How to search for new tenancy in rent pressure zone

tringlarido

Hi all,

I would like to ask how people do in the context of rent pressure zone.

From what I read, landlords can't increase new tenancies more than 4% ( if they were previously rented ), and must give in writing the calculation of new rent based on the old one.
I read also that tenant can ask PRTB to check previous rent and landlord must follow PRTB in case they find the increase is not legal.

When I look at the market, I see very high rents, and rents that finishes with 00 or 50, so can't possibly include 4%.

So how to search for an apartment in these conditions ?
Can someone accepts the rent advertised or even propose a better rent but then revert to PRTB to get the 4% ?
is it ok after to ask landlords/agency to provide how the rent was calculated based on 4% as per the law ? When should this be asked when dealing with a new tenancy ?

Why do landlords advertise sky rockets rents when they know it can backfire at them ?

Many thanks,

Pkiernan

tringlarido wrote: »

Hi all,

I would like to ask how people do in the context of rent pressure zone.

From what I read, landlords can't increase new tenancies more than 4% ( if they were previously rented ), and must give in writing the calculation of new rent based on the old one.
I read also that tenant can ask PRTB to check previous rent and landlord must follow PRTB in case they find the increase is not legal.

When I look at the market, I see very high rents, and rents that finishes with 00 or 50, so can't possibly include 4%.

So how to search for an apartment in these conditions ?
Can someone accepts the rent advertised or even propose a better rent but then revert to PRTB to get the 4% ?
is it ok after to ask landlords/agency to provide how the rent was calculated based on 4% as per the law ? When should this be asked when dealing with a new tenancy ?

Why do landlords advertise sky rockets rents when they know it can backfire at them ?

Many thanks,

Your initial assumption is incorrect.
Rent may be increased more than 4% for new tenancies if the rent hasnt been raised charge or more thsn a year. It can be prorated. The RTB website has a calculator for this scenario too.

The_Conductor

Or- if the landlord has renovated the property since its last letting- this can quash the controlled level at which the rent was previously set.

jamesthepeach

No landlord will spend a penny with a sitting tenant. However it might just be in their interests to renovate between tenancies.

Definitely not in their interests to spend anything during a tenancy anymore. That would be just throwing money down the toilet. You would never get it back.

So I'm guessing as tenant leave landlords will either sell, renovate or change to short term.

It's very unlikely the RTB have an up to date rent figure for the previous tenancy if they have any figure at all so it's not so easy for the RTB to known that the rent being offered is or is not breaking the 4% rule.

davo10

Out of curiosity, given that there are reports of prospective tenants offering over and above the advertised rental rate to secure a property, how would this be viewed legally? The LL would be advertised at the 4% but the tenant offers to pay more, does this become the new rental rate as the LL would want it on the lease agreement.?

DubCount

davo10 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, given that there are reports of prospective tenants offering over and above the advertised rental rate to secure a property, how would this be viewed legally? The LL would be advertised at the 4% but the tenant offers to pay more, does this become the new rental rate as the LL would want it on the lease agreement.?

As far as I know, you cant contract out of the rights under this legislation. That means, even if both parties agree to a higher rent and sign a lease at a higher rent, the tenant can still take a case to the RTB to have the higher rent overturned.

The problem is, what tenant is going to take a case in this market. If they get evicted by some means, what kind of reference will they get? Going back to the OP, why would a LL give the property to someone who wants to check the rent level with the RTB when there is a line of people just prepared to pay a higher rent and say nothing?

Graham

DubCount wrote: »

The problem is, what tenant is going to take a case in this market.

One that's just signed a lease above the market rate and realises he can save a few thousand euro at least until the lease ends by which time part 4 has kicked in limiting the landlords options further.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

One that's just signed a lease above the market rate and realises he can save a few thousand euro at least until the lease ends by which time part 4 has kicked in limiting the landlords options further.

In that case it would be cheaper and less hassle to kick the tenant out on his/her ass and take whatever hit comes from the RTB or of course, at the end of the fixed term, decide to do "major" renovations/move a family member in. The tenant is out with no reference. No reference, no letting.

Also, I've said this before. The RTB website is now becoming the best reference for tenants to be avoided. I heard a lady from a landlord's representative organisation on The Last Word saying that LL's should check the site to see if prospective tenants have brought cases previously. Soon that will become the norm.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

In that case it would be cheaper and less hassle to kick the tenant out on his/her ass and take whatever hit comes from the RTB or of course, at the end of the fixed term, decide to do "major" renovations/move a family member in. The tenant is out with no reference. No reference, no letting.

Also, I've said this before. The RTB website is now becoming the best reference for tenants to be avoided. I heard a lady from a landlord's representative organisation on The Last Word saying that LL's should check the site to see if prospective tenants have brought cases previously. Soon that will become the norm.

Except you can ask for your details to be removed from any published rulings, landlords and tenants both.

pwurple

jamesthepeach wrote: »

No landlord will spend a penny with a sitting tenant. However it might just be in their interests to renovate between tenancies.

Definitely not in their interests to spend anything during a tenancy anymore. That would be just throwing money down the toilet. You would never get it back.

Hullo? Money spent during a tenancy is tax deductible as rental expenses. Any landlord would be a moron NOT to do it, unless they really enjoy paying extra taxes. I make sure I've sent in a handyman, cleaner, replaced light fittings, appliances, painted etc, every single year in every unit. My accountant would kick me in the backside if I didn't.

Here's the link for more details.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/property/rental-income/irish-rental-income/what-expenses-are-allowed.aspx

jamesthepeach

pwurple wrote: »

Hullo? Money spent during a tenancy is tax deductible as rental expenses. Any landlord would be a moron NOT to do it, unless they really enjoy paying extra taxes. I make sure I've sent in a handyman, cleaner, replaced light fittings, appliances, painted etc, every single year in every unit. My accountant would kick me in the backside if I didn't.

Here's the link for more details.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/property/rental-income/irish-rental-income/what-expenses-are-allowed.aspx

That was then. This is now.

Also, you are aware that you only get about half the money you spend back in taxes and only that if on the high rate?
It's not free spending. You might want to kick your accountant in the backside if he says it is.

DubCount

davo10 wrote: »

The tenant is out with no reference. No reference, no letting.

That is the core reason a tenant would be badly advised to take a case. Yes they would win financially in the short term, but when the tenancy comes to an end (one way or another), getting another property to let in this market is going to be a big ask with no reference or a bad reference. Landlords usually face a long line of prospective tenants, all with glowing previous landlord references - why would they choose the "problem child".

In my view, there is already a lot of fear among tenants about doing anything that would nudge a landlord towards evicting them or not giving them a good reference if they decide to leave - even if its a legitimate/reasonable request.

Michael D Not Higgins

jamesthepeach wrote: »

That was then. This is now.

Also, you are aware that you only get about half the money you spend back in taxes and only that if on the high rate?
It's not free spending. You might want to kick your accountant in the backside if he says it is.

But it's likely to be work that needs doing anyway. Doing it after a tenancy has ended is not tax deductible.

pwurple

jamesthepeach wrote: »

That was then. This is now.

Also, you are aware that you only get about half the money you spend back in taxes and only that if on the high rate?
It's not free spending. You might want to kick your accountant in the backside if he says it is.

Well, that's a current live and active link to revenue. So, it's "now".

And yes, like I said in my post, tax deductible. Who said free spending except you?

tringlarido

Also, I've said this before. The RTB website is now becoming the best reference for tenants to be avoided.

Consulting RTB for such purpose should be made illegal. Glad records can be deleted..

thanks, that's very insightful. That confirms what I thought. The 4% cap law on new tenancies is ineffective and it's just more worries for both LL and tenants. There should be controls and fines for LL not complying and that shouldn't be brought up by tenants. So in the end this thing is just a bit of a joke when looking at all the rents advertised, LL and agencies in this country just don't respect this law but still there is a risk for them today to propose a too high rent

DubCount

tringlarido wrote: »

Consulting RTB for such purpose should be made illegal. Glad records can be deleted..

thanks, that's very insightful. That confirms what I thought. The 4% cap law on new tenancies is ineffective and it's just more worries for both LL and tenants. There should be controls and fines for LL not complying and that shouldn't be brought up by tenants. So in the end this thing is just a bit of a joke when looking at all the rents advertised, LL and agencies in this country just don't respect this law but still there is a risk for them today to propose a too high rent

Not sure how you would make looking at a website page to assess tenants illegal while looking at the same page to inform yourself on the correct interpretation of the law is legal.

Not sure more legislation in this area to impose fines and penalties on LL will do anything other than drive more small time landlords away from long term lettings and further restrict supply in an already under supplied market.

Not sure it will ever make sense that 2 identical properties next door to each other can have vastly different rent caps just because of an accident in how and when previous rent rises happened.

For sitting tenants, the law has controlled rent inflation in RPZs (unless their landlord sold up or moved a relative in etc.). For new entrants to the rental market, it has only added to rent inflation and reduced quality/quantity of available rental property.

jamesthepeach

pwurple wrote: »

Well, that's a current live and active link to revenue. So, it's "now".

And yes, like I said in my post, tax deductible. Who said free spending except you?

I don't think you understand at all.
Previously there was an advantage to doing your renovations in dribs and drabs. And you could increase the rent enough to make the money spent back. Even if you waited until the next tenant to do the increase.
Now you will never get that money back.
If you don't believe me lookmat anywhere rent controls were brought in to see the effects.

Now the advantage is leaving it all to do as a renovation between lettings moments the rent control.

jamesthepeach

DubCount wrote: »

That is the core reason a tenant would be badly advised to take a case. Yes they would win financially in the short term, but when the tenancy comes to an end (one way or another), getting another property to let in this market is going to be a big ask with no reference or a bad reference. Landlords usually face a long line of prospective tenants, all with glowing previous landlord references - why would they choose the "problem child".

In my view, there is already a lot of fear among tenants about doing anything that would nudge a landlord towards evicting them or not giving them a good reference if they decide to leave - even if its a legitimate/reasonable request.

Most people still in the landlord game who I know are asking for previous three landlord refs
I also know one person who trawls the rtb and notes the names of all concerned and keepsnthem in an excel spreadsheet in case the names get removed later, so people would want to be quick in getting their names taken down.

Shes definitely not the only one doing this.

tringlarido

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Most people still in the landlord game who I know are asking for previous three landlord refs
I also know one person who trawls the rtb and notes the names of all concerned and keepsnthem in an excel spreadsheet in case the names get removed later, so people would want to be quick in getting their names taken down.

Shes definitely not the only one doing this.

I'm flabbergasted that such thing is possible, that should be confidential. Utterly disgusted.

davo10

tringlarido wrote: »

I'm flabbergasted that such thing is possible, that should be confidential. Utterly disgusted.

Why "disgusted"? If you had a commodity worth €200k plus, wouldn't you want to protect it? As the saying goes "you don't know how I've lived until you've walked in my shoes"

tringlarido

davo10 wrote: »

Why "disgusted"? If you had a commodity worth €200k plus, wouldn't you want to protect it? As the saying goes "you don't know how I've lived until you've walked in my shoes"

Right I'm gonna take a real example you can file against on RTB a case against someone who subletted you an apartment and robbed you 2000euros, and you should still suffer the consequences by being denied other tenancies. I call that disgusting.

The_Conductor

tringlarido wrote: »

Right I'm gonna take a real example you can file against on RTB a case against someone who subletted you an apartment and robbed you 2000euros, and you should still suffer the consequences by being denied other tenancies. I call that disgusting.

Subletting is normally expressly forbidden in leases- assigning leases from an original tenant to a subsequent tenant- is specifically allowed for and encouraged in the Residential Tenancies Act. If a lease is assigned from one tenant to another- the owner of the property becomes the landlord of the subsequent tenant. If there is an issue with the tenancy or the deposit- it is between the new tenant and the landlord- and the details of the tenancy are required to be registered with RTB by the landlord.

If tenant no. 1 sublets to tenant no. 2 without the specific permission of the landlord (and frankly- the landlord would be nuts to grant tenant no. 1 this right)- they are at best a licensee of tenant no. 1- they do not acquire tenancy rights- unless they are legally a tenant in the property- with the knowledge of the landlord. Any dispute between tenant no. 1 and tenant no. 2 are a civil matter between the two- and not under the remit of the RTB.

You've gone all guns blazing with the example you chose- to try and make a point- however- its so far removed from what should happen, that something strange would have had to happen for the situation to ever arise.

jamesthepeach

tringlarido wrote: »

Right I'm gonna take a real example you can file against on RTB a case against someone who subletted you an apartment and robbed you 2000euros, and you should still suffer the consequences by being denied other tenancies. I call that disgusting.

It would be better to leave your name on it so a potential landlord when they look you up can see the specifics of the case and will understand if you have been hard done by.
If landlords are just recording names off the tlrtb website before they get removed they may not be recording the detail and then when they get a hit on a name in their spreadsheet they will discriminate unfairly to protect themselves from future actions.

tringlarido

tringlarido wrote: »

I'm flabbergasted that such thing is possible, that should be confidential. Utterly disgusted.

Not only should it be possible but the RTB should have a section on their website clearly naming and shaming all tenants who caused trouble for LLs so future LLs can avoid them.

4ensic15

tringlarido wrote: »

Right I'm gonna take a real example you can file against on RTB a case against someone who subletted you an apartment and robbed you 2000euros, and you should still suffer the consequences by being denied other tenancies. I call that disgusting.

It is the same for people who take cases for unfair dismissal. Even if they win and their complaint is fully justified, they will find it very difficult to obtain employment in their field again. Why should it be different for tenants?

tringlarido

jamesthepeach wrote: »

It would be better to leave your name on it so a potential landlord when they look you up can see the specifics of the case and will understand if you have been hard done by.
If landlords are just recording names off the tlrtb website before they get removed they may not be recording the detail and then when they get a hit on a name in their spreadsheet they will discriminate unfairly to protect themselves from future actions.

Well it seems by reading the comments here that nobody will bother looking at the case details..
By the way, how can one have access to this list ? I can't find it on rtb website.

tringlarido

The_Conductor wrote: »

Subletting is normally expressly forbidden in leases- assigning leases from an original tenant to a subsequent tenant- is specifically allowed for and encouraged in the Residential Tenancies Act. If a lease is assigned from one tenant to another- the owner of the property becomes the landlord of the subsequent tenant. If there is an issue with the tenancy or the deposit- it is between the new tenant and the landlord- and the details of the tenancy are required to be registered with RTB by the landlord.

If tenant no. 1 sublets to tenant no. 2 without the specific permission of the landlord (and frankly- the landlord would be nuts to grant tenant no. 1 this right)- they are at best a licensee of tenant no. 1- they do not acquire tenancy rights- unless they are legally a tenant in the property- with the knowledge of the landlord. Any dispute between tenant no. 1 and tenant no. 2 are a civil matter between the two- and not under the remit of the RTB.

You've gone all guns blazing with the example you chose- to try and make a point- however- its so far removed from what should happen, that something strange would have had to happen for the situation to ever arise.

My bad I just checked that was through small claim court not rtb apologies for the example. Well the point remains still if LLs don't bother checking case details as posts suggest, seems rather unfair method

jamesthepeach

tringlarido wrote: »

My bad I just checked that was through small claim court not rtb apologies for the example. Well the point remains still if LLs don't bother checking case details as posts suggest, seems rather unfair method

Little choice in methods though.

Technocentral

My landlord put up the rent by 4% when my year long lease ended last week , does this mean they cant raise it again for two years? Thanks

Michael D Not Higgins

Technocentral wrote: »

My landlord put up the rent by 4% when my year long lease ended last week , does this mean they cant raise it again for two years? Thanks

When did your tenancy start? If it started a year ago he wasn't entitled to raise it until next year. Once the first review is done, all subsequent reviews can occur annually.

Technocentral

Michael D Not Higgins wrote:

When did your tenancy start? If it started a year ago he wasn't entitled to raise it until next year. Once the first review is done, all subsequent reviews can occur annually.

Thanks for your reply, It started last July, does that mean that he can't raise it next year so?

Michael D Not Higgins

Technocentral wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, It started last July, does that mean that he can't raise it next year so?

No, it means he conducted a rent review contrary to the provisions of the RTA. You could take a case with the RTB and dispute the review.

tringlarido

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Technocentral wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, It started last July, does that mean that he can't raise it next year so?

No, it means he conducted a rent review contrary to the provisions of the RTA. You could take a case with the RTB and dispute the review.

And don't forget to delete your record afterward with RTB