Rent Review

Atlas_IRL

Hi,

Renting a 3 bed apartment in Dublin which is in the rent pressure zone. When we moved in 5 years ago the rent was 1050 and was market rent for the that time. Over the years this has gone up to 1150 then 1250 and frozen for 2 years.

The landlord now wants 1750 and with rpz being only legally allowed to have a hike of 4% does he have any legal rights to do this. The market has doubled since we first moved in so we are under market value but I'm not sure if that matters or not. He sent us an apartment going nearby for 2250 and said that he needs more under current market conditions but a €500 hike sounds crazy. Looking to know legalities before we discuss with him.

dudara

Go to the RTB website, find the rent review calculator and plug in your numbers. You’ll need the current rent, and the date it was last set. It will tell you the new maximum allowed rent. Come back and let us know what it says.

McGiver

That's 37% hike which is illegal. Maximum he can do for the initial rent review is 8% assuming you never had rent review as per the new law done before. Otherwise it could be less.

Check the RTB calculator but based on what you've said max rent should be 1350.

voluntary

<MOD SNIP>

voluntary, go and read the forum charter. Pay particular attention to the section that mentions illegal or dubiously legal.

McGiver

voluntary wrote:

Go and read the forum charter. Pay particular attention to the section that mentions illegal or dubiously legal.

Link please.

Graham

That mod note was aimed at the specific post it replaced McGiver. There is no issue with any of your posts. I have edited the snip for clarity.

Here's the forum charter link anyway: Accommodation & Property Charter 2018 Edition - Please read before posting.

Atlas_IRL

Calculation:
R x (1 + 0.04 x t/m)

€1250 x ( 1 + 0.04 * 24/12) = €1350.00

That's the max from the calculator on that site.

Browney7

OP, you've a few choices.

Unless the LL has been living under a rock, it's incredibly likely that the LL is aware that what he is proposing is illegal (whilst plenty people disagree with the RPZ law as it is currently, this isn't up for discussion here - it's the law of the land presently)

Now, if you say back to the LL that you believe the proposed rent increase to be illegal and in contravention of RPZ rules, you'll very likely get a termination notice for renovation or for sale (which he/she will only likely to be able to sell to an owner occupier or an investor who is willing to flout the law as your rent follows the property).

If you keep paying the rent as is currently after the passing of the review date, the LL may scream blue murder and threaten RTB action for rent arrears but he would be foolish to do so. You'll prob get a termination notice for sale after a few months of this.

You can choose to pay the rent sought and choose to be blissfully unaware of the RPZ legislation and assume that your landlord is law abiding and knows what he can and can't do and at the end of the tenancy decide whether you want to assert your rights under the Residential tenancies act and let the RTB adjudicate as to the validity of your rent review or go merrily into the sunset (I'm assuming that this is the action that Graham has deleted from previous posts).

Tar.Aldarion

^^ I imagine the law would look poorly on somebody who tried to raise rent illegally and then tried to remove tenants illegally when it was pointed out, which I would be conveying to the LL.

voluntary

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

^^ I imagine the law would look poorly on somebody who tried to raise rent illegally and then tried to remove tenants illegally when it was pointed out, which I would be conveying to the LL.

Changing mind isn't illegal.

mrslancaster

is the tenant legally obliged to dispute the incorrect amount within 28 days from the notice or date the new rent is due? what happens if there is no dispute raised in the time allowed

not yet

If you have a decent relationship with your LL maybe suggest you meet him half way..?

Just a heads up, A LL I know wanted her tenants out, she pretended she had to sell Property, got them out and put property on the market for 30% above market value, obviously no takers. It's now rented out for 400euro above what tenants were paying.

Browney7

not yet wrote: »

If you have a decent relationship with your LL maybe suggest you meet him half way..?

Just a heads up, A LL I know wanted her tenants out, she pretended she had to sell Property, got them out and put property on the market for 30% above market value, obviously no takers. It's now rented out for 400euro above what tenants were paying.

I hope it stays fine for her and her previous tenants don't know...

voluntary

Browney7 wrote: »

I hope it stays fine for her and her previous tenants don't know...

What's the price tag these days? 10,000 Euro plus damages paid to the ex tenant?

Graham

Mod Note

voluntary, do not post in this thread again.

The_Conductor

McGiver wrote: »

That's 37% hike which is illegal. Maximum he can do for the initial rent review is 8% assuming you never had rent review as per the new law done before. Otherwise it could be less.

Check the RTB calculator but based on what you've said max rent should be 1350.

My reading is that its not an initial rent review- there have been 3 thus far- but there hasn't been one in the last 2 years. Still 8% is the allowable.

OP- the percentage increase- depends on exactly when the tenancy started, when the rent was last reviewed- and other prevailing rents (which must be supplied by the landlord- even if he/she is not allowed to seek similar rents).

Use the RTB calculator here to calculate the maximum permissable increase.

Fol20

The ll was foolish in this case. Legally the ll cannot increase the rent that much. Even if your a good tenant, it would have been safer to evict you and spend 20k+ to get the property to market rate. He would make that money back within 2 years and have a better property, resale value would be better and have rent at market rate.

Atlas_IRL

The_Conductor wrote: »

My reading is that its not an initial rent review- there have been 3 thus far- but there hasn't been one in the last 2 years. Still 8% is the allowable.

OP- the percentage increase- depends on exactly when the tenancy started, when the rent was last reviewed- and other prevailing rents (which must be supplied by the landlord- even if he/she is not allowed to seek similar rents).

Use the RTB calculator here to calculate the maximum permissible increase.

The last increase was frozen for two years so that's why its coming up again now.
I have used the calculator and the max it should be raised is €1350.

We haven't actually bothered him once in over 5 years, we just fix things our-self. The place does need a lot of work done though, balcony wooden slabs are rotting, it needs a paint job and a few other things done.

I've looked at what's out there and there is **** all and everything is mad prices so we may have to try meet him somewhere lower possibly. Kicking up a massive row, falling out and getting evicted is just going to make us pay a lot more..

not yet

Atlas_IRL wrote: »

The last increase was frozen for two years so that's why its coming up again now.
I have used the calculator and the max it should be raised is €1350.

We haven't actually bothered him once in over 5 years, we just fix things our-self. The place does need a lot of work done though, balcony wooden slabs are rotting, it needs a paint job and a few other things done.

I've looked at what's out there and there is **** all and everything is mad prices so we may have to try meet him somewhere lower possibly. Kicking up a massive row, falling out and getting evicted is just going to make us pay a lot more..

If he really wants you out it'll happen, as I said earlier maybe meet him half way.
If you are good tenants he may prefer the devil he knows etc even if it means a few euro less per month.

the_syco

Atlas_IRL wrote: »

The landlord now wants 1750

Did he tell you this via text, verbally, or by letter? If verbally, say naught, and ask for it in writing.

And then tell him that it's over the 4%.

McGiver

Atlas_IRL wrote:

I've looked at what's out there and there is **** all and everything is mad prices so we may have to try meet him somewhere lower possibly. Kicking up a massive row, falling out and getting evicted is just going to make us pay a lot more..

I understand but what this means is that you are allowing and empowering the LL to break the law. And he will keep doing it with you in the future and with future tenants. What is the point of having any law then?

And if more people allow LLs break the law then this completely undermines the rule of law.

Also, I think "meet in the middle" strategy doesn't work. You can't appease bullies. Person who is willingly breaking law willing not likely negotiate much and as I said, in year's two year's time he will break the law again. You don't negotiate with the Mafia (exaggerating but you know what I mean).

McGiver

The_Conductor wrote:

My reading is that its not an initial rent review- there have been 3 thus far- but there hasn't been one in the last 2 years. Still 8% is the allowable.

Correction - if it's initial review then it's 2% pa, so if the tenancy has been in the place for 5 years that's 10% increase. After the initial review it's 4% pa counted from the time of the initial review.

Atlas_IRL

the_syco wrote: »

Did he tell you this via text, verbally, or by letter? If verbally, say naught, and ask for it in writing.

And then tell him that it's over the 4%.

Text message - then showed a nearby property for 2250...

McGiver wrote: »

I understand but what this means is that you are allowing and empowering the LL to break the law. And he will keep doing it with you in the future and with future tenants. What is the point of having any law then?

And if more people allow LLs break the law then this completely undermines the rule of law.

Also, I think "meet in the middle" strategy doesn't work. You can't appease bullies. Person who is willingly breaking law willing not likely negotiate much and as I said, in year's two year's time he will break the law again. You don't negotiate with the Mafia (exaggerating but you know what I mean).

Noted! We are going to get advice today from prtb

Also i checked there and he is not registered with them either.

Thanks for all replies.

McGiver

Atlas_IRL wrote:

Also i checked there and he is not registered with them either.

Registering tenancy is his legal duty. Not doing so is an issue. I'd advise contacting Threshold and get an advice.

McGiver

Atlas_IRL wrote:

Text message - then showed a nearby property for 2250...

I must be in writing i.e. a letter. And the letter must have specific information otherwise not valid. But given that they failed to register the tenancy which is an offence, no surprise here.

It is a legal requirement that landlords must registertenancies with the PRTB. Landlords failing to registera tenancy may be issued with a notice to register from the PRTB. If a landlord fails to comply they may be convicted and fined up to €4,000 and/or up to 6 months in prison.

The_Conductor

McGiver wrote: »

Registering tenancy is his legal duty. Not doing so is an issue. I'd advise contacting Threshold and get an advice.

Before you go in all guns blazing- please note the RTB database of registered tenancies is riddled with errors- and even when a tenancy is correctly registered- it may not be up on the database at all- or it may take an inordinate length of time before its put up (6 months + isn't unusual- they claim they're short staffed).

Don't assume that if its not up- that your tenancy isn't registered- it might not be- but it also could be a screwup on the part of the RTB.

overkill602

McGiver wrote: »

Registering tenancy is his legal duty. Not doing so is an issue. I'd advise contacting Threshold and get an advice.

A late fee will suffice, the property is owned by the LL he will in time sell or renovate and will get market rate eventually ur sense of entitlement to cheaper rent than others is tenant greed...

Browney7

overkill602 wrote: »

eventually ur sense of entitlement to cheaper rent than others is tenant greed...

Or the law of the land as passed by elected politicians....

The_Conductor

Cop on. If you disagree with another person's post- refute it factually- without resorting to slinging abuse at one another. Its not that difficult to remain civil.

Fol20

Browney7 wrote: »

Or the law of the land as passed by elected politicians....

I disagree with the law and it will have knock on consequences for the rental industry which in my opinion are bad for both tenants and ll alike. You are right though that you have to work with the cards your dealt with as best as possible and either fight it legally if you have a big war chest or vote for people who align to your views.

dudara

Atlas_IRL wrote: »

Noted! We are going to get advice today from prtb

Also i checked there and he is not registered with them either.

Not all tenancies appear online. Your landlord could well have registered the tenancy. If your tenancy was registered with the RTB, then you would have received a letter from the RTB advising you of such. Did you receive that letter?

Either way, it doesn't matter to you. You will still have all the protection, regardless of whether your tenancy is registered or not.

Garibaldi?

If the rent is incorrect you need to bring it to the landlord's attention within the specified time. I am aware of a case where a tenant accepted the increase, which was incorrect, and complained to the PRTB two years later. He got no satisfaction. The landlord may have been penalized(I don't know about that) but the tenant was definitely not reimbursed. You need to stand your ground.

Subutai

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If the rent is incorrect you need to bring it to the landlord's attention within the specified time. I am aware of a case where a tenant accepted the increase, which was incorrect, and complained to the PRTB two years later. He got no satisfaction. The landlord may have been penalized(I don't know about that) but the tenant was definitely not reimbursed. You need to stand your ground.

The position in rent pressure zones is different. Legally you cannot agree to a rent higher than that allowable by the formula and any such increase is automatically invalid.

Outside a rent pressure zone one can agree to a rent review that is procedurally or otherwise incorrect. That does then limit your ability to raise a dispute later.

Garibaldi?

This case I referred to was in a rent pressure zone. Apparently when it comes to complaints which are raised after the specified time, the landlord can be taken to task and penalized for ignoring the regulations, but the tenant not compensated.

mrslancaster

Subutai wrote: »

The position in rent pressure zones is different. Legally you cannot agree to a rent higher than that allowable by the formula and any such increase is automatically invalid.

Outside a rent pressure zone one can agree to a rent review that is procedurally or otherwise incorrect. That does then limit your ability to raise a dispute later.

the rtb rent increase notice says if the new rent is wrong it has to be notified before 28 days or new rent. How can it be raised years later?

Subutai

Garibaldi? wrote: »

This case I referred to was in a rent pressure zone. Apparently when it comes to complaints which are raised after the specified time, the landlord can be taken to task and penalized for ignoring the regulations, but the tenant not compensated.

I'd be interested in seeing that tribunal report. It goes against any I've seen where tenants have been refunded.

There isn't any specified time in the legislation in this respect.

Subutai

mrslancaster wrote: »

the rtb rent increase notice says if the new rent is wrong it has to be notified before 28 days or new rent. How can it be raised years later?

The 28 days relates to disputing the rent review. In the case of the RPZ there is no need to dispute, any increase outside of the formula is prima facie invalid, and unlike in the above situation any agreement from the tenant cannot render it valid.

It is analogous to the minium wage. You can sign a contract for an rate below that, but a payment of wages claim will later succeed regardless of your agreement. It is prudent to raise it as early as you can, but it is not the case that failing to raise it will kill your claim.

The idea of preventing tenants (or workers) from contracting out of their rights is to counter the economic power differential. If the legislation didn't do that it would be worthless, as your landlord (employer) would simply not accomodate (hire) you or would evict (dismiss) you.

McGiver

The_Conductor wrote:

Don't assume that if its not up- that your tenancy isn't registered- it might not be- but it also could be a screwup on the part of the RTB.

OK and how likely is that opposed to really not registered by LL?

The_Conductor

McGiver wrote: »

OK and how likely is that opposed to really not registered by LL?

I'm possible to tell with any degree of accuracy- however, it could be as many as 1-in-5. Apparently its driving Threshold nuts.

McGiver

overkill602 wrote:

A late fee will suffice, the property is owned by the LL he will in time sell or renovate and will get market rate eventually ur sense of entitlement to cheaper rent than others is tenant greed...

It is not an entitlement but a law.

Tenant greed, now that's an innovative term.

Tenant is absolutely the weaker party in the tenant-landlord relationship hence most civilised European countries have tenants protected by the law and have rental market regulated.

I understand that this does not go down well in Ireland culturally where rules, regulations and law are generally frowned upon and where exists a class of super greedy tax avoiding landlords, but it's about time this changed and the existing, comparatively quite weak, regulation of RPZs is a first step in the right direction.

How does that sound?

Fol20

McGiver wrote: »

It is not an entitlement but a law.

Tenant greed, now that's an innovative term.

Tenant is absolutely the weaker party in the tenant-landlord relationship hence most civilised European countries have tenants protected by the law and have rental market regulated.

I understand that this does not go down well in Ireland culturally where rules, regulations and law are generally frowned upon and where exists a class of super greedy tax avoiding landlords, but it's about time this changed and the existing, comparatively quite weak, regulation of RPZs is a first step in the right direction.

How does that sound?

I think its human greed, both the tenant and ll want the best outcome and neither are better than the other.

Please explain to me how tenants are the weaker party here? The legislation over the past 5 years or more say otherwise. Please tell me one other western country that have stronger protections for tenants as places like usa, germany that do have some forms of rent control have less risk as tenants in arrears are kicked out promptly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZygWICdi4U&t=455s

Please take a look at the video above. its cheesy but it talks about the main negatives of rent control coupled with the fact that in the end it actually creates a worse situation for the majority of tenants due to smaller supply and increased rent for people that do need to move for various reasons including new jobs, larger families etc.

What do you think will happen if if more anti ll come out. Do you not think the consequence of this is that more ll will leave the market when more are needed. Close to 2000 landlords have left the market and the total supply of rental accommodation has declined since 2015. Is this good for the market.

Tax avoid landlords? Please back this up with facts and not emotive fluff words that hold no meaning to reality. Most ll pay 50pc on the profit they make. In my case i earned 1/6 of my gross last year. The rest went to paying locally sourced material and labour and TAX.

How does that sound?

McGiver

Fol20 wrote:

Please explain to me how tenants are the weaker party here? The legislation over the past 5 years or more say otherwise. Please tell me one other western country that have stronger protections for tenants as places like usa, germany that do have some forms of rent control have less risk as tenants in arrears are kicked out promptly.

Sure, it's very simple.

Tenant - if the tenancy is lost, they are probably in a big trouble, have to look for new home, have to move somewhere else, and potentially end up homeless, with a crap house or with an unaffordable accommodation. Great prospect, indeed. This is especially true in a market with huge shortage of supply over demand. And the psychological pressure tenant is subjected to by thinking about moving, finding new house etc is quite serious.

Landlord - if the tenancy is lost, nothing happens, they just may lose profit otherwise no inconvenience apart from putting it on the market, no danger of homelessness, and in a short supply market they may not even lose profit. No psychological pressure really.

How on earth can you ever claim tenant is not the weaker party? Tenant has everything to lose, landlord very little.

Fol20 wrote:

What do you think will happen if if more anti ll come out. Do you not think the consequence of this is that more ll will leave the market when more are needed. Close to 2000 landlords have left the market and the total supply of rental accommodation has declined since 2015. Is this good for the market.

Deregulation will never fix the rental market. I would like to see one example where this was proven not to increase prices and not to decrease tenants' rights and bargaining power - deregulation always favours the strong, the landlord. It's a fantasy. Certain markets must be regulated and rental market is one of them. Rental market isn't for example a commodity market which can be completely liberalised and deregulated. You deal with humans and their very basic important needs here, it cannot be subjected to "free" market situation.

How many countries have you lived in and/or have serious understanding of their rental market? The German market is way more functional (or if you wish way less dysfunctional) than the Irish one.

Fol20

McGiver wrote: »

Sure, it's very simple.

Tenant - if the tenancy is lost, they are probably in a big trouble, have to look for new home, have to move somewhere else, and potentially end up homeless, with a crap house or with an unaffordable accommodation. Great prospect, indeed. This is especially true in a market with huge shortage of supply over demand. And the psychological pressure tenant is subjected to by thinking about moving, finding new house etc is quite serious.

Landlord - if the tenancy is lost, nothing happens, they just may lose profit otherwise no inconvenience apart from putting it on the market, no danger of homelessness, and in a short supply market they may not even lose profit. No psychological pressure really.

How on earth can you ever claim tenant is not the weaker party? Tenant has everything to lose, landlord very little.


Deregulation will never fix the rental market. I would like to see one example where this was proven not to increase prices and not to decrease tenants' rights and bargaining power - deregulation always favours the strong, the landlord. It's a fantasy. Certain markets must be regulated and rental market is one of them. Rental market isn't for example a commodity market which can be completely liberalised and deregulated. You deal with humans and their very basic important needs here, it cannot be subjected to "free" market situation.

How many countries have you lived in and/or have serious understanding of their rental market? The German market is way more functional (or if you wish way less dysfunctional) than the Irish one.

Ok this shall be fun.

Tenant:
Yes if a tenancy is lost, they will need to look for a new house. This is part of life and on average tenancies do not last that long especially for Irish culture. The norm for my properties in my case is 1- 4years with many moving on after it anyway. Yes you can have much longer tenancies however from my observations of the market, it isn’t as long as you make it out to be. There is 5000 homeless out of our entire population, the vast majority find somewhere else to live.

What you fail to realize is this rental crisis has been happening for what 4 years. People move from one hot topic to the next but 4 years is nothing and this will change in the future. People didn’t complain when ll were going bankrupt during the recession and rents were low. Normally in business there are Ebbs and flows and right now it’s the ll turn however this legislation is forcing it to be the tenants turn all the time. If you want an industry to remain in place from a macro economic level, this is not sustainable.

Landlord:
You make it sound like the ll has no risk whatsoever. The ll has a large proportion of their wealth tied up in one asset where they may also have a mortgage on it and have to supplement this with other income to keep this property. If they don’t receive rent just for a few months, this can put them in the red and as what happened in the last recession, a lot of them went bankrupt. This is part of business and you have to accept the risks however you seem to disregard it completely.

How about tenant arrears,overstaying, damage. The largest cost I have witnessed(thank god it wasn’t me) for this is 40k on one property from one tenant.financially the tenant has very little to loose bar a deposit which can be disputed with RTB while ll has very little to no recourse.

I put it to you, how on earth can ll be the stronger party?

Did you look at anything in the video, please back up your opinion with some form of critical thinking or logic. Yes in short term, rents will rise. This is a fact as all ll will want to get it back up to where market rate is. Long term, this should attract more investors which should increase supply. Thus decreasing rent. It also encourages good tenants to potentially get a better rate as previous to this law. A lot of ll never increased rent however since this came in, even the most kind hearted ll have to be thinking about it. Look at ny and San Fran and how well their rent controls are performing. It either causes ghetto like accommodation as ll have no incentive to improve or ll find a way to kick the tenant out. Both are loose loose and the video I linked earlier went into other cons for this.

Right now the horizon is bleak for both. From ll point of view, all we see is more regulation, higher costs without being able to charge higher rents. So its all take.

For tenants, even with all this extra regulation that is being increased year on year is higher rents, more and more ll selling up and getting out of the market. the only new units coming on board are REITs buying entire blocks letting them all out at market rate. The total stock is declining making it worse for tenants. If the government start targeting these reits, this investor money will also dry up further constraining the market further.

I have active knowledge of French and Irish market.
I have passing knowledge of German market as I was considering to invest. The German market is very different to here. Generally all places are unfurnished sometimes including kitchens, there is rent controls but they are also failing in the German market as you have seen from price increases and protest in Germany. It’s also easier to evict. The eu also recommend not to use rental controls as they had negative impacts on the industry which Ireland ignored also.
I have rented In the Australian market and have some knowledge of the USA market as that is where most of the material is from. Why are you asking?

overkill602

This is what communist law of the land have given 1 sector but it comes with a price to those stressed tenants it was trying to preserve
Landlord:
Since 2008 taxes on LLs have increased by 25% bringing it to 50% highest in Europe
5 years of rent control 2years freeze no comparison but I am sure its unmatched anywhere
Enforced social housing responsibility in the form of HAP with no liability to council.
LLs have no protections RTB more tenant friendly putting it mildly.
Tenant:
Stricter rules for notices and rent increases all tenant friendly with extra admin and cost to LL designed to keep tenant longer( 8 months in 1 case I had) ridiculous.
No changes to evict for antisocial or non-payment of rent place trashing premitted.
Future
It’s a boom for the firms — just last month Ires REIT’s CEO Margaret Sweeney received a 100 per cent bonus, bringing her salary, including benefits, to a staggering €700,000 a year.

McGiver

Fol20 wrote:

How about tenant arrears,overstaying, damage. The largest cost I have witnessed(thank god it wasn’t me) for this is 40k on one property from one tenant.financially the tenant has very little to loose bar a deposit which can be disputed with RTB while ll has very little to no recourse.

Do you have stats on % of tenancies affected by this?

Fol20 wrote:

I put it to you, how on earth can ll be the stronger party?

You didn't convince me that it's not life vs profit i.e. huge qualitative difference between the parties.

What do you suggest then? I'd perfectly fine with expediting eviction in case of arrears and damage. But

Fol20

McGiver wrote: »

Do you have stats on % of tenancies affected by this?


You didn't convince me that it's not life vs profit i.e. huge qualitative difference between the parties.

What do you suggest then? I'd perfectly fine with expediting eviction in case of arrears and damage. But

I was expecting you to at least dispute anything that i said instead of just saying no...

A very quick look and you can get the stats on rtb website..

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Comms%20and%20Research/RTB_Disputes_Summary_2018_Q4.pdf

mdebets

Fol20 wrote: »

Ok this shall be fun.

I have passing knowledge of German market as I was considering to invest. The German market is very different to here. ... It’s also easier to evict.

That's not true. If the tenant resists eviction, you have an equally lengthy process to sue the tenant and get him out, and the landlord might even have to pay for the moving company and the storage of the possessions of the tenant. You also have fewer reasons in Germany to evict a tenant. You can't, like in Ireland, evict him after 4 or 6 years (Part 4 tenancies). The possibility to evict a tenant if the landlord is needing the house for himself or a close relative is also restricted, as there are several exemptions, where the tenant can resist this eviction legally.
There is also the possibility, that a tenant can reduce his rent if the landlord is not following his obligations (e.g. not repairing things in a timely manner).

The_Conductor

mdebets wrote: »

That's not true. If the tenant resists eviction, you have an equally lengthy process to sue the tenant and get him out, and the landlord might even have to pay for the moving company and the storage of the possessions of the tenant. You also have fewer reasons in Germany to evict a tenant. You can't, like in Ireland, evict him after 4 or 6 years (Part 4 tenancies). The possibility to evict a tenant if the landlord is needing the house for himself or a close relative is also restricted, as there are several exemptions, where the tenant can resist this eviction legally.
There is also the possibility, that a tenant can reduce his rent if the landlord is not following his obligations (e.g. not repairing things in a timely manner).

Flipside of the coin is the landlord gets a set percentage of the value of the property tax free on an annual basis, for the purpose of maintaining the property. There is no obligation to supply receipts etc- its a straight 3% of the value of the property in taxfree rent per annum. Thereafter the taxation on rent (for a non-resident) is typically 15% (if someone has multiple units and crosses the threshold- it can reach 45%- however, for non-resident private investors- this accounts for less than 4% of rental units in Berlin).

Its a different regime with different pros and cons associated with it- but notably, rental income is not treated in the punitive manner that it is in Ireland- and the provision of a rental income credit (equal to 3% of the value of the property)- means there is an incentive to maintain and enhance the property where possible- whereas there is an active disincentive (from a tax perspective) for a private landlord to conduct commensurate works in Ireland.

Its a different system- which is also badly malfunctioning- but not for the same reasons that the Irish system is malfunctioning.

Fol20

mdebets wrote: »

That's not true. If the tenant resists eviction, you have an equally lengthy process to sue the tenant and get him out, and the landlord might even have to pay for the moving company and the storage of the possessions of the tenant. You also have fewer reasons in Germany to evict a tenant. You can't, like in Ireland, evict him after 4 or 6 years (Part 4 tenancies). The possibility to evict a tenant if the landlord is needing the house for himself or a close relative is also restricted, as there are several exemptions, where the tenant can resist this eviction legally.
There is also the possibility, that a tenant can reduce his rent if the landlord is not following his obligations (e.g. not repairing things in a timely manner).

yes it takes time, but the process is more rigid in nature where as in Ireland your really at the whim of a tenant if they will leave peacefully and follow whatever the legal order might be.

McGiver

The_Conductor wrote:

Its a different system- which is also badly malfunctioning- but not for the same reasons that the Irish system is malfunctioning.

If you call German system malfunctioning then there Irish one is RIP