Landlord increased rent 50% after we moved out

redarmyblues

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Get it up to market rate asap!!

He is going to unload, looks like he it's in positive equity going by current asking prices, the tenant would be there for yonks only she complained the oil burner was ten years old and went and organised a plumber and all, he was charging a grand to swap it out plus he would have gained an almost new burner on top of the big money for an easy mornings work.

Assetbacked

Bob24 wrote: »

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.

Over off Sheriff St and a one bed is approx. €1700 for the 12 year old developments.

McHardcore

This is very simple:

OP has learnt of a crime being committed.
As an upstanding citizen, they should report it to the authorities.

Anyone else in this tread saying otherwise is either a whinging Landlord or a troll.

jimmycrackcorm

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".

It's easily bypassed. "Rent" to a friend for a month at the required rent. Register that with the RTB. Then put it back on the rental market at that rent.

The initial rental isnt challenged so it gets established with an RTB record at the market rent.

TomOnBoard

McHardcore wrote: »

This is very simple:

OP has learnt of a crime being committed.
As an upstanding citizen, they should report it to the authorities.

Anyone else in this tread saying otherwise is either a whinging Landlord or a troll.

Very difficult to have a reasoned discussion when extremist attitudes prevail... I would remind you that, if it wasn't for the existence of landlords who are making a reasonable return on THEIR investment, taking into account the sh!te they often have to put up with (thankfully from a minority of tenants), there would be NO accommodation available to rent in the private sector. Equally, if there were no tenants willing to pay market rate, landlords would have no way of renting. Bottom line, its a symbiosis- win/win being the preferred situation.

The_Conductor

Everyone- I would like to remind you that this forum is for the enjoyment of all.
Anyone who tries to lump tenants, landlords (or anyone else) into groups for the purposes of spouting vitriol- will have action taken against them.
We have also updated the charter governing posting in this forum in the last few days- I would strongly encourage everyone to familiarise themselves with the new charter (which to be perfectly honest- is very easy to read and understand).

Thankyou.

McHardcore

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Very difficult to have a reasoned discussion when extremist attitudes prevail... I would remind you that, if it wasn't for the existence of landlords who are making a reasonable return on THEIR investment, taking into account the sh!te they often have to put up with (thankfully from a minority of tenants), there would be NO accommodation available to rent in the private sector. Equally, if there were no tenants willing to pay market rate, landlords would have no way of renting. Bottom line, its a symbiosis- win/win being the preferred situation.

It is a nice landlord-tenant symbiosis world. But this is not an answer to OP's original question.

McHardcore wrote: »

This is very simple:

OP has learnt of a crime being committed.
As an upstanding citizen, they should report it to the authorities.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Everyone- I would like to remind you that this forum is for the enjoyment of all.

Thankyou.

Agreed.

SchrodingersCat

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I decided to go with the consensus (and the law) and report it. I sent the information to the RTB and the new tenants.
I guess it's up to them to decide what they want to do with the information.

McHardcore

A couple in a similar situation have their story here. https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/05/16/after-tenants-moved-on-one-apartment-saw-a-46-percent-rent-increase.

In summary, the RTB wont respond to a case by previous tenants, it would have to be taken up by the current tenants.

A spokesperson for the Department of Housing said that “the RTB do not have jurisdiction to hear a case lodged by a previous tenant in relation to the rent a new tenant is paying”.

But if it’s up to sitting tenants, they’re vulnerable, and unlikely to jeopardise getting an apartment they’re offered by challenging it themselves, says Patterson. “Once I get a place, I’m not going to start questioning.”

Fol20

Since this wasn’t an illegal eviction, I would honestly just leave it and move on. Focus on your own stuff instead of trying to complain about other people’s situations. Life is too short for this.

Chancer3001

Tell that to batman

Squatter

stevek93 wrote: »

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

Presumably you're referring to your own post.

Squatter

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I decided to go with the consensus (and the law) and report it. I sent the information to the RTB and the new tenants.
I guess it's up to them to decide what they want to do with the information.

And presumably, you being such an altruistic sort, you'll help them to find a new apartment should their landlord decide to sell up as a consequence of your squealing.

beauf

To fix this market you need over supply and/or reduced demand.

Pelvis wrote: »

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

This implies you believe all rents should be at market rate.
Rent caps put huge pressure on Landlords to raise rents to the market rate.

Which (along with increased demand) why rents are still rising.

Also we have one the highest rates of immigration. So even if housing supply matched the needs now. In a couple of months, demand would outstrip supply again. So not only does supply need to increase. It has to match immigration levels.

The other issue is the demand is not spread across the country. Its concentrated in Dublin, then other cities to a lesser extent. So if you live or want to live in the area of peak demand, you yourself are part of the problem.

Its like drivers complaining about traffic.

KevinCavan

Fair play to him, landlords have it very tough. Many of them are leaving the rental market. (Or so boardsies will tell you anyway).

Ken McCarthy

I think if this was something that happened to me I would report it but I can understand some of the advice that you have received to the contrary.

It does beg the question though as to why the PRTB can't see this for themselves when a tenancy is registered. I would have thought that the name, address, property description and rent charged are just some of the data that they capture and if the rent increases from the last time a property is rented is at a level that breaches the law or seems like a large % increase it should prompt an investigation.

I can see why landlords will try get away with it if there is little likelihood of being caught and new tenants are probably just relieved to have a place to live and don't really want to rock the boat when they first move in so they are not likely to be motivated to do anything either. If rent caps and controls are to work they need to be enforced.

TheChizler

Ken McCarthy wrote: »

It does beg the question though as to why the PRTB can't see this for themselves when a tenancy is registered. I would have thought that the name, address, property description and rent charged are just some of the data that they capture and if the rent increases from the last time a property is rented is at a level that breaches the law or seems like a large % increase it should prompt an investigation.

I'm probably wrong but I think legally it's not part of their remit to initiate their own investigations, it has to be based on a complaint by a landlord or tenant. The new legislation proposed recently would allow them to conduct their own investigation.

A bit on it here. https://www.rte.ie/amp/1011692/

Graham

KevinCavan wrote: »

Fair play to him, landlords have it very tough. Many of them are leaving the rental market. (Or so boardsies will tell you anyway).

Mod Note

KevinCavan, enough with the troll-y type posts.

alias no.9

Ken McCarthy wrote: »

I can see why landlords will try get away with it if there is little likelihood of being caught and new tenants are probably just relieved to have a place to live and don't really want to rock the boat when they first move in so they are not likely to be motivated to do anything either. If rent caps and controls are to work they need to be enforced.

The RPZ legislation is a chancers charter. It rewarded the landlords who had been taking the piss in the first place, allowing them to lock in at higher than average rents while locking landlords who hadn't been raising the rent for sitting tenants in at lower rents. Any landlord who doesn't raise the rent to the maximum permissible when reviewing it is penalised in perpetuity for that. Also, by enshrining in law where one property can be limited to a rent many hundreds of euros a month lower than an identical neighbouring property, that potential reward is almost baiting landlords to do a dodgy termination of the tenancy followed by a reletting at a rent way above the permitted increase. Good legislation would not have enshrined the price differential in the rents for the two identical properties.

The RPZ legislation did help sitting tenants who didn't have their tenancies terminated and it was possible to bring it in at the stroke of a pen which could also be considered a positive. Immediately after its introduction, there should have been replacement legislation drafted which could link rents for future tenancies to a rent index based on a price per square meter for given localities.

The information to generate these indexes exists between the RTB registrations and the mandatory BER's (floor area) along with eircodes. It should just be a case of entering an eircode into a calculator to get a permissible rent per square meter for any property.

This would see identical properties marking to the same or very similar rents in a very transparent manner when they come available, not the current opaque system where a new tenant has to take it on trust that the previous rent was what the landlord said it was or else enter an adversarial RTB adjudication process, not exactly a good way to build a strong tenant-landlord relationship.

An index based rent cap would also allow more room for tenants to sell themselves as low risk and negotiate the rent down with the landlord knowing that they can mark back to the index for a future tenancy. Even with sitting tenants who come into some short term financial challenges, the current setup allows no flexibility to reduce the rent short term without all future rents being tied to that reduced rent, it's just fücked up.

Fol20

alias no.9 wrote: »

The RPZ legislation is a chancers charter. It rewarded the landlords who had been taking the piss in the first place, allowing them to lock in at higher than average rents while locking landlords who hadn't been raising the rent for sitting tenants in at lower rents. Any landlord who doesn't raise the rent to the maximum permissible when reviewing it is penalised in perpetuity for that. Also, by enshrining in law where one property can be limited to a rent many hundreds of euros a month lower than an identical neighbouring property, that potential reward is almost baiting landlords to do a dodgy termination of the tenancy followed by a reletting at a rent way above the permitted increase. Good legislation would not have enshrined the price differential in the rents for the two identical properties.

The RPZ legislation did help sitting tenants who didn't have their tenancies terminated and it was possible to bring it in at the stroke of a pen which could also be considered a positive. Immediately after its introduction, there should have been replacement legislation drafted which could link rents for future tenancies to a rent index based on a price per square meter for given localities.

The information to generate these indexes exists between the RTB registrations and the mandatory BER's (floor area) along with eircodes. It should just be a case of entering an eircode into a calculator to get a permissible rent per square meter for any property.

This would see identical properties marking to the same or very similar rents in a very transparent manner when they come available, not the current opaque system where a new tenant has to take it on trust that the previous rent was what the landlord said it was or else enter an adversarial RTB adjudication process, not exactly a good way to build a strong tenant-landlord relationship.

An index based rent cap would also allow more room for tenants to sell themselves as low risk and negotiate the rent down with the landlord knowing that they can mark back to the index for a future tenancy. Even with sitting tenants who come into some short term financial challenges, the current setup allows no flexibility to reduce the rent short term without all future rents being tied to that reduced rent, it's just fücked up.

Or to make it simple. Bring it back to what the market will pay for it. There are numerous situations abroad of the problems of caps on rent.

The only solution to the housing crisis to to increase supply. Avery other solution is not resolving the problem and is only creating more complexity and issues for landlords and tenants alike

McHardcore

Fol20 wrote: »

Or to make it simple. Bring it back to what the market will pay for it. There are numerous situations abroad of the problems of caps on rent.

The only solution to the housing crisis to to increase supply. Avery other solution is not resolving the problem and is only creating more complexity and issues for landlords and tenants alike

The rules that are already in place are simple for landlords: they are simply being ignored.
We see from this thread that this is the case. We need to enforce what is already in place. There is no onus on the RTB to investigate illegal rent increases if they are reported by the previous tenant.

beauf

The solution is for those on below market rates to slowly (within the rules) raise them to the market rate. Then these sudden increases wouldn't happen.

Fol20

McHardcore wrote: »

The rules that are already in place are simple for landlords: they are simply being ignored.
We see from this thread that this is the case. We need to enforce what is already in place. There is no onus on the RTB to investigate illegal rent increases if they are reported by the previous tenant.

Your correct, however not all are ignoring it. Personally,it leaves ll open to massive fines and money can be recouped at the end of a tenancy if the tenant knows how to play their cards right so its not worth the extra stress imo.

beauf

In effect the landlord is being fined for not raising the rent often enough.