Getting out of the 4% increase cap

franglan

Hi All, my landlord has requested an increase to our rent. We live in South Dublin. We currently pay E1250 a month. He has said we are underpaying for market price <which is probably true> and is looking for more money. We offered him E1450 <16% increase> which he declined and said he wants nearer E1800 or and I quote "he will give it to his son or daughter". That's his out and the way to get us out essentially if we don't agree to up the rent. We have been living here 5 years, last increase was 2 years ago. Is he in his right to evict us if we don't play ball on the proviso that he gives the apartment to his son/daughter. Any advice would be most appreciated.

lcwill

Get ready to take him to the cleaners

franglan

lcwill wrote: »

Get ready to take him to the cleaners

Please explain - I've had a look on the RTB website for such a case but can't find anything.

hawkelady

lcwill wrote: »

Get ready to take him to the cleaners

Landlord is doing nothing illegal if he does as he says and let's one of his kids live in the apt after he gives proper notice to quit of course ..

lcwill

hawkelady wrote: »

lcwill wrote: »

Get ready to take him to the cleaners

Landlord is doing nothing illegal if he does as he says and let's one of his kids live in the apt after he gives proper notice to quit of course ..

I don't think there is any law against revenge evictions in Ireland (or is there?)

But I would think a demand for an illegally high rent increase, followed swiftly by an eviction notice sounds like something tenants should be protected against.

The original poster should ask for the illegal rent review in writing and some time to think about it, and start documenting the effect it has on their mental health and well-being.

If the landlord had just started off saying he wanted the property for his kids and issued the notice, then no problem. But to make it a consequence of refusing an illegally high rent increase is the kind of bs that gives all landlords a bad name.

davindub

franglan wrote: »

Please explain - I've had a look on the RTB website for such a case but can't find anything.

s.14 of the RTB act.

Also if the landlord terminates the tenancy on the foot of notice known to be false = illegal eviction.

If he has signed a statutory declaration falsely = criminal offense.

Try and record him stating this now, but either way appeal the rent review now referencing the threat. He will find it hard to convince anyone later that it was not made if he gives you notice.

You might see if FLAC or Threshold will get involved also.

dubrov

Just agree to the rent increase and appeal it afterward.

JupiterKid

Contact the RTB and challenge the landlord. This sounds like pure unadulterated greed to me. But sadly so many Irish landlords like this rack renting one give the good ones a bad name. The landlord is making threats to you to intimidate you into a rent increase. The onus is also on them to prove a family member requires the property.

If found in the wrong by the RTB, the landlord will have committed a criminal offense and will face fines or even (deservedly in my opinion) some jail time.

The housing crisis is making many landlords think that they can get away with this sort of behaviour. They can't.

Manzoor14

Sounds very similar to my situation! Same location, price, time period living there and he even mentioned something to me about moving his daughter in! Wonder if its the same guy. Here's my thread on it: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057722304

Xterminator

Hi OP

the smart tactic here is to agree to the rent increase and then appeal later, assuming you don't want to move? Ask him for it in writing then decide when to claim.

if you suspect he is bluffing, call him on it. but it may not be a bluff. If you reject his claim, and tell him its 4% max, he can move you out legally by giving it to his family member. It will be tricky at best to expose wrong doing in this scenario, if he has an ounce of sense.

any landlord trying to do something illegal, loses my respect, and as a renter you are entitled to protect yourself.

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

Contact the RTB and challenge the landlord. This sounds like pure unadulterated greed to me. But sadly so many Irish landlords like this rack renting one give the good ones a bad name. The landlord is making threats to you to intimidate you into a rent increase. The onus is also on them to prove a family member requires the property.

If found in the wrong by the RTB, the landlord will have committed a criminal offense and will face fines or even (deservedly in my opinion) some jail time.

The housing crisis is making many landlords think that they can get away with this sort of behaviour. They can't.

While due to the absolute crazy and unconstitutional rent controls what the LL is attempting to do would be considered illegal i have no idea why you think it makes him greedy or giving other LLs a bad name. The man invested in property to make money not to house people at below market rates which he is being forced to do. In reality the LL should be able to charge whatever someone will pay and maximise his profitis for his willingness to take a risk on an investment.

dudara

Do you have anything in writing from the landlord? If so, he will have shot himself in the foot.

Go to the RTB calaculator, work out the increase allowed and send it to him (via letter, email, text, or something written).

If he does claim the apartment back for his son/daughter, remind him gently that you have the right of first refusal when the property comes back on the market.

The only way he can validly increase the rent past the RPZ limits is by leaving the property vacant for 24 months or undertaking substantial improvements.

amcalester

Moses Embarrassed Meatloaf wrote: »

While due to the absolute crazy and unconstitutional rent controls what the LL is attempting to do would be considered illegal i have no idea why you think it makes him greedy or giving other LLs a bad name. The man invested in property to make money not to house people at below market rates which he is being forced to do. In reality the LL should be able to charge whatever someone will pay and maximise his profitis for his willingness to take a risk on an investment.

While I dont agree with the rent controls, nor do I think this landlord is giving others a bad name, what makes you say the rent controls are unconstitutional?

testaccount123

Moses Embarrassed Meatloaf wrote: »

While due to the absolute crazy and unconstitutional rent controls what the LL is attempting to do would be considered illegal i have no idea why you think it makes him greedy or giving other LLs a bad name. The man invested in property to make money not to house people at below market rates

Theres no reason the landlord would be stuck charging below market rates if he had simply bothered to raise the rent to market rates before rent controls came in.

But he didnt, so now he's just another cowboy looking to circumvent the law to make up for the fact that he is an incompetent that has no business offering a professional service.

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

hawkelady

rates[/QUOTE]



Theres no reason the landlord would be stuck charging below market rates if he had simply bothered to raise the rent to market rates before rent controls came in.

But he didnt, so now he's just another cowboy looking to circumvent the law to make up for the fact that he is an incompetent that has no business offering a professional service.





Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.[/quote]


Not necessarily true. You could only increase rent once a year , if he had just increased it before that crap law came in , he's stuck , plus he might have given the tenants a reasonable rate due to them being sound etc. All of a sudden it looks like this law will be here for ever.
So you saying he's a chancer etc says more about your attitude than anything

Boater123

testaccount123 wrote: »

.................
Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

check_six

dudara wrote: »

Do you have anything in writing from the landlord? If so, he will have shot himself in the foot.

Go to the RTB calaculator, work out the increase allowed and send it to him (via letter, email, text, or something written).

If he does claim the apartment back for his son/daughter, remind him gently that you have the right of first refusal when the property comes back on the market.

The only way he can validly increase the rent past the RPZ limits is by leaving the property vacant for 24 months or undertaking substantial improvements.

I was pushed out of a rental property a few weeks ago with a 'substantial refurbishment' reason being stated. I see that it has gone back on the market with a bit of a redecoration and a 40% rent increase in the advert. Is that permitted? I wasn't offered first refusal either.

DubCount

testaccount123 wrote: »

Theres no reason the landlord would be stuck charging below market rates if he had simply bothered to raise the rent to market rates before rent controls came in.

But he didnt, so now he's just another cowboy looking to circumvent the law to make up for the fact that he is an incompetent that has no business offering a professional service.

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

There is a very good reason the LL could be stuck charging below market rates. Prior to the RPZ legislation coming in, there was a restriction that rents could only be reviewed 2 years after a previous rent review. Its quite possible that the rental price was 2 years behind market rate when the RPZ legislation came in. Thats not incompetence, thats the legal framework into which RPZ legislation was injected.

You may wish this Landlord (and maybe most/all landlords) leave the market. Please remember that less landlords means more rental inflation, worse rental conditions, and more exploitation of tenants.

The law does not allow the landlord to increase the rent beyond the 4% mark. The law does however allow the landlord to evict the tenants to use the property for his children. If the landlord is genuinely going to follow through with putting his children in the property, then the OP will have a good chance of compensation from the RTB for an illegal rent review, but that may not be much comfort to them if they are left hunting for a rental property in South Dublin without a reference from their previous landlord. The Landlords actions cannot be condoned, but the tenants need to consider both their legal rights, and the practicality of the situation.

bigguns2

I am in a similar situation;

I have been approved for the HAP scheme, current rent is 1,500e, HAP will pay 1,400e. I make a weekly payment to HAP around 100euro


LL wants to increase to 1,700e, property is in the RPZ.

If I was to agree to pay the 'top up' would that void my contract with the HAP scheme?

According to the RPZ calculator, he can only increase it to 1,556e.

Good terms with the LL, no uses with home etc..

Legally can he increase the rent?

dudara

dudara wrote: »

If he does claim the apartment back for his son/daughter, remind him gently that you have the right of first refusal when the property comes back on the market.
.

Only if its back on the market within 6 months of the op moving out.

testaccount123 wrote: »

Theres no reason the landlord would be stuck charging below market rates if he had simply bothered to raise the rent to market rates before rent controls came in.

But he didnt, so now he's just another cowboy looking to circumvent the law to make up for the fact that he is an incompetent that has no business offering a professional service.

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

Except for the fact a large number of LLs were stuck in a 2 year rent review cycle when the rent controls came in and rents had increased significantly in this period of time. There were some LLs foolish enough not to keep their rent at market rate but there were many more who were unable to raise the rent due to the two year rule for rent increases.

Del2005

testaccount123 wrote: »

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

When the small landlords are all forced out and it's just a few REITs controlling all the rentals people will be looking back longing for a reasonable landlord. Don't think for 1 second that the REITs won't increase the rent by the maximum amount no matter how good a tenant you are and if you miss a payment eviction notice will be served.

lcwill

Del2005 wrote: »

testaccount123 wrote: »

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

When the small landlords are all forced out and it's just a few REITs controlling all the rentals people will be looking back longing for a reasonable landlord. Don't think for 1 second that the REITs won't increase the rent by the maximum amount no matter how good a tenant you are and if you miss a payment eviction notice will be served.

But they won't increase the rent above the maximum, and they won't kick you out to make room for their sons or daughters.

lcwill

Del2005 wrote: »

testaccount123 wrote: »

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

When the small landlords are all forced out and it's just a few REITs controlling all the rentals people will be looking back longing for a reasonable landlord. Don't think for 1 second that the REITs won't increase the rent by the maximum amount no matter how good a tenant you are and if you miss a payment eviction notice will be served.

But they won't increase the rent above the maximum, and they won't kick you out to make room for their sons or daughters.

hawkelady

lcwill wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

testaccount123 wrote: »

Honestly, who cares why this sort of landlord came into the market? The sooner they are driven out of it the better.

When the small landlords are all forced out and it's just a few REITs controlling all the rentals people will be looking back longing for a reasonable landlord. Don't think for 1 second that the REITs won't increase the rent by the maximum amount no matter how good a tenant you are and if you miss a payment eviction notice will be served.

But they won't increase the rent above the maximum, and they won't kick you out to make room for their sons or daughters.

Oh but they will kick you out so the can do a refurb !!!! These lads are the real sharks. They won't care a jot about how nice their tenants are.... no more sob stories from tenants. As another poster said, careful what you wish for. These lads have the money to go to court to evict etc

dudara

check_six wrote: »

I was pushed out of a rental property a few weeks ago with a 'substantial refurbishment' reason being stated. I see that it has gone back on the market with a bit of a redecoration and a 40% rent increase in the advert. Is that permitted? I wasn't offered first refusal either.

I'd contact the RTB immediately about that. Sounds like there were several violations there.

LuckyLloyd

Agree to the increase to 1800 in writing and pay one month’s rent before raising a dispute of illegal rent increase to the RTB. You’ll win and he’ll be forced to lower rent back with his cough sufficiently softened that he won’t risk the ‘my child needs it before putting it back on the market’ tactic.

JupiterKid

Not necessarily true. You could only increase rent once a year , if he had just increased it before that crap law came in , he's stuck , plus he might have given the tenants a reasonable rate due to them being sound etc. All of a sudden it looks like this law will be here for ever.
So you saying he's a chancer etc says more about your attitude than anything[/QUOTE]


Why is it a "crap" law? It protects tenants in high rent pressure zones like Dublin from having arbitrary and often unreasonable rent increases slapped on them and subsequently being forced out on the street.

If anything, your comments say more about you than anyone else. And frankly I'm glad I don't need to be renting from a LL with your sort of attitude.

This entire forum reeks of landlords moaning about their tax/RTB obligations and shows precisely why the housing system in this country is so utterly dysfunctional.

Many good landlords out there too but too many chancers and pure greed merchants.

dudara

bigguns2 wrote: »

I am in a similar situation;

I have been approved for the HAP scheme, current rent is 1,500e, HAP will pay 1,400e. I make a weekly payment to HAP around 100euro


LL wants to increase to 1,700e, property is in the RPZ.

If I was to agree to pay the 'top up' would that void my contract with the HAP scheme?

According to the RPZ calculator, he can only increase it to 1,556e.

Good terms with the LL, no uses with home etc..

Legally can he increase the rent?

If the calculator says €1,556, then that's the max he can increase it to (assuming you have entered all details correctly). Perhaps you can share a printout etc with him.

Graham

Mod Note folks tha ranting about the law and/or landlords is not helpful to either of the posters. Take it somewhere else.

Thanks

franglan

Thanks to all for the input. The option of agreeing to the >4% rent increase and then appealing is an interesting one. If we agree to a rent increase above the 4% would we not negate any appeals/rtb process we could start against the landlord?

amcalester

franglan wrote: »

Thanks to all for the input. The option of agreeing to the >4% rent increase and then appealing is an interesting one. If we agree to a rent increase above the 4% would we not negate any appeals/rtb process we could start against the landlord?

No, you can’t opt out of the legislation.

Just make sure you have evidence of the current rent amount, bank statements or rent book for example.

Graham

I'm not entirely sure what the benefit would be.

Are the RTB going to take that into account (if after appealing the increase) the landlord issues notice that the property is required for a family member?

davindub

franglan wrote: »

Thanks to all for the input. The option of agreeing to the >4% rent increase and then appealing is an interesting one. If we agree to a rent increase above the 4% would we not negate any appeals/rtb process we could start against the landlord?

There are certain situations (coming to the end of part 4) where that approach would be useful (short term), but as with all areas of life, you are better to retain the money rather than have a expectation of getting it back easily. It might take a few appearances in the RTB, Circuit court etc to get anything back.

I would say gather evidence that the threat has been made, once you have that ignore any discussion where you agree anything, it is up to the landlord to issue a rent review and notice, and you have the right to appeal at that stage. Its not going to be easy either way, hence the recommendation to get some support.