Landlord increased rent 50% after we moved out

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?"

dudara

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?

Report to the RTB. Provide evidence of your old rent, when you moved out & evidence of the new rent being asked.

The_Conductor

I'm curious here- is it the OP who has a case to lodge with the RTB- or the new tenant?
In my mind- its the new tenant who has a case- not the OP.
The OP legitimately queried the raise the landlord sought, twice, and eventually settled on a legal increase- and it would have remained as such- except the OP decided they couldn't afford the legal increase- and left Dublin altogether.

Aka- the new rent sought- if paid by a tenant- is illegal- for the new tenant- and the new tenant could legitimately challenge the rent charged.

The OP in this thread- vacated the property of their own volition- and is not affected by the current rent sought for the property- aka- the person loosing out- is a new tenant- and not the OP.........?

As the rent now sought is illegal- if the OP takes a case- the usual remedy is the landlord is forced to offer the property back to the OP at the legal rent they were paying- but they've already left. The landlord may also get a fine (which if they dispute it- could go down the selfsame road as tenants do- dragging it out for literally years).

Does the OP want to move back into the property at the rent they were paying?
What exactly are they looking for?
The OP is not the injured party here- any incoming tenant is.

JaMarcus

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?

Take screenshots of the new listing with the new rent, and download an offline copy of the page on DAFT if you can.

Report it to the RTB, and provide them with (i) copy of your old lease stating what your rent was (or if you have it in writing, the communication where you agreed to the 4% increase when he raised the rent) and (ii) the screenshots of the new listing.

They'll take it from there.

The_Conductor

What does the OP want here though- the property back at their agreed rent? This is the path the RTB will go.

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

What does the OP want here though- the property back at their agreed rent? This is the path the RTB will go.

No, the OP is of the envious and vindictive type. He/she will probably gain absolutely nothing.

The_Conductor

GGTrek wrote: »

No, the OP is of the envious and vindictive type. He/she will probably gain absolutely nothing.

Sigh.........
If he really wants to create trouble- the way to go about it- is to bring the attention of a new tenant to the previous rent.
He has no case to bring to the RTB himself- as he voluntarily terminated a legal tenancy (even if it had a few roadbumps before he gave it up).

Life is short.

AlmightyCushion

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm curious here- is it the OP who has a case to lodge with the RTB- or the new tenant?
In my mind- its the new tenant who has a case- not the OP.
The OP legitimately queried the raise the landlord sought, twice, and eventually settled on a legal increase- and it would have remained as such- except the OP decided they couldn't afford the legal increase- and left Dublin altogether.

Aka- the new rent sought- if paid by a tenant- is illegal- for the new tenant- and the new tenant could legitimately challenge the rent charged.

The OP in this thread- vacated the property of their own volition- and is not affected by the current rent sought for the property- aka- the person loosing out- is a new tenant- and not the OP.........?

As the rent now sought is illegal- if the OP takes a case- the usual remedy is the landlord is forced to offer the property back to the OP at the legal rent they were paying- but they've already left. The landlord may also get a fine (which if they dispute it- could go down the selfsame road as tenants do- dragging it out for literally years).

Does the OP want to move back into the property at the rent they were paying?
What exactly are they looking for?
The OP is not the injured party here- any incoming tenant is.

What is wrong wanting to report an illegal activity. If you know someone breaking the law, you can report it to the gardai for them to investigate. If you know someone evading taxes you can report them to revenue for them to investigate. If you know someone claiming social welfare that they are not entitled to then you can report them to the department of social protection for them to investigate. There is a body for reporting insurance fraud to. Why should it be any different with an illegal rent increase?

Andrew Beef

It’s an illegal activity but the law is an ass in this instance.

Restricting rent increases for existing tenants such as the OP makes sense.

However, the rent for the new tenant should be at the market rate.

This law is so ridiculous that if the OP leaves and the owner sells the property to a new owner, that new owner is stuck with the below market rent for his/her new tenant.

Good landlords who didn’t chase rent increases were effectively punished.

The_Conductor

The illegal rent increase- is a matter for the new tenant- not the old one- that is what I was arguing.
The OP bringing a case- is simply sour grapes- and is he willing to fight a battle in which he has no pound of flesh- if the landlord decides to fight the case?
The new tenant- has a vested interest in the case and the outcome- the old tenant- is just being spiteful.

As for the various bodies you've listed- and suggested they are the competent authorities for reporting fraud or other illegal activities to- I'm not sure if you've actually tried to report a case to any of them- I have (social welfare, revenue- and that shower who investigate insurance fraud on Molesworth Street). With the exception of the insurance fraud people- I gave up- the hoops they made me jump through- weren't worth the trouble. Its the same with the Taxi Regulator, Comreg and other bodies- they make it so onerous to actually report anything- unless you have a vested interest in the case- its quite incredible. Comreg allegedly investigated a case for me (I say alleged- I never heard the outcome- and I certainly didn't get my money back from Eircom).

The OP has no vested interest here- any new tenant does.

AlmightyCushion

The_Conductor wrote: »

The illegal rent increase- is a matter for the new tenant- not the old one- that is what I was arguing.
The OP bringing a case- is simply sour grapes- and is he willing to fight a battle in which he has no pound of flesh- if the landlord decides to fight the case?
The new tenant- has a vested interest in the case and the outcome- the old tenant- is just being spiteful.

It's not a matter for the new tenant, it's a matter for us all. The law was brought in to curb the huge rent increases we've seen over the last few years. If people don't report it and landlords don't face sanctions for it then many landlords will illegally increase rents affecting all tenants and putting landlords who obey the law at a financial disadvantage. We all have a vested interest here apart from landlords who are happy to break the law and don't want to be punished for doing it.

As for the various bodies you've listed- and suggested they are the competent authorities for reporting fraud or other illegal activities to- I'm not sure if you've actually tried to report a case to any of them- I have (social welfare, revenue- and that shower who investigate insurance fraud on Molesworth Street). With the exception of the insurance fraud people- I gave up- the hoops they made me jump through- weren't worth the trouble. Its the same with the Taxi Regulator, Comreg and other bodies- they make it so onerous to actually report anything- unless you have a vested interest in the case- its quite incredible. Comreg allegedly investigated a case for me (I say alleged- I never heard the outcome- and I certainly didn't get my money back from Eircom).

The OP has no vested interest here- any new tenant does.

You can argue that they don't handle issues reported to them well but you can still report it. Why are you happy to report insurance fraud but not illegal rent increases?