Landlord increased rent 50% after we moved out

ted1

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

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!

During the 4 years how often did they increase it? If they hadn’t increased it in 3 years then 11% may have being right

ted1

Wailin wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Jaysus another vindictive type

No but I do wonder how someone can charge another person €1500 p/m for a one bed apartment in Dublin city.

Supply and demand
High taxes on rental income
Inability to evict non paying tenants.
In ability to reclaim money from damages by bad tenants
The two above means that the landlord has to charge high to protect himself

steddyeddy

davo10 wrote: »

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.

I agree completely. Landlords have no obligation to provide housing at a loss. Likewise doctors have no obligation to provide healthcare at a loss and lastly teachers do not have to provide education at a loss. All of the above are business transactions.

However housing, like healthcare or education is a social issue and the government have to provide legislation that reflects that. There currently is a housing crisis in the country and the legislation has to reflect that.

Claw Hammer

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree completely. Landlords have no obligation to provide housing at a loss. Likewise doctors have no obligation to provide healthcare at a loss and lastly teachers do not have to provide education at a loss. All of the above are business transactions.

However housing, like healthcare or education is a social issue and the government have to provide legislation that reflects that. There currently is a housing crisis in the country and the legislation has to reflect that.

The legislation governing private rentals in this country is based on the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector, which was commissioned during the time of the Celtic Tiger when money features of the current housing rental market were utterly unknown. The issue of receivers and banks repossessing landlords simply did not figure. The current legislation is a mishmash of attempts to patch the system up. The legislation is completely unfit for purpose drawing more and more amendments is creating a Kafkaesque nightmare for many landlords and tenants.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The legislation governing private rentals in this country is based on the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector, which was commissioned during the time of the Celtic Tiger when money features of the current housing rental market were utterly unknown. The issue of receivers and banks repossessing landlords simply did not figure. The current legislation is a mishmash of attempts to patch the system up. The legislation is completely unfit for purpose drawing more and more amendments is creating a Kafkaesque nightmare for many landlords and tenants.

And I agree, but the fact is some legislation is needed. Housing like healthcare or education can't be left exclusively to market forces in a civilised society. I was just pointing it out that contrary to belief renting will have to account for need as well as demand.

Claw Hammer

steddyeddy wrote: »

And I agree, but the fact is some legislation is needed. Housing like healthcare or education can't be left exclusively to market forces in a civilised society. I was just pointing it out that contrary to belief renting will have to account for need as well as demand.

If there is legislation, it should be fit for purpose.

steddyeddy

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If there is legislation, it should be fit for purpose.

And I agree. That's not what I was saying though. I'm saying that the landlord may not have a social responsibility, but the government does and the government have to ensure that the landlord responds to need as well as demand.

The_Conductor

steddyeddy wrote: »

And I agree. That's not what I was saying though. I'm saying that the landlord may not have a social responsibility, but the government does and the government have to ensure that the landlord responds to need as well as demand.

Landlords are actively leaving the sector at a time that demand for rental property has never been higher. Does not compute. The only increases in landlord categories- are housing associations and REITs. Everyone who wanted 'professional landlords' is getting exactly what they wanted- only they're finding the grass isn't any greener on the other side...........

Legislation has to be fit for purpose.
The current legislative and regulatory environment is skewed so far- that its entirely counter productive.

Letting property is a valid and viable business model in pretty much any OECD country. In Ireland- its no longer viable.

We're going to see a lot more Carrickmines/Sandyford type developments- hundreds or thousands of identical apartment units- rented for top dollar- with no owner-occupiers whatsoever. This is where the market is going- its the direction that the current legislation has steered property in Ireland into........... Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it............

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

Landlords are actively leaving the sector at a time that demand for rental property has never been higher. Does not compute. The only increases in landlord categories- are housing associations and REITs. Everyone who wanted 'professional landlords' is getting exactly what they wanted- only they're finding the grass isn't any greener on the other side...........

I have a suspicion that the reason it is preferred is that it becomes acceptable for a business to accept the losses if a tenant overholds. Not the same as someone who has to rent out their place out of necessity when they have to cover the mortgage on it and have no capacity to write off those losses.

rossmores

I have a house ready to go back to the rental market after substantial refit, threat of indefinite tenancies provides a risk if I wish to sell or require the property for family both options are soon to be outlawed by communist agendas pursued by populist politicians
My options are short lettings, company letting or just sell up while I have vacant procession
Highest risk would be to a family thanks to government policy

davo10

Sell > corporate let > Airbnb >>>>>> long term let.

Bushmanpm

steddyeddy wrote:

However housing, like healthcare or education is a social issue and the government have to provide legislation that reflects that. There currently is a housing crisis in the country and the legislation has to reflect that.

If housing, like healthcare and education, is a social issue surely its the responsibility of the government to provide adequate availability. If the government fails in their obligation (in someone's own personal opinion) the private sector provides an alternative, be it housing, education or healthcare, for that dissatisfied someone to avail themselves of the private services.
It would seem the government are actively discouraging private landlords in preference to REITs and yet the government don't have issues with private healthcare or education? Because they are big businesses compared to a small landlord with only one or two properties? Its easier to pick on the small landlord than the big companies as the government knows they don't have the financial muscle to fight.back. Its the old diversion tactic "Oh look, a squirrel" drawing attention away from the governments own colossal mishandling of the housing crisis.
Add to that tenants bemoaning "parasitic landlords" who, more and more are selling up and the REITs get bigger and bigger.
As previously said "careful what you wish for"

ckblackrock

Bushmanpm wrote: »

If housing, like healthcare and education, is a social issue surely its the responsibility of the government to provide adequate availability. If the government fails in their obligation (in someone's own personal opinion) the private sector provides an alternative, be it housing, education or healthcare, for that dissatisfied someone to avail themselves of the private services.
It would seem the government are actively discouraging private landlords in preference to REITs and yet the government don't have issues with private healthcare or education? Because they are big businesses compared to a small landlord with only one or two properties? Its easier to pick on the small landlord than the big companies as the government knows they don't have the financial muscle to fight.back. Its the old diversion tactic "Oh look, a squirrel" drawing attention away from the governments own colossal mishandling of the housing crisis.
Add to that tenants bemoaning "parasitic landlords" who, more and more are selling up and the REITs get bigger and bigger.
As previously said "careful what you wish for"

I have heard that rents for a 1 bedroom apt in a new Reit owned block in the docklands are €1,800 p.m. So how is this not being challenged by the govt? do-gooders? anti-landlord groupies? If a private landlord buys and then lets a property it is my understanding that the rent (although property is new to the market) has to be set in conformity with the "going rent" in the area, you can't just pick a number out of the ether. So how can a 1 bedroom apt be renting for €1,800 if this is the case?

Bob24

ckblackrock wrote: »

I have heard that rents for a 1 bedroom apt in a new Reit owned block in the docklands are €1,800 p.m. So how is this not being challenged by the govt? do-gooders? anti-landlord groupies? If a private landlord buys and then lets a property it is my understanding that the rent (although property is new to the market) has to be set in conformity with the "going rent" in the area, you can't just pick a number out of the ether. So how can a 1 bedroom apt be renting for €1,800 if this is the case?

Which development is it in? Tbh I would have expected higher rents for new builds at least in GCD (maybe different for the north Docklands, but still a place like Spencer Dock is quite expensive as well).

1800 is probably less than the going rents for a 1 bed in the 12 years old developments around the grand canal square (developments such as Longboat Quay, Hannover Quay, Forbes Quay, Gallery Quay).

ckblackrock

Bob24 wrote: »

Which development is it in? Tbh I would have expected higher rents for new builds at least in GCD (maybe different for the north Docklands, but still a place like Spencer Dock is quite expensive as well).

1800 is probably less than the going rents for a 1 bed in the 12 years old developments around the grand canal square (developments such as Longboat Quay, Hannover Quay, Forbes Quay, Gallery Quay).

I can't remember when exactly the 4% ceiling was introduced, but two years ago 1 bedders in Docklands were renting for around 1,200 - 1,300 (less for some smaller apts) - so 1,800 is a whopping 50% percentage increase over 2 years.

ckblackrock

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

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!

Why are you miffed? you couldn't afford the reasonable - if begrudgingly conceded - 4.5% increase even though it was obviously well below the going rate, so you moved out. I don't get it. And if you do want to complain, why anonymously?

Bob24

ckblackrock wrote: »

I can't remember when exactly the 4% ceiling was introduced, but two years ago 1 bedders in Docklands were renting for around 1,200 - 1,300 (less for some smaller apts) - so 1,800 is a whopping 50% percentage increase over 2 years.

Again which development or area of the Docklands is the new build in and what is the standard of the apartment? (you have to compare like for like and while they’re both texhnically in the Docklands you can’t expect a high standard new built on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay to rent for the the same price as a 20 years old mid standard apartment at the back of Sheriff Street - it will be almost double the price).

The ones I mentioned passed the 1200 euros mark in 2012-2013 (I’ve been living in that area since 2010 and at the very bottom of the crash they were going for around 800-900 and have definitly more than doubled since then).

On top of that the 4% rule doesn’t apply consistently to every single property every year. A lot of what’s coming into the market is not subject to it (for exemple if it was previously owner occupied, if it got renovated, of it it wasn’t under a regular leasing agreement).

Have a look at daft and filter for 1 beds in Grand Canal Docks and you’ll be surprised by the prices.

jimmycrackcorm

ckblackrock wrote:

it is my understanding that the rent (although property is new to the market) has to be set in conformity with the "going rent" in the area, you can't just pick a number out of the ether. So how can a 1 bedroom apt be renting for €1,800 if this is the case?

AFAIK, the going rent only applies to rent increases and has been overtaken in RPZ by the 4pc rule.

It would be illegal for the government to start to dictate maximum pricing for brand new lets.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

AFAIK, the going rent only applies to rent increases and has been overtaken in RPZ by the 4pc rule.

It would be illegal for the government to start to dictate maximum pricing for brand new lets.

You are correct, in a new let the LL can ask as much as he wants there is no rules stopping it (and rightly so).

Claw Hammer

Melissa Large Raccoon wrote: »

You are correct, in a new let the LL can ask as much as he wants there is no rules stopping it (and rightly so).

A Landlord cannot ask as much as he wants in a new letting. Under Section 19 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act a Landlord is prohibited from setting the rent for a residential dwelling at a rate above "market rent".

Squatter

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A Landlord can ask as much as he wants in a new letting.

Under Section 19 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act a Landlord is prohibited from setting the rent for a residential dwelling at a rate above "market rent".

Are those two sentences not contradictory?

Claw Hammer

Squatter wrote: »

Are those two sentences not contradictory?

Yes, I meant to say the Landlord cannot charge whatever round he likes in a new letting.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A Landlord cannot ask as much as he wants in a new letting. Under Section 19 (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act a Landlord is prohibited from setting the rent for a residential dwelling at a rate above "market rent".

Of course he can ask what he wants, this is what sets the market rent - what people are willing to pay.

So if someone will pay the rent he asks then that's the market rate. How else would the market rate get set???

rawn

Fletcher Mushy Sleuth wrote:

So if someone will pay the rent he asks then that's the market rate. How else would the market rate get set???

Doesn't he have to prove there are 3 similar houses in the area at the same price he wants to charge?

Claw Hammer

Melissa Large Raccoon wrote: »

Of course he can ask what he wants, this is what sets the market rent - what people are willing to pay.

So if someone will pay the rent he asks then that's the market rate. How else would the market rate get set???

That is not what the law says. If the tenant is not happy with the level of rent, he can complain to the RTB.

Claw Hammer

rawn wrote: »

Doesn't he have to prove there are 3 similar houses in the area at the same price he wants to charge?

Only on an increase in rent.

redarmyblues

I have a friend who bought a house to live in peak Tiger in a Dublin commuter town, he lost his job and moved home to his parents and luckily got a job, he let out the house for 600pm and paid the rent and another 600pm from his wages against the mortgage, he has never put the rent up although similar houses in the town are renting for 1000pm ATM, what would you do in his situation.

TomOnBoard

redarmyblues wrote: »

I have a friend who bought a house to live in peak Tiger in a Dublin commuter town, he lost his job and moved home to his parents and luckily got a job, he let out the house for 600pm and paid the rent and another 600pm from his wages against the mortgage, he has never put the rent up although similar houses in the town are renting for 1000pm ATM, what would you do in his situation.

Get it up to market rate asap!!

Claw Hammer

It's bad enough to have bought at the tail end of the Tiger, but not to clawbacks row now by getting market rent is lunacy.

zetalambda

Look on the bright side OP. You no longer live in Dublin. Every cloud has a silver lining!