Landlord increased rent 50% after we moved out

SchrodingersCat

Hi!
We were renting an apartment in Dublin for nearly 4 years. At the start of the year, the landlord attempted to increase the rent by 25%. From advice here, we informed the landlord that the apartment was in a rent pressure zone. We sent them a link to the RTB rent increase calculator and asked them if they could show us how they calculated their numbers. They responded with a smaller increase (~11%), but again, we were able to show them that this was an illeagal increase. Finally, they settled on the maximum allowed (~4-5%).

Anyway, after a month, we came to the sad conclusion that we couldnt afford to live there anymore and moved out of not just the apartment, but Dublin too.

The landlord now has the apartment listed through a letting agency on Daft.ie with an asking rent increase of more than 50%. There are no changes, let alone substantial changes made to the property.

At this stage, this doesnt affect us anymore and we should just move on. However, we are still a bit miffed over this.

Is this increase allowed? If not, is there anything that we can do, such as reporting it to some authorities, even anonymously?

Thanks for your help!

satguy

Just move on.. Life is too short.

Petyr Baelish

Report it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Wait a month or so and send a letter addressed to 'The Tenants', Insert your old address here. Let them take the guy to task if they so wish.

AlmightyCushion

No, it is not allowed and you should report it.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Report it

Selik

Ring the agent and say the landlord will be reported if he doesn't lower the rent to the correct level. Also send a follow up email to the agent so there's a record. The end result will probably be a lower "official" rent !

kona

Leave him rent it out then after a month post a copy of your contract with the lower rent.
Im sure the new tenant will know what to do.

trobbin

This sounds horrible but as others have said, just move on. Sometimes you need to let things go or they eat away at you.

It's hard working people like yourself that are struggling to pay their bills I feel sorry for. While on the other hand you're being taxed to pay for the free loaders, disgusting stuff

davemie

Report it so the landlord can take it off the market and sell up leaving less houses out there to rent. It sounds like the price is far below market rates.

Pelvis

Report it. You had to move out of Dublin for this nonsense.

Move on, the LL was unfairly stuck on below market rent due to idiotic laws introduced by the government he could very well be struggling with his mortgage etc. What are you going to gain for reporting him?

The sooner rent controls are scrapped the better and it will solve all these issues around how much rent can be increased over night, increases will be capped at what people are willing to pay which is how the market should operate.

Pelvis

Melissa Large Raccoon wrote: »

Move on, the LL was unfairly stuck on below market rent due to idiotic laws introduced by the government he could very well be struggling with his mortgage etc. What are you going to gain for reporting him?

The sooner rent controls are scrapped the better and it will solve all these issues around how much rent can be increased over night, increases will be capped at what people are willing to pay which is how the market should operate.

If the landlord was struggling then why were they undercharging rent?

While RPZ's are an imperfect solution, they were brought in because the market was already ****ed. Saying all will be well with the world if we removed them is a simplistic view of things.

It may be hard to understand for someone like yourself who still lives with the parents, but rent controls are also keeping some people from being priced out of their homes due to the ****ed up rental market.

davemie

Pelvis wrote: »

If the landlord was struggling then why were they undercharging rent?

The new rules have ensured LLs will not make this mistake again. No kind deed goes unpunished.

Pelvis wrote: »

rent controls are also keeping some people from being priced out of their homes due to the ***

They have also
- put new entrants into the market at a disadvantage
- reduced mobility as tenants won't change location for fear of losing out on their lower than current market rent.
- encouraged LLs not to invest in their property as they will continue to have a tenant if the price is below market rate.
- encourage LLs to look elsewhere for better returns

stevek93

satguy wrote: »

Just move on.. Life is too short.

This is the type of nonsense views what has this country in a mess

positron

LLs are allowed to increase beyond the 4% if they have done significant refurbishment of the property. Perhaps they did that?

AlmightyCushion

positron wrote: »

LLs are allowed to increase beyond the 4% if they have done significant refurbishment of the property. Perhaps they did that?

Op says there are no changes to the property in his post.

Raucous

Report it.
Silence only enables parasites like them to flourish.

Fol20

Pelvis wrote: »

If the landlord was struggling then why were they undercharging rent?

While RPZ's are an imperfect solution, they were brought in because the market was already ****ed. Saying all will be well with the world if we removed them is a simplistic view of things.

It may be hard to understand for someone like yourself who still lives with the parents, but rent controls are also keeping some people from being priced out of their homes due to the ****ed up rental market.

This is a forum and people can say what the want on it and he is bringing up a very valid point.if you want a communist environment where they dictate everything fair enough but I much prefer the capitalist environment where you offer a service at market rate and people accept the transaction and pay for it. If the price is too high. People won’t get it. If it’s too low, too many people will want it and as a business you need to meet somewhere in the middle. How would you like it if in your PAYE job you knew you could earn 50k a year at market rate however during the bad times you took a pay cut and were on 35k and now you can only increase your salary yearly at a rate of 1500

Landlords are not a social responsibility. That is up to the government. A number of landlord went bankrupt during the bad times as the rates they were getting were not enough to cope with the mortgages. Now when it’s reversed and they have an advantage they can use it. It always goes in upswings and downswings however right now the ll is getting hammered for both.

You come across as very condescending with your last comment. As a person who has rented,am a landlord and don’t live with my parents. Everyone can have an objective opinion of what they think the situation is like and it looks like you begrudge ll when they try and earn a living off of it

Pelvis

Fol20 wrote: »

This is a forum and people can say what the want on it and he is bringing up a very valid point.if you want a communist environment where they dictate everything fair enough but I much prefer the capitalist environment where you offer a service at market rate and people accept the transaction and pay for it. If the price is too high. People won’t get it. If it’s too low, too many people will want it and as a business you need to meet somewhere in the middle. How would you like it if in your PAYE job you knew you could earn 50k a year at market rate however during the bad times you took a pay cut and were on 35k and now you can only increase your salary yearly at a rate of 1500

Landlords are not a social responsibility. That is up to the government. A number of landlord went bankrupt during the bad times as the rates they were getting were not enough to cope with the mortgages. Now when it’s reversed and they have an advantage they can use it. It always goes in upswings and downswings however right now the ll is getting hammered for both.

You come across as very condescending with your last comment. As a person who has rented,am a landlord and don’t live with my parents. Everyone can have an objective opinion of what they think the situation is like and it looks like you begrudge ll when they try and earn a living off of it

I stopped reading at communist.

Fol20

Pelvis wrote: »

I stopped reading at communist.

Your a great one for defending your cause...

The_Conductor

Guys- cop on.
Stop personalising your posts.
If you disagree with what another poster posts- dispute it factually- without attacking the poster.
No more name slinging or getting personal jibes in.

Andrew Beef

I would leave it.

The RPZ rules are very unfair; they worked fine in this instance in that they capped the OP’s rent increase.

However, it’s grossly unfair that a decent landlord who hasn’t increased the rent in line with market rates is forever wedded to that rate if a tenant leaves.

Diceicle

Report it. This kind of profiteering has to be reigned in. The government need to do some serious thinking about the non-productive sector of the economy charging crazy rents.

dudara

I would report it. There is a law, and the landlord is apparently not complying with it.

theteal

This “market rate” crap is really rubbing me up the wrong way. If you’re in the business of trying to profit from peoples fundamental need to house themselves then yes, you do have a civic/social responsibility that comes with it. These are people’s homes at the end of the day, not just a part of business. If you don’t like that, there’s much easier ways to make your money work for you. People go mad over ticket touts whereas gouging landlords are much worse imo.

Report that, OP.

Diarmuid

theteal wrote: »

This “market rate” crap is really rubbing me up the wrong way. If you’re in the business of trying to profit from peoples fundamental need to house themselves then yes, you do have a civic/social responsibility that comes with it. These are people’s homes at the end of the day, not just a part of business. If you don’t like that, there’s much easier ways to make your money work for you. People go mad over ticket touts whereas gouging landlords are much worse imo.

Report that, OP.

While I think the OP should report it, this is nonsense. People need to rent, that means we need others who are willing and able to run a business renting out houses and apartments. Statements and sentiments like the above reduce this possibility, hurting the people you claim to want to help.

Bob24

I personally don’t think RPZ rules make much sense and see them mostly as an electoral measure to have a bone to throw at renters which is hurting everyone in the long run, *but* the fact is that they are in place. I can’t understsnd why some posters here are advising the OP not to get the law enforced when someone is, quite frankly, having a laught with the rules (50% is way off what they are allowed to do by the rules).

davo10

theteal wrote: »

This “market rate” crap is really rubbing me up the wrong way. If you’re in the business of trying to profit from peoples fundamental need to house themselves then yes, you do have a civic/social responsibility that comes with it. These are people’s homes at the end of the day, not just a part of business. If you don’t like that, there’s much easier ways to make your money work for you. People go mad over ticket touts whereas gouging landlords are much worse imo.

Report that, OP.

Absolute rubbish, a property owner has no moral nor civil duty to "house" those without accomadation. Rent most certainly should be a business transaction where a service is provided and paid for. All businesses are for profit, a bank won't accept good deeds or intentions in lieu of mortgage repayments.

Eric Cartman

Pelvis wrote: »

Report it. You had to move out of Dublin for this nonsense.

they had to move out of Dublin for the 4% increase, having not found anywhere else it suggests to me that the apartment was let at way below market rate.

Leave the landlord be. You moved out within the rules, not forced out, now let the landlord afford his mortgage.

Eric Cartman

theteal wrote: »

This “market rate” crap is really rubbing me up the wrong way. If you’re in the business of trying to profit from peoples fundamental need to house themselves then yes, you do have a civic/social responsibility that comes with it. These are people’s homes at the end of the day, not just a part of business. If you don’t like that, there’s much easier ways to make your money work for you. People go mad over ticket touts whereas gouging landlords are much worse imo.

Report that, OP.

ohh go away. Its called owning property and renting it out, they're not a charity (it should be tax free if they were...)

Fol20

Bob24 wrote: »

I personally don’t think RPZ rules make much sense and see them mostly as an electoral measure to have a bone to throw at renters which is hurting everyone in the long run, *but* the fact is that they are in place. I can’t understsnd why some posters here are advising the OP not to get the law enforced when someone is, quite frankly, having a laught with the rules (50% is way off what they are allowed to do by the rules).

I think you hit it on the nail right there.

The one thing I would say as a general life practice is unless it’s directly impacting me or family and friends,I stay out of it. I don’t want to draw any extra hassle or work on my own hands as I’m busy enough as it is.
So yes. It is law and it needs to be enforced however I personally wouldn’t bother as it does nothing for me.

Bob24

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Leave the landlord be. You moved out within the rules, not forced out, now let the landlord afford his mortgage.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ohh go away. Its called owning property and renting it out, they're not a charity (it should be tax free if they were...)

Agreed with your second point. But not being a charity doesn’t mean complying with the law is optional. And if the landlord is not a charity, why do you expect their former tenant to be one and to ignore the law in order to “let the landlord afford his mortgage”.

Eric Cartman

Bob24 wrote: »

Agreed with your second point. But not being a charity doesn’t mean complying with the law is optional. And if the landlord is not a charity, why do you expect their former tenant to be one and to ignore the law in order to “let the landlord afford his mortgage”.

the tenants couldn't afford the legal 4% increase and left, that was all above board, they couldn't afford to stay inside those boundaries, now they're getting salty because the landlord has an opportunity to make market rate off tenants who can afford it who have nothing to do with the op.

Bob24

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the tenants couldn't afford the legal 4% increase and left, that was all above board, they couldn't afford to stay inside those boundaries, now they're getting salty because the landlord has an opportunity to make market rate off tenants who can afford it who have nothing to do with the op.

What you call “opportunity” here is breaking the law. I also have the “opportunity” to get a free phone if I steal it from a shop. Exactly the same reasoning.

Eric Cartman

Bob24 wrote: »

What you call “opportunity” here is breaking the law. I also have the “opportunity” to get a free phone if I steal it from a shop. Exactly the same reasoning.

increasing rent on a property you own to market rate and breaking a silly law the government invented to pretend they're fixing a problem is not the same as theft from a shop.

Bob24

Eric Cartman wrote: »

increasing rent on a property you own to market rate and breaking a silly law the government invented to pretend they're fixing a problem is not the same as theft from a shop.

You can disagree with a government policy (I happen to also disagree with that one).

But breaking the law is breaking the law. No excuse for it whatsoever regardless of which law (everyone will find excuses they see as valid to suit their own law breaking agenda).

Claw Hammer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

increasing rent on a property you own to market rate and breaking a silly law the government invented to pretend they're fixing a problem is not the same as theft from a shop.

It is theft from the new tenants.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is theft from the new tenants.

The current laws are theft from LLs.

Claw Hammer

Melissa Large Raccoon wrote: »

The current laws are theft from LLs.

Why has no landlord challenged them?

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why has no landlord challenged them?

Because it would simply be too costly for any small LLs. It is only a matter of time before a big multinational REIT with lots of money behind them challenges it though and it would be very very surprising if they didn't win.

davo10

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why has no landlord challenged them?

I suspect, because there is no need to. The vast majority of people looking to rent are willing to pay whatever it takes to secure a rental, those that are renting now know that there is always a relative who wants to move in if the LL wants them out. The op can act, but only the current tenant can complain to the RTB and they probably won't rock the boat.

Samuel T. Cogley

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why has no landlord challenged them?

It needs to get to a point where a significant enough number (to form some sort of lobby group) are forced under market rate. Once that happens it's almost certain that the law would be found unconstitutional a la Blake v. The Attorney General [1982] I.R. 117

The only thing saving the legislation IMHO is the 4% rise and that it's meant to be a time limited measure.

That and Airbnb.

Now I'm sure you'll get a more refined argument and all the reasons I'm wrong in 5...4... :pac:

4ensic15

Melissa Large Raccoon wrote: »

Because it would simply be too costly for any small LLs. It is only a matter of time before a big multinational REIT with lots of money behind them challenges it though and it would be very very surprising if they didn't win.

The REITs agreed the 4% deal with the govt. They are not going to challenge it.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

Melissa Large Raccoon wrote: »

Because it would simply be too costly for any small LLs. It is only a matter of time before a big multinational REIT with lots of money behind them challenges it though and it would be very very surprising if they didn't win.

The REITs agreed the 4% deal with the govt. They are not going to challenge it.

They did not explicitly agree to it, but as a compensation on the sweet deal they have on the (zero) taxes they pay they will probably keep quiet.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why  has no landlord challenged them?

It needs to get to a point where a significant enough number (to form some sort of lobby group) are forced under market rate. Once that happens it's almost certain that the law would be found unconstitutional a la Blake v. The Attorney General [1982] I.R. 117

The only thing saving the legislation IMHO is the 4% rise and that it's meant to be a time limited measure.

That and Airbnb.

Now I'm sure you'll get a more refined argument and all the reasons I'm wrong in 5...4... :pac:

The Blake judgment is the the starting point, but the legal cost would be astronomical for a small landlord, so unless many landlords get together to fund the challenge all the way to the Supreme Court again, nothing will happen. The only landlords that have the money for the challenge (institutional landlord) will stay put (at least in the medium term). There are also lots of problems with class actions in Ireland (in essence the legal framework in Ireland is very much against small businesses)

SchrodingersCat

Thanks for the responses folks. The majority of people here appear the beleive that we should repost the landlord for the illegal increase. Do ye know who it us supposed to be reported to?

zell12

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Thanks for the responses folks. The majority of people here appear the beleive that we should repost the landlord for the illegal increase. Do ye know who it us supposed to be reported to?

To the new tenants - give a copy of your contract.
It's been pointed out man times

RCSATELLITES

If the government is allowed to restrict landlords and the rental market as they so wish. Like the 4% per year restriction on rent increase.

I then want to see the government restrict the cost of properties and to restrict the increase in motor insurance.

Motor insurance has shot up by 70% so why has the government not restricted increases to 4% in this sector, or house prices have jumped by around 50% to 70% since the lowest point.

The government should not be restricting rents it has nothing to do with them, what they should be doing is reducing the 50% tax they charge the landlords so they don't have to charge so much to make a decent profit. Remember the developers and insurance companies charge alot to make a profit so why landlords can't. At the end of the day landlords as not a charity.

The_Conductor

In Germany you get a blanket 2% of the value of the property as an annual allowance against which no tax is due- and then you're taxed in a similar manner to here. It works (in general).

mickoneill31

What if the OP needs to move in the next year or two and needs a reference from their old landlord?
I know they can't make anything up or slander the OP. But if I was a new landlord I'd ask "Would you rent to them again?"