

Lux23

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Notice can't be served until the two year mark has passed. I'm pretty sure this has been confirmed already.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Richard571

There is so much mis-information out there. Looking at PRTB and Citixen information all it states is "Tenants must be informed of an increase to their rent. For private rented tenancies , a rent increase can only occur once every two years in accordance with the current market rent and a 90 day written notice must be given. For approved housing body tenancies rent reviews are determined by each tenancy agreement."
If you had to allow for 2 years + 90 days then the increase could only occur every 2 years and 90 days. Nowhere does it state that notice of rent review cannot be given 90 days before 2 years. If someone would like to show me otherwise please do but until then stop referencing confirmation of unknown sources.....

.......

This post has been deleted.

Giblet

You can give a rent notice at 1 year 9 months, the RTB even have an example to this effect.

Not sure where people got the idea it was only given after the 2 years.

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Even if this opinion that the notice of increased rent is the review (which in my opinion is wrong, the rent review is when it's increased in mine and many other people's opinion) is proven to be rule then people saying the notice can't be given until Sep 17 are still wrong, it should be given at the start of August 17 which would be 24 months since the last notice of rent increase would have been issued.

My opinion is that once tested it will be proven that the intention of the legislation was that the rent review = the rent increase and that the notice can be given at 21 months for the increase to happen at 24 months.

murphaph

Erika Massive Wood wrote: »

My opinion is that once tested it will be proven that the intention of the legislation was that the rent review = the rent increase and that the notice can be given at 21 months for the increase to happen at 24 months.

Mine too. It's bloody common sense that the "review" is the point in time the rate changes. Anything else would be ludicrous even for us.

Michael D Not Higgins

murphaph wrote: »

Mine too. It's bloody common sense that the "review" is the point in time the rate changes. Anything else would be ludicrous even for us.

That's not what the legislation says though. The review and setting the new rent are two different actions in the legislation. The review can only happen after 24 months have elapsed and the setting of the new rent can only happen after the review with 90 days notice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Michael D Not Higgins

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Section 21. Setting the rent is on foot of the review.

Section 22. The setting of new rent is pursuant to the review.

If we're talking common sense then we must use the normal meanings of these terms. Review means "a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary", it doesn't mean the change itself. In that case the landlord can't formally assess the difference of the rent to the market until after 24 months have passed. Then, they can set the new rent with 90 days notice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

murphaph

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't see how that contradicts Michael D's post, but I would maintain that this is all about a particular interpretation of the, as yet, untested law. A "review" I would argue has a particular meaning wrt rent. Historically I would say a review always meant "the rent changing".

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Section 21. Setting the rent is on foot of the review.

Section 22. The setting of new rent is pursuant to the review.

If we're talking common sense then we must use the normal meanings of these terms. Review means "a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary", it doesn't mean the change itself. In that case the landlord can't formally assess the difference of the rent to the market until after 24 months have passed. Then, they can set the new rent with 90 days notice.

The common sense use of review to me would be that it refers to the increase as that's how I would use the term.

My pay being reviewed means my pay has been increased for example. I still think there is misinterpretation happening as it just doesn't make any sense that the rent cant be increased on the 24 month anniversary of the tenancy which would mean giving notice 3 months previously. The wording should have been "rent cannot be changed for 24 months" this would have taken away any confusion.

If it is proven to be true its absolutely idiotic imo as its not 24 months (as stated by the rule) between increases its 27.

Michael D Not Higgins

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

From your same link:

"2. A landlord has reviewed the rent of a dwelling on 3 December 2015 (prior to the commencement of the new legislative changes), and served a 28 day notice that the rent was to increase on 1 January 2016. The next rent review notice can not issue until 3 December 2017 and would additionally have to provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking effect, which would be 4 March 2018."

Clearly differentiates the review and the notice of when the new rent starts. In your interpretation, the review occurred on 1 Jan 2016 with 28 days notice. If that were the case the next review could take place 1 Jan 2018 with 3 months notice. That's not what the RTB are saying though.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

From your same link:

"2. A landlord has reviewed the rent of a dwelling on 3 December 2015 (prior to the commencement of the new legislative changes), and served a 28 day notice that the rent was to increase on 1 January 2016. The next rent review notice can not issue until 3 December 2017 and would additionally have to provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking effect, which would be 4 March 2018."

Clearly differentiates the review and the notice of when the new rent starts. In your interpretation, the review occurred on 1 Jan 2016 with 28 days notice. If that were the case the next review could take place 1 Jan 2018 with 3 months notice. That's not what the RTB are saying though.

This is their interpretation though which until challenged and proven right is not gospel by any means.

Michael D Not Higgins

Erika Massive Wood wrote: »

This is their interpretation though which until challenged and proven right is not gospel by any means.

It would be challenged in front of the RTB and they'd side with their own advice and the legislation as written. If it went to court on a point of law then it could go through more thorough scrutiny but no one is likely to do that for the sake of a couple of months difference in the notice. Please provide your own interpretation of the law as written so I can refute it.

Lux23

No interpretation of law is gospel in fairness. Except maybe the Supreme Court.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

No interpretation of law is gospel in fairness. Except maybe the Supreme Court.

There are interpretations of the law which are demonstrably false however.

ted1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

That's not what the legislation says though. The review and setting the new rent are two different actions in the legislation. The review can only happen after 24 months have elapsed and the setting of the new rent can only happen after the review with 90 days notice.

No an increase is only every 24 months not a review

.......

This post has been deleted.

Michael D Not Higgins

ted1 wrote: »

No an increase is only every 24 months not a review

That's not what the legislation says. Please provide the section of the RTA that supports your position.

Michael D Not Higgins

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's honestly a terrible argument. It's the interpretation of the law and is supported by the RTB examples.

axcel

I'm not sure how this is helping the op?

Lux23

Example:
A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review
indicating that the change will take effect from the 1 April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review
can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking
effect

This sounds to me that the rent review can't take place until the two years is up while also providing a further 90 days notice. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Giblet

Lux23 wrote: »

Example:
A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review
indicating that the change will take effect from the 1 April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review
can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking
effect

This sounds to me that the rent review can't take place until the two years is up while also providing a further 90 days notice. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

That's not what is says at all. It says the change will take effect from April in the first instance, so it's 90 days before the 2 year period.

Colking

Lux23 wrote: »

Example:
A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review
indicating that the change will take effect from the 1 April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review
can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking
effect

This sounds to me that the rent review can't take place until the two years is up while also providing a further 90 days notice. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Giblet wrote: »

That's not what is says at all. It says the change will take effect from April in the first instance, so it's 90 days before the 2 year period.

You're both correct. In the examples given the rent would increase on the 24 month anniversary and the notice would be given on the 24 month anniversary which happens to be 90 days prior to the new rent start date.

Michael D Not Higgins

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It would be challenged in front of the RTB and they'd side with their own advice and the legislation as written. If it went to court on a point of law then it could go through more thorough scrutiny but no one is likely to do that for the sake of a couple of months difference in the notice. Please provide your own interpretation of the law as written so I can refute it.

The intention of the rule was to stop the rent being increased more often than once every 24 months. Commonsense would dictate that review = increase as otherwise the rule is wrong and it should state rent can only be increased after 27 months.

The wording is terrible as using the term review = notice is completely against the spirit of what was supposed to happen with the rule. It's either been badly written by people not understanding English or on purpose in order to get people to interpret it the way the RTB are thus sneakily giving an extra 3 months before rent can be increased.

What is needed is a clear statement from the people who wrote the rule stating its intention as this will clear up all interpretations.

Graham

Erika Massive Wood wrote: »

What is needed is a clear statement from the people who wrote the rule stating its intention as this will clear up all interpretations.

Unfortunately, the intention is irrelevant if something else was enacted into legislation

.......

This post has been deleted.

Colking

Erika Massive Wood wrote: »

The intention of the rule was to stop the rent being increased more often than once every 24 months. Commonsense would dictate that review = increase as otherwise the rule is wrong and it should state rent can only be increased after 27 months.

The wording is terrible as using the term review = notice is completely against the spirit of what was supposed to happen with the rule. It's either been badly written by people not understanding English or on purpose in order to get people to interpret it the way the RTB are thus sneakily giving an extra 3 months before rent can be increased.

What is needed is a clear statement from the people who wrote the rule stating its intention as this will clear up all interpretations.

True, but the RTB have given very clear examples and as Michael D says they'd be the ones it would be appealed to and would invariable be upheld. I think they've covered just about every possible scenario below :

1. A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review indicating that the change will take effect from the 1st April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days Notice prior to the change taking effect.

2. A landlord has reviewed the rent of a dwelling on 3 December 2015 (prior to the commencement of the new legislative changes), and served a 28 day notice that the rent was to increase on 1 January 2016. The next rent review notice can not issue until 3 December 2017 and would additionally have to provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking effect, which would be 4 March 2018.

3. Deirdre and Anthony, a young couple with two children, renting a 3 bed house in Dublin, signed a lease in April 2014, at a rate of €1,200 per month. The landlord may increase the rent every 12 months, so in April 2015, the landlord increased the rent to €1,300 per month. Deirdre and Anthony are worried that the landlord will increase the rent again in April 2016. The landlord had planned on increasing the rent to €1,400 per month. With this change, the landlord cannot increase the rent until April 2017. Deirdre and Anthony's rent is frozen for 2016 at €1,300.

4. Rachel, a lone parent with one child renting a 2 bed apartment in Galway, signed a lease in December 2014, at a rate of €800 per month. Rachel is worried that the landlord will increase their rent in December 2015. The landlord planned on increasing the rent to €875 per month but, with the enactment of these measures, cannot increase the rent until December 2016. The rent is frozen until December 2016.

5. Michael and Stephen, a couple renting a 2 bed house in Cork, signed a lease in March 2015, at a rate of €900 per month. Michael and Stephen were worried that their landlord would increase the rent in March 2016 to €1,000 per month. Now, Michael and Stephen do not need to worry about a rent increase until March 2017.

6. Larry and Mary, a couple living in Dublin, with their 3 children, rent their 3 bed house for €1,300 per month. Their last rent review was in September 2013. Upon enactment, Larry and Mary's landlord can initiate a rent review at any time, as it is more than two years since their last rent review.


To get back to the OP's point though. Can the LL legally issue a rent review in advance of 90 days ? It seems that they can as 90 was set as a minimum guideline.

Will the review still be valid once new legislation comes into place ? No, I don't think so. The LL is transparently attempting to circumvent the enactment of new legislation which will in turn supersede the existing legislation.

OP I wouldn't be too worried. You have up until the day before the new rent comes into play to dispute anyway.

Any dispute in relation to the setting of a rent pursuant to a review of the rent under a tenancy must be referred to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 before-

(i) [insert date from which the new rent is to have effect]
or
(ii) the expiry of 28 days from the receipt by you of this notice,
whichever is the later.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Unfortunately, the intention is irrelevant if something else was enacted into legislation

But the meaning of the legislation can be clarified with its not clear which is why I mean. The minister can confirm that it's one way or the other.

If it's confirm that the notice can be give at 21 months then the RTB's interpretation has to go in the bin.

Michael D Not Higgins

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your argument isn't about common sense, it's about how you feel about it being 27 months the first time around. That's a terrible argument and is not supported by the legislation as written nor the RTB examples.

Occam's razor doesn't apply since there are no additional assumptions. All of this is verbatim from the law.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Michael D Not Higgins

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stated, but not supported, either with references to the legislation itself nor the examples as provided by the RTB.

Graham

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Any opinion that's at odds with the RTB is largely irrelevant anyway unless/until there is somebody with the time/inclination and money to challenge the RTB interpretation.

Michael D Not Higgins

Thread split to new thread to allow OP of original thread continue to get advice.

Lux23

It's in black and white on the RTB website, review instigated on 1 Jan 2016 and rent goes up in April 2016. Next review on 1 Jan 2018 and rent goes up in April, therefore you can't give notice three months prior to 1 Jan 2018.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

It's in black and white on the RTB website, review instigated on 1 Jan 2016 and rent goes up in April 2016. Next review on 1 Jan 2018 and rent goes up in April, therefore you can't give notice three months prior to 1 Jan 2018.

The legislation makes the distinction between review and notice of new rent, as well as the RTB examples. I don't see another way to interpret it except by ignoring that evidence.

ted1

Lux23 wrote: »

Example:
A landlord reviews the rent of a dwelling on 1 January 2016 by serving a 90 day notice of rent review
indicating that the change will take effect from the 1 April 2016. A subsequent Notice of Rent Review
can not issue until 1 January 2018 and must also provide 90 days notice prior to the change taking
effect

This sounds to me that the rent review can't take place until the two years is up while also providing a further 90 days notice. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

http://www.rtb.ie/docs/default-source/notice-of-terminations-landlord-pdf/notice-of-new-rent-2.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Rent review 1 Jan 2016
Rent increase 1 April 2016

Rent review 1 Jan 2018
Rent increase 1 April 2018


Fairly straightforward


With regards the first review. The lease started with no review it was just set. So therefore it can be reviewed after 21 months and Increased at 24

davindub

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You should not attempt to interpret the legislation yourself, read case law to get the courts interpretation which is what will be used.

Michael D Not Higgins

ted1 wrote: »

Rent review 1 Jan 2016
Rent increase 1 April 2016

Rent review 1 Jan 2018
Rent increase 1 April 2018


Fairly straightforward


With regards the first review. The lease started with no review it was just set. So therefore it can be reviewed after 21 months and Increased at 24

You're so close Ted! You accept the rent review is separate from the increase, so then the law says you can't have a review in the first 24 months. Where does 21 months then come from?

ted1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You're so close Ted! You accept the rent review is separate from the increase, so then the law says you can't have a review in the first 24 months. Where does 21 months then come from?

When you move in you don't t have a review. The rent is set. So the first review can happen at 21 months as you have not had a review, which can only be 24 months apart

Michael D Not Higgins

ted1 wrote: »

When you move in you don't t have a review. The rent is set. So the first review can happen at 21 months as you have not had a review, which can only be 24 months apart

No, the law says you can't have a review for the first 24 months of a tenancy, so it can't happen at 21 months.

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No, the law says you can't have a review for the first 24 months of a tenancy, so it can't happen at 21 months.

It seems that this is a very common argument on boards and only fact seems to be that no one knows for sure. This is the fault of the RTB, surely they must know by now that there is confusion over this type of situation. If their website was clearer and had more examples than the ones they recently put up, both land lords and tenants would know exactly where they stand. I would take it as well that there is no review for a new tenancy but there is a fixed date, the day the rent came into effect. Given that the RTB site clearly says a rent increase can come into effect exactly two years to the day that the last rent increase, then a rent increase can be effected two years to the day after the lease started, with 90 days notice.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

It seems that this is a very common argument on boards and only fact seems to be that no one knows for sure. This is the fault of the RTB, surely they must know by now that there is confusion over this type of situation. If their website was clearer and had more examples than the ones they recently put up, both land lords and tenants would know exactly where they stand. I would take it as well that there is no review for a new tenancy but there is a fixed date, the day the rent came into effect. Given that the RTB site clearly says a rent increase can come into effect exactly two years to the day that the last rent increase, then a rent increase can be effected two years to the day after the lease started, with 90 days notice.

But it doesn't clearly say this. Example 2 shows 24 months between reviews but 26 months between rent increases.

I agree the examples and use of review and notice of review, etc. are extremely confusing and why we are having this discussion but from interrogating the examples, it can be seen that there are two stages, the review and the rent change. The review takes place first which identifies the new rent, a notice is then sent with the 90 day notice period to let the tenant know the new rent.

ted1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No, the law says you can't have a review for the first 24 months of a tenancy, so it can't happen at 21 months.

No it says "once every 24 months". At month 21 it will have never been reviewed so it can be reviewed, there after it'll be every 24 months.