Rent increase megathread

athtrasna

Polar101 wrote: »

I've been renting the same property for several years now. So far it has been fixed term (one year) leases, we have signed a new one every time the previous one has 'expired'. The property is in Dublin, so it would be in a "4%" zone. But does the fixed term lease change this somehow? As in, could the landlord put up the rent by 50% if he wanted to?

No. And you have no need to sign a new lease every year either

The_Conductor

Polar101 wrote: »

I've been renting the same property for several years now. So far it has been fixed term (one year) leases, we have signed a new one every time the previous one has 'expired'. The property is in Dublin, so it would be in a "4%" zone. But does the fixed term lease change this somehow? As in, could the landlord put up the rent by 50% if he wanted to?

No- he/she couldn't. Depending on when the last review was- and providing proper notice was given, the most he/she could raise it by would be 8% (4% for each of the two preceding years in which a rent-review did not occur) and even then, proper notice, which would be determined by when you commenced residence in the dwelling, would have to be served.

FishOnABike

Polar101 wrote: »

I've been renting the same property for several years now. So far it has been fixed term (one year) leases, we have signed a new one every time the previous one has 'expired'. The property is in Dublin, so it would be in a "4%" zone. But does the fixed term lease change this somehow? As in, could the landlord put up the rent by 50% if he wanted to?

athtrasna wrote: »

No. And you have no need to sign a new lease every year either

Although if you are reasonably certain you will remain for the full term of the fixed term lease there may be some merit in signing it. Your rent would be fixed for that year and unless there is a break clause your tenancy could not be terminated, even under the reasons allowed in the residential tenancy act.

As you could seek to reassign the tennancy in the event you did need to move I fail to see the advantage to the landlord in having rolling fixed term leases.

FishOnABike

FishOnABike wrote: »

As you could seek to reassign the tennancy in the event you did need to move I fail to see the advantage to the landlord in having rolling fixed term leases.

I would advise any LL to give no lease at all even from the start, its only giving more rights to the tenant and the LL gains nothing as a tenant can still break it without penalty. The fact they can just reassign the lease makes it meaningless, they should be bound by it and penalised if they try to lease during it.

testaccount123

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

I would advise any LL to give no lease at all even from the start

Good grief

Robineen

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

I would advise any LL to give no lease at all even from the start, its only giving more rights to the tenant and the LL gains nothing as a tenant can still break it without penalty. The fact they can just reassign the lease makes it meaningless, they should be bound by it and penalised if they try to lease during it.

Unless they are licensees, as far as I know not giving a lease doesn't extinguish tenant rights. If they are tenants, they get them whether you issue a lease or not. They are still protected by the PTRB. Otherwise, why would any landlord give a lease if not giving one meant the tenants had no rights?

testaccount123

testaccount123 wrote: »

Good grief

You will need to offer more of an explanation as to why you disagree than that. What exactly does a LL gain from giving a lease and more importantly what does he lose?

Robineen wrote: »

Unless they are licensees, as far as I know not giving a lease doesn't extinguish tenant rights. If they are tenants, they get them whether you issue a lease or not. They are still protected by the PTRB. Otherwise, why would any landlord give a lease if not giving one meant the tenants had no rights?

I never said it extinguishes rights but in most if not all cases it gives more rights to tenants over the minimum ones. For example if a LL gives a years lease he can't exercise his right to end the tenancy in the first 6 months as the lease will prevent this. Similar if beyond the 6 months and he wants to sell or move in himself. Unless there is a break clause (which most LL don't think of adding anyway) then his hands are tied for the duration of the lease.

The LL gets nothing from the lease, a month into it the tenant can decide to leave and there isn't a thing the LL can do about it. He either has to agree to the lease being reassigned or else the tenant can just leave anyway.

I think a lack of knowledge of the system is one of the main reasons why LLs give leases (by both LLs and tenants), letting agencies getting additional fees for arranging yearly leases would be another big reason.

Robineen

If the tenant isn't given a lease, the PTRB likely reverts to a standard one to ascertain rights. The landlord gets no say in that lease. It's better for a landlord to have their own, with the stipulations they want included. A tenant has a lease whether the landlord gives them one or not.

testaccount123

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

I think a lack of knowledge of the system is one of the main reasons why LLs give leases

What are you talking about?

Who is going to accept a rental without a lease?

Landlord: So the rent will be 18 grand for the year.
Tenant: Grand, lets go ahead and sign the lease.
Landlord: I dont do leases.
Tenant: Eh.... ok good luck with that.

You live in cloud cuckoo land mate.

Robineen

Robineen wrote: »

If the tenant isn't given a lease, the PTRB likely reverts to a standard one to ascertain rights. The landlord gets no say in that lease. It's better for a landlord to have their own, with the stipulations they want included. A tenant has a lease whether the landlord gives them one or not.

A word of mouth agreement is a valid lease, the rent can be agreed and the tenant has the rights they are given under the RTA. Giving them a fixed term lease is simply giving them additional rights. The RTB can only enforce the rights they have under the RTA they can't just add more because a tenant isn't given a fixed term lease.

testaccount123 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Who is going to accept a rental without a lease?

Landlord: So the rent will be 18 grand for the year.
Tenant: Grand, lets go ahead and sign the lease.
Landlord: I dont do leases.
Tenant: Eh.... ok good luck with that.

You live in cloud cuckoo land mate.

Well there is a lease, a word of mount one. I've never signed a lease ever (having lived in a number of different places), always word of mouth and contrary to what you think its not uncommon to have a word of mouth lease. You will find plenty of tenants happy to not have a written lease that adds complication if they want to move out etc (I never wanted one and was glad not to be asked sign them). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land as most of what you say is total nonsense.

If you are so desperate for something then have a lease with the amount per month on it and no more, no way would I be offering a fixed term lease and losing the power to end the tenancy in the first 6 months.

I suppose you would want to sign a new lease every single year too which as discussed at length here is totally unnecessary for either LL or tenant.

EDIT: I suppose what I really mean is I would advise against giving a fixed term lease, a lease setting out rules like, furniture in the house, inspections every 3 months (more often even inside first 6 months), rules around damage etc would be ok once it doesn't have a term attached to it. With the crazy rules coming in now and it being so hard to get rid of tenants any LL should be very careful to protect their right to end a tenancy in the first 6 months, keeping a very close eye on the property and very strict with things like rent on time etc as if they aren't and the tenant is there longer than 6 months they could be stuck with them for a very very long time.

emeldc

Noelle Most Tang wrote: »

Well there is a lease, a word of mount one. I've never signed a lease ever (having lived in a number of different places), always word of mouth and contrary to what you think its not uncommon to have a word of mouth lease. You will find plenty of tenants happy to not have a written lease (I never wanted one and was glad not to be asked sign them). You are the one living in cloud cuckoo land as most of what you say is total nonsense.

If you are so desperate for something then have a lease with the amount per month on it and no more, no way would I be offering a fixed term lease and losing the power to end the tenancy in the first 6 months.

My understanding is that you can end the tenancy in the first 6 months. Any later than that and the tenant has part 4 rights, lease or no lease. I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

TheChizler

emeldc wrote: »

My understanding is that you can end the tenancy in the first 6 months. Any later than that and the tenant hat part 4 rights, lease or no lease. I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

A lease would generally prevent the landlord from doing exactly that, unless they inserted an exception for the first 6 months; removing the entire point of the lease IMO.

I suppose they're still handy for setting out each party's responsibilities, who pays for what etc.

emeldc

emeldc wrote: »

My understanding is that you can end the tenancy in the first 6 months. Any later than that and the tenant has part 4 rights, lease or no lease. I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

He can't or it is at least much more diffciult to end it though if there is a fixed term lease in place.

Even with part4 a LL can end the tenancy for certain reasons and a lease may prevent this also.

As my edit of my last post said to clarify, its not a lease as such I'd be against as it can set out rules etc its a lease that gives a tenant rights to stay at the property above those they have in the RTA.

Robineen

You get part 4 rights with a word of mouth lease too though. There's no wriggling out of that one!

TheChizler

Robineen wrote: »

You get part 4 rights with a word of mouth lease too though. There's no wriggling out of that one!

Nobody's suggesting that?

Robineen

Robineen wrote: »

You get part 4 rights with a word of mouth lease too though. There's no wriggling out of that one!

Where did I suggest there was? In fact I specifically referred a number of times to needing to end the tenancy in the first 6 months before part 4 kicks in if you want to be able to end it for reasons other than the few allowed reason to break part 4. You are obviously completely missing the point of my posts.

Michael D Not Higgins

None of the previous dozen or so posts are about rent increases. No more off topic posts.

KombuchaMshroom

Not certain this is the right place to ask this question, but here goes anyway.

Been renting a room in a 5 bed house in Ranelagh for a while now. Landlord informed us a few months back that he wanted us out at the end of February as he was renovating the house and we think selling up after that, so fair enough. We signed new leases in October to get us through to end of February, and in these he raised the rent from €540 a month in each room to €610.

He recently told us that renovations are delayed and we can have the place until end of August if we like. 4 of the 5 of us took him up on that, and he has sent us new leases with the price staying at €610 per room.
1 girl has decided to move out though. He is happy to let us look for the new tenant ourselves through daft, as we'd prefer to get a feel for whoever moves in, but he is now charging €675 for this room. As a result we are struggling big time to fill it. I know this might not seem too steep by Ranelagh standards, but it's not a great house, renovations are years overdue.

So I'm A) wondering from reading this thread if the original increase in October was too much, and wondering if this large increase on the new tenant is allowed as well?
The room was €540 in October, now he wants €675 in March, that's a 25% increase in 5 months.

Thanks.

Michael D Not Higgins

KombuchaMshroom wrote: »

Not certain this is the right place to ask this question, but here goes anyway.

Been renting a room in a 5 bed house in Ranelagh for a while now. Landlord informed us a few months back that he wanted us out at the end of February as he was renovating the house and we think selling up after that, so fair enough. We signed new leases in October to get us through to end of February, and in these he raised the rent from €540 a month in each room to €610.

He recently told us that renovations are delayed and we can have the place until end of August if we like. 4 of the 5 of us took him up on that, and he has sent us new leases with the price staying at €610 per room.
1 girl has decided to move out though. He is happy to let us look for the new tenant ourselves through daft, as we'd prefer to get a feel for whoever moves in, but he is now charging €675 for this room. As a result we are struggling big time to fill it. I know this might not seem too steep by Ranelagh standards, but the house is not in great shape, hence the landlord planning renovations. They are years overdue.

So I'm A) wondering from reading this thread if the original increase in October was too much, and wondering if this large increase on the new tenant is allowed as well?
The room was €540 in October, now he wants €675 in March, that's a 25% increase in 5 months.

Thanks.

The new legislation wasn't in place in October so he was entitled to raise it to market rate if there had been no increase in the previous two years.

It sounds like you each have individual leases for the rooms and have shared access to the common areas. This means each is a separate tenancy. The legislation is written to prevent landlords increasing the rent for new tenancies above the limit also but is not explicit on how this works. A new tenant would be able to take a dispute to the RTB if they found out that the room was previously for rent at €610 from a review only 4 months ago.

Applying the formula in the law he's entitled to an increase of a max of €4.

Robineen

TheChizler wrote: »

Nobody's suggesting that?

I read it wrong, apologies.

cursai

Quick question. If the last rent increase was in January 2016 when is the next allowed.

I think the last increase was before the new rules came in so I wonder does it backdate?

The rent is well below market as the tenant was a good tenant. But so is the landlord.

The new increase is still going to be below market. But the tenant is spouting the regulation regarding increases.

Also how much notice for termination is required if the tenant is there over 5 years and only signed a 12 month lease at the beginning.

athtrasna

Landlord can give notice of rent review in January 2018 to take effect 90 days later.

Tenants have Part IV rights and these have recently been strengthened. Links on this thread to the legislation. If you have a legal ground to end the tenancy then the notice period for a five year tenancy is 20 weeks

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

athtrasna

athtrasna wrote: »

Landlord can give notice of rent review in January 2018 to take effect 90 days later.

Well technically they can give notice on the anniversary of the last time they gave notice as opposed to the last time it was increased. If they gave 90 days notice the last time then they can issue notice on the 1st of October 2017 for the rent to increase 1st Jan 2018 or if it was 30 days notice then they can give notice on the 1st December 2017 for the increase to take place 1st of match 2018.

Blinked_Missed It

Hope someone can help with this. We've been renting the same premises in south Dublin since 2010 and had our last review 2 years ago in 2015. All valid.

Our lease is up at the end of March. We received a notice in early December 2016 before the new legislation came in that the landlord was looking for an increase of 15% but they did not include any examples of similar property in the area in the notice. They just said it was in line with market values. Is this an invalid notice and will they therefore be restricted to a 4% increase only.

I had assumed we were basically done for as 15% is too much for us to handle financially and had made plans to move out but wondering if there is still hope. Cheers.

Claw Hammer

Blinked_Missed It wrote: »

Hope someone can help with this. We've been renting the same premises in south Dublin since 2010 and had our last review 2 years ago in 2015. All valid.

Our lease is up at the end of March. We received a notice in early December 2016 before the new legislation came in that the landlord was looking for an increase of 15% but they did not include any examples of similar property in the area in the notice. They just said it was in line with market values. Is this an invalid notice and will they therefore be restricted to a 4% increase only.

I had assumed we were basically done for as 15% is too much for us to handle financially and had made plans to move out but wondering if there is still hope. Cheers.

It is an invalid notice.

Ms Doubtfire1

That would be invalid in my opinion as even under the 'old' Tenancy laws he would have to include comparable properties.

Blinked_Missed It

Thanks for the replies guys. Should I just contact the agent and tell them its invalid and to reissue with the max increase of 4% or do I have to go to the RTB.

The comparable property thing is a waste of time now with this 4% cap as its meaningless they might as well have removed it. You could have properties nearby for 100's more per month but you are prevented from raising the rent to the market rate due to the cap. It was never a very fair thing anyway as it can be difficult to find comparable properties that were advertised at the time you wanted to raise the rent particularly in areas without much movement of people.

Gentleman Off The Pitch

I'm a single property landlord over 100000 in negative equity and as I had a nice tenants I did not increase the rent during their tenancy, said I'd wait until they decide to cease the tenancy

Now I've been informed that my tenants are moving out and the rent that I can charge is 20% below the market rate. I've learned a hard lesson here, gouge people wherever possible, no point being nice in business

punisher5112

Gentleman Off The Pitch wrote: »

I'm a single property landlord over 100000 in negative equity and as I had a nice tenants I did not increase the rent during their tenancy, said I'd wait until they decide to cease the tenancy

Now I've been informed that my tenants are moving out and the rent that I can charge is 20% below the market rate. I've learned a hard lesson here, gouge people wherever possible, no point being nice in business

Nobody forced you to buy.
That's a terrible business plan.

You increase you get very little return anyway as the tax take is phenomenal.

Rents are outrageous and that's across the country.

We moved to a house 3.5 years ago and previous tenants were on rent allowance and rent was €550 the same house is now €1200 or more and increasing and this of course isn't in Dublin.

Heard them on news talking about last year being biggest increase and €200 on top of top scale at 2007 figures in Dublin but I had to laugh at their prices as they were saying family homes were rented for quite low. In all honesty figures they were telling couldn't be right as to get a 3 bed in south Dublin is 2.5 k and up.

Wonder are we in for another crash any time soon.