Ex Landlord charging new tenant more than 4% extra rent pressure zone.

my3cents

How else is the law going to be implemented if no one speaks out when this sort of thing happens?

The only worry I'd have is that the Landlord may chuck out the new tenants so he can make a substantial change before renting out again. With that in mind I'd make sure that nothing was done until the new tenants had part 4 rights.

Kaleb2015

Garibaldi? wrote: »

I do not know where the property was but the rent you were paying seems to have been very reasonable indeed in today's market. I would just move on at this point and be happy to have had a low rent for as long as you did. It does not appear that the property owner has harmed you in any way. Another property owner might be very wary of doing business with someone who keeps tabs on another person like that.

He turned around and evicted us with a newborn and told us that the property was for family use. Why would I let him con the next tenant when I’m the only one that can tell them what we where paying?

Kaleb2015

my3cents wrote: »

How else is the law going to be implemented if no one speaks out when this sort of thing happens?

The only worry I'd have is that the Landlord may chuck out the new tenants so he can make a substantial change before renting out again. With that in mind I'd make sure that nothing was done until the new tenants had part 4 rights.

I plan on telling them to sit on it for 6 months and then it’s in their hands if they follow up. I personally wouldn’t like paying out almost 4,500 extra a year.

Garibaldi?

If what you said is correct, and the Part 4 tenancy was ending, that did not constitute an eviction. The property owner probably found it very difficult to tell you that the lease would not be renewed.No one likes delivering bad news. He/she made it easier on themseles by making the excuse of a family member moving in.In reality, no explanation was required. The property owner may have found it impossible to continue letting out a house for this very low rent. I would move on at this point.

Kaleb2015

ted1 wrote: »

That’s not true. From their own website things like:
Attic insulation , cavity wall it dry lining , external wall insulation, replacement boiler, replacement pipe work and radiators, replacement cylinder, replacement doors and windows will allow for exemptions in RPZ. None of which require planning

I think Attic insulation , cavity wall dry lining , external wall insulation, replacement boiler, replacement pipe work and radiators, replacement cylinder, replacement doors and windows would count as substantial work. He didn’t do any of that.

dashoonage

**** me lads im glad i aint a landlord anymore.

Mike3549

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He turned around and evicted us with a newborn and told us that the property was for family use. Why would I let him con the next tenant when I’m the only one that can tell them what we where paying?

You said your 4 year part 4 tenancy ended. Thats not eviction

overkill602

"ar it is these days"

tvjunki

The landlord just has to give you notice he is not continuing to a further part 4. For all you know he could have insulated to walls to improve the ber, change boiler, put in attic insulation.
The improvements would come under any work that would improve to footage of the house or energy efficency. You may not be able to see the improvements when it was painted or new floors put down.

How do you know that that tenant might only want a 6months lease and not a yearly lease and expect to pay more? Dont mess things up for them.

Dont forget you need this landlord as a reference in the future so being nasty may not go in your favour.

tvjunki

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He turned around and evicted us with a newborn and told us that the property was for family use. Why would I let him con the next tenant when I’m the only one that can tell them what we where paying?

You said the part 4 was coming to an end.
A landlord can say they will not be allowing a further part 4 with no reasons. I dont think you were evicted.

Bigmac1euro

dashoonage wrote: »

**** me lads im glad i aint a landlord anymore.

I’m glad your not as well!
Imagine throwing a family with a newborn out and illegally increasing the rent for the next suckers.

Good on you OP doing the right thing. Inform the new tenants. The 26k you mention in an earlier post would probably get the new tenants a mortgage and set them up for life.

Garibaldi?

If I were you OP I would devote all my energy towards getting the best possible accommodation for myself and for my young family. By all accounts it's a shark's market out there. I don't think your former landlord was one of them. If he had been he could have terminated your highly favourable conditions on one of the legal pretexts and then backtracked. I would not approach future tenants of this person. This would be highly inappropriate, embarrassing and would possibly compromise them.

Kaleb2015

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If I were you OP I would devote all my energy towards getting the best possible accommodation for myself and for my young family. By all accounts it's a shark's market out there. I don't think your former landlord was one of them. If he had been he could have terminated your highly favourable conditions on one of the legal pretexts and then backtracked. I would not approach future tenants of this person. This would be highly inappropriate, embarrassing and would possibly compromise them.

I think it’s a sharks market because people seem to keep quiet. If it’s not enforced that he only put the rent up by 4% and he doesn’t disclose it, how then are people to know unless the previous tenant informs them? Things are just going to keep getting worse for people if the ones being screwed over don’t open their mouths. Like after a part 4 with an increase every 2 years by the time that ends they are paying €1,520 when it could have been €1,112. This only drives the market up and makes it harder for families to live.

pablopicasso1

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He ended it because it came to the end of our part four tenancy but just put on the notice that he was entitled to end it and nothing else explaining why. It was in person that he said he needed it for family use. I don't really want a comeback or anything, its more so i dont want to see him rip off anyone else. I know the most he can charge this new tenant is €988.

This exact same scenario happened me. Contacted threshold who told me to save screen prints of the rental ad and send it to the prtb immediately. They actually advised that I send a letter to the replacement tenant at the address advising them of the amount of rent you were paying and letting them know their rights.

The replacement tenant is entitled to any excess rent returned to him and you are entitled to any excess rent above what you were paying at the address for a certain period.

The prtb will definitely take this case if you have the ads as evidence. Please please please take the case to the prtb! I accidentally deleted the screenshots and it all came to nothing

Garibaldi?

If that landlord is increasing the rent excessively the PRTB will put a stop to it. They have the records. Surely it would be regarded as intrusive to approach people, perfect strangers, with regard to their private, legitimate business.

my3cents

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If that landlord is increasing the rent excessively the PRTB will put a stop to it. They have the records. Surely it would be regarded as intrusive to approach people, perfect strangers, with regard to their private, legitimate business.

Do you honestly believe that :eek:

"legitimate business" - breaking the law?

Personally I'd pass all the information direct to the PRTB rather than the current tenants then the landlord can't blame the current tenants.

TheChizler

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If that landlord is increasing the rent excessively the PRTB will put a stop to it. They have the records. Surely it would be regarded as intrusive to approach people, perfect strangers, with regard to their private, legitimate business.

The RTB have no remit to initiate investigations themselves, they can only act based on complaints. Though they were trying to get the law on that changed recently.

Kaleb2015

TheChizler wrote: »

The RTB have no remit to initiate investigations themselves, they can only act based on complaints. Though they were trying to get the law on that changed recently.

I agree with that. The rtb said that the only way they will pursue it is if the current tenant files a complaint. If I don’t say anything then the new tenant will never know and the landlord will get away with it.

my3cents

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I agree with that. The rtb said that the only way they will pursue it is if the current tenant files a complaint. If I don’t say anything then the new tenant will never know and the landlord will get away with it.

Fair enough I thought they might have been able to act on your report.

Kaleb2015

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I don’t think it’s very fair what is about to be done on this new tenant. I just don’t like knowing that the new tenant is going to be screwed over. If you think about, by the time the tenants part 4 is at an end they would have given this landlord just over 26,000 too much. If they stay longer than that god knows how much they would waste in the end.

What about the LL being screwed over by unconsitional laws forcing him to set rent well below market rate and preventing him from running his business properly.

Kaleb2015

Malani Important Hallway wrote: »

What about the LL being screwed over by unconsitional legalization forcing him to set rent well below market rate and preventing him from running his business properly.

Well in all fairness the law is there to protect tenants from extortionate rents. People having a roof over their heads and being able to live is far more important than the landlord making a few extra quid every month.

tvjunki

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I don’t think it’s very fair what is about to be done on this new tenant. I just don’t like knowing that the new tenant is going to be screwed over. If you think about, by the time the tenants part 4 is at an end they would have given this landlord just over 26,000 too much. If they stay longer than that god knows how much they would waste in the end.

Of that 26k a minimum would have been paid to revenue of 13k as well as property tax etc.
Everyone has to live somewhere and you have to pay either rent or mortgage.

1874

It looks like market rate for the property is this much if it can be achieved, there was a mention that the property was not let for 6 months so perhaps a family member did move in, maybe this was while renovations were underway. That may not seem likely to some people but it's as probable as none of us, not even the OP seems to know for sure. It does seem that the landlord was somehow receiving significantly less than what he might have been market rate though, if the OP is paying current market rates I can see why they'd be annoyed but as one poster mentioned, maybe it was simply not possible for the landlord to keep their head above water financially, You have to think, how does this situation come to pass? The Govt could legislate to protect tenants and landlords, I've said that here before but everyone is so polarised in their views they can't see that the Govt and their Real supporters (banks) are the benefactors of this situation, instead of releasing land for building quality housing and have people pay their own way, i guess they see more can be extracted long-term both from landlords in tax and forcing people who would otherwise be paying down their own home into long-term renting, landlords, small time have no effect on the number of homes available, the state do.

Kaleb2015

tvjunki wrote: »

Of that 26k a minimum would have been paid to revenue of 13k as well as property tax etc.
Everyone has to live somewhere and you have to pay either rent or mortgage.

So because the revenue charge him x amount it’s ok for him to add that cost onto the tenant. By law he’s only suppose to charge the new tenant €988. €1350 would be the majority of a persons monthly income so is it ok that they can’t afford to live so that the landlord can?

1874

I empathise with the OP situation, but I've been in both situations, it's easy to not see the other side, but I feel I know who is really at fault, that's not much consolation to the OP,

Garibaldi?

No wonder so many"landlords" are opting out! "Not my circus, not my monkeys" to coin a phrase

Kaleb2015

1874 wrote: »

It looks like market rate for the property is this much if it can be achieved, there was a mention that the property was not let for 6 months so perhaps a family member did move in, maybe this was while renovations were underway. That may not seem likely to some people but it's as probable as none of us, not even the OP seems to know for sure. It does seem that the landlord was somehow receiving significantly less than what he might have been market rate though, if the OP is paying current market rates I can see why they'd be annoyed but as one poster mentioned, maybe it was simply not possible for the landlord to keep their head above water financially, You have to think, how does this situation come to pass? The Govt could legislate to protect tenants and landlords, I've said that here before but everyone is so polarised in their views they can't see that the Govt and their Real supporters (banks) are the benefactors of this situation, instead of releasing land for building quality housing and have people pay their own way, i guess they see more can be extracted long-term both from landlords in tax and forcing people who would otherwise be paying down their own home into long-term renting, landlords, small time have no effect on the number of homes available, the state do.

I meet up with a friend of mine across from the house 1-2 times a week so I know the house has stayed empty and I have been told by my old neighbor what has been done. The house isn’t worth near what he’s asking for it. We where asking for the windows to be fixed from the time we moved in. Said they would be done before we signed the lease. There was nothing but trouble with the house from day one. We tried quite often to find a new house with no success and only found the place we are in now because of a mutual friend of ours and the landlords. The new landlord is great and we get along brilliant with him so don’t think I’m saying all landlords are the same but it’s because of landlords chancing their arm like this that the market is the way it is.

Kaleb2015

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

Well in all fairness the law is there to protect tenants from extortionate rents. People having a roof over their heads and being able to live is far more important than the landlord making a few extra quid every month.

Sorry but it isn’t, the LL is running a business to make money and any business owner aims to maximize their profits. It’s not a charity to house people it’s a business. LLs should be alloed to charge whatever the market will pay, the new tenants have a roof over their head so obviously they can afford it.

It’s a disgrace what LL have to put up with, constant interference in their business and idiotic rules that are only making things worse. You would probably not have been asked to leave if the LL could have increased the rent from the very low level you were paying. In other words the new rules are the reason your tenancy was terminated, think about that before singing the praises of the rules.

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

So because the revenue charge him x amount it’s ok for him to add that cost onto the tenant. By law he’s only suppose to charge the new tenant €988. €1350 would be the majority of a persons monthly income so is it ok that they can’t afford to live so that the landlord can?

1350 is not the majority of a lot of people’s income especially if it’s a couple. 988 sounds like cheap rent for a house in a RPZ and likely is putting the LL in hardship.

Kaleb2015

Malani Important Hallway wrote: »

Sorry but it isn’t, the LL is running a business to make money and any business owner aims to maximize their profits. It’s not a charity to house people it’s a business. LLs should be alloed to charge whatever the market will pay, the new tenants have a roof over their head so obviously they can afford it.

It’s a disgrace what LL have to put up with, constant interference in their business and idiotic rules that are only making things worse. You would probably not have been asked to leave if the LL could have increased the rent from the very low level you were paying. In other words the new rules are the reason your tenancy was terminated, think about that before singing the praises of the rules.



1350 is not the majority of a lot of people’s income especially if it’s a couple. 988 sounds like cheap rent for a house in a RPZ and likely is putting the LL in hardship.

If you think of it as a business then think of it this way. Just like any other business there are laws in place to protect the customer. So him charging more than 4% is screwing the customer and by law they have the right to be protected. Enough of this bull of the government stepping in and having their say. If you want to run a business be prepared to pay tax like every other business, be prepared for rules to protect the customer.

What you say by the way is basing it on a couple. Yes a couple where both work could afford to pay it. A single person though more than likely couldn’t afford it. What are they suppose to do in a market where landlords are driving up the prices because they think it’s perfectly acceptable. Yes it’s their house. But as you say it’s also their business. Business owners can’t just do what they want so why should landlords?

Garibaldi?

The state needs to provide housing for it's citizens. The whole charade is reaching crisis point because ordinary people who were doing a good job, albeit on an amateur basis, to house other people, have been taxed and regulated to the point of frustration. And it well get worse before it gets better! As the saying goes "Not my circus etc".