Disputing 4% rent increase in rent pressure zone

tomfoolery60

Just been served with notice of 4% rent increase and wondering if anyone has successfully disputed such an increase in the grounds it is above market?

We are already paying what I consider a full rent and identical unit in complex advertised for slightly cheaper rent during the summer. Most adverts in same area on Daft are at our rent and not the proposed increased amount. Also the the RTB rent index for the nearest areas with data show apartments of same size for an amount less than 4% above our rent (but a better location regards transport/amenities/town).

Hilariously they haven't registered us with the RTB but the rent increase is proper format that says we can dispute to RTB....

Not going to do anything immediately as we've three months almost but keen to hear what people have done in the past?

meijin

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

Just been served with notice of 4% rent increase and wondering if anyone has successfully disputed such an increase in the grounds it is above market?

please check out https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/during-a-tenancy/rent-reviews-in-a-rent-pressure-zone-rpz/notices-and-requirements-for-a-valid-rent-review-in-an-rpz-area/

does the notice include all the conditions mentioned?

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

Not going to do anything immediately as we've three months almost but keen to hear what people have done in the past?

"any dispute must be referred to the RTB within 28 days of getting the notice or before the date the new rent starts"

I hope it's 90, not 28 in your case...? maybe someone else could clarify

dennyk

Did they provide the three required examples of comparable properties to demonstrate that the new rent was market value? If they did and the properties are truly comparable, you might not get much traction on a dispute; market value doesn't mean the same as the lowest-priced comparable listing that can be found, it just means not greater than "a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling". If you really feel that the new rent is above market value, though, you can certainly file a dispute; just be prepared for the possibility that the landlord will find or make up a reason to boot you so they can relist the place for a higher rent, if they're one of those sorts of chancers.

If you currently have a good relationship with the landlord, you might want to try negotiation rather than jumping straight to a dispute, as well; share that same information with them and counter with an increase you think is fair and see what they say. Could be they'd be willing to compromise if they value your tenancy (though the RPZ rules do basically incentivise always raising the rent by the maximum allowed, so myabe not...). You can always refer it to the PRTB afterwards if they won't budge, though.

Fol20

dennyk wrote: »

Did they provide the three required examples of comparable properties to demonstrate that the new rent was market value? If they did and the properties are truly comparable, you might not get much traction on a dispute; market value doesn't mean the same as the lowest-priced comparable listing that can be found, it just means not greater than "a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling". If you really feel that the new rent is above market value, though, you can certainly file a dispute; just be prepared for the possibility that the landlord will find or make up a reason to boot you so they can relist the place for a higher rent, if they're one of those sorts of chancers.

If you currently have a good relationship with the landlord, you might want to try negotiation rather than jumping straight to a dispute, as well; share that same information with them and counter with an increase you think is fair and see what they say. Could be they'd be willing to compromise if they value your tenancy (though the RPZ rules do basically incentivise always raising the rent by the maximum allowed, so myabe not...). You can always refer it to the PRTB afterwards if they won't budge, though.

I thought with the rpz rule. You don’t need to provide 3 examples and can just go with a max of 4pc.

porsche boy

Thread very carefully. 4% rent increase is allowed if you have been tennant for 12 months.

A family member had a situation last year where landlord advised her of €100 per month increase (equivalent to approx 12% increase). When we pointed out the rent pressure zone etc. he handed over property to a management company who evicted her on the basis landlord was selling up. 3 months later property was rented out again for what he wanted origionally. PTRB couldnt do much about it & lady in her 60's was homeless for 6 months.

Landlords will usually get what they want, if not from you then it will be somebody else.

dennyk

Fol20 wrote: »

I thought with the rpz rule. You don’t need to provide 3 examples and can just go with a max of 4pc.

No, the rent must still be in line with market rent and the three comparables are still required; the rent increase is just limited to no more than 4% per year even if the "market rent" is higher than that amount.

BrokenArrows

porsche boy wrote: »

Thread very carefully. 4% rent increase is allowed if you have been tennant for 12 months.

A family member had a situation last year where landlord advised her of €100 per month increase (equivalent to approx 12% increase). When we pointed out the rent pressure zone etc. he handed over property to a management company who evicted her on the basis landlord was selling up. 3 months later property was rented out again for what he wanted origionally. PTRB couldnt do much about it & lady in her 60's was homeless for 6 months.

Landlords will usually get what they want, if not from you then it will be somebody else.

That doesnt sound right as what you describe is illegal and PTRB should have been able to act.

D3V!L

How often can the 4% increase be applied ?

Del2005

D3V!L wrote: »

How often can the 4% increase be applied ?

Every 2 years, so 4% for year 1 and a further 4% the 2nd year.

D3V!L

Del2005 wrote: »

Every 2 years, so 4% for year 1 and a further 4% the 2nd year.

Wouldn't it be 4% for the 3rd year then ?

Baby01032012

For first review since law came in 2016 it has to be 2 years since last review / tenancy start date. Then 4 percent every 12 months thereafter.

dennyk

BrokenArrows wrote: »

That doesnt sound right as what you describe is illegal and PTRB should have been able to act.

PTRB couldn't have done anything about the initial termination since there was no evidence the notice was invalid at that time. They should have been able to issue a hefty award of damages to the tenant or require the landlord to re-let to the tenant if it was later found the landlord was acting in bad faith and had no intention to sell, though. (That's assuming the place didn't actually sell and it wasn't the new owner listing it, of course; in that case the termination would be valid and the old tenant would have no recourse, though the new tenant could probably dispute the rent amount if they learned how much the old tenant had been paying previously and it amounted to an illegal increase under the RPZ restrictions...).

Del2005

D3V!L wrote: »

Wouldn't it be 4% for the 3rd year then ?

We don't know what legislation will be in place by then. The RPZ expires after 3 years and we're nearly 2 years in for most

4ensic15

Fol20 wrote: »

I thought with the rpz rule. You don’t need to provide 3 examples and can just go with a max of 4pc.

The RPZ limit just sets a limit, and is in addition to the other requirements for a rent increase.

porsche boy

BrokenArrows wrote:

That doesnt sound right as what you describe is illegal and PTRB should have been able to act.

It is illegal, PTRB sent him a strongly worded letter. Made no difference, he maintained he intended to sell the property but he wasnt offered what he wanted so he re-let the apartment. Thats the loophole that landlords are using.

meijin

porsche boy wrote: »

It is illegal, PTRB sent him a strongly worded letter. Made no difference, he maintained he intended to sell the property but he wasnt offered what he wanted so he re-let the apartment. Thats the loophole that landlords are using.

Did she file a dispute with RTB? Did she appeal to RTB Tribunal?

Cuddlesworth

porsche boy wrote: »

It is illegal, PTRB sent him a strongly worded letter. Made no difference, he maintained he intended to sell the property but he wasnt offered what he wanted so he re-let the apartment. Thats the loophole that landlords are using.

That makes no sense.

She could have easily gone to the RTB and gave evidence of the proposed rent increase(above market rates) and that she believed the house was not sold and the clause was used to illegally evict her.

It would have been up to the landlord to prove otherwise.

shivermetimber

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

That makes no sense.

She could have easily gone to the RTB and gave evidence of the proposed rent increase(above market rates) and that she believed the house was not sold and the clause was used to illegally evict her.

It would have been up to the landlord to prove otherwise.

The problem with the system however seems to be that once you are done as a tenant you can no longer make a complaint against former landlords. Only current tenants can, hence the kick ya out cos of X reason ( I need it, son needs it, I'm doing major structural work and then just change carpets) and then re-let loophole that a lot resort to.

BrokenArrows

porsche boy wrote: »

It is illegal, PTRB sent him a strongly worded letter. Made no difference, he maintained he intended to sell the property but he wasnt offered what he wanted so he re-let the apartment. Thats the loophole that landlords are using.

But they need to legally offer the apartment back to the person who originally rented it first for the same rent.

tomfoolery60

BrokenArrows wrote: »

But they need to legally offer the apartment back to the person who originally rented it first for the same rent.

Thanks for the responses so far. The issue this this is where do the evicted tenants live in the meantime?!

Cuddlesworth

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses so far. The issue this this is where do the evicted tenants live in the meantime?!

They find another place and in most cases if they were offered the place back, they would not accept it due to new commitments. But the shady landlords never offer it back, at the rent that was being paid.

And you don't lodge a complaint about rent increases, you lodge a case about a illegal eviction. Non RPZ compliant rent increases can be mentioned as contributing factors in the eviction.

BrokenArrows

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses so far. The issue this this is where do the evicted tenants live in the meantime?!

Well if the landlord is playing by the rules then that's not really their problem.

However if the landlord is found to have broken the rules then they can be taken to the cleaners.

4ensic15

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Well if the landlord is playing by the rules then that's not really their problem.

However if the landlord is found to have broken the rules then they can be taken to the cleaners.

How many landlords have been taken to the cleaners? The only landlords who have been taken to the cleaners are the ones who didn't charge market rent and failed to collect the rent.

porsche boy

BrokenArrows wrote:

But they need to legally offer the apartment back to the person who originally rented it first for the same rent.

That didnt happen. Family member couldnt find anything in tge same pruce range so she ended up on our couch for 6 months until something suitable came along.
My point is that if a landlord wants a rent increase he will get it, one way or another. My opinion on the RTB is they are a toothless tiger. Big roar, no bite.

BrokenArrows

porsche boy wrote: »

That didnt happen. Family member couldnt find anything in tge same pruce range so she ended up on our couch for 6 months until something suitable came along.
My point is that if a landlord wants a rent increase he will get it, one way or another. My opinion on the RTB is they are a toothless tiger. Big roar, no bite.

Well that either means they didnt raise the correct complaint against the landlord or they made a mistake.
Either way you might be able to get them to appeal the result.