Indefinite tenancies discussed on Joe Duffy show

tvjunki

There was a discussion on this mornings Joe Duffy show on rte radio about indefinite tenancies. It was advertised for afternoon airing but was not aired today at 2pm. Wonder why?

Landlady with 20 properties and she is going to sell before the new law comes into place.

The amendment to the residential tenancies act is not going to solve the housing crisis.
If I have a second home I take the risks of ownership in the form of taxes and mortgage but I should not be forced to keep a tenant when I want to sell. My house would be devalued straight away.



Moderator how to a change the group from renting to letting please? Thanks thanks moderator.

Subutai

The proposed amendments for later in the year (assuming this government lasts that long) do not relate to removing the grounds allowing termination for sale in the table to s 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended.

The Minister has been pretty clear on that, over and over again really. It is his view that restricting sale would be unconstitutional and, even if it were not, it could not be retrospective.


The changes instead relate to the ability to terminate under s 34(b) "without grounds" provided the notice period expires in the six months between the ending of one 4/6 year Part IV tenancy and the next beginning.

If you want to evict for sale, to move in, because of a beach of tenancy obligations, etc., the Minister isn't proposing to change that. What he is proposing to change is the ability to evict for no reason at all simply because six years have passed and you'd like to, and damn the consequences for the tenants living there.

Squatter

Subutai wrote: »

The proposed amendments for later in the year (assuming this government lasts that long) do not relate to removing the grounds allowing termination for sale in the table to s 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended.

The Minister has been pretty clear on that, over and over again really. It is his view that restricting sale would be unconstitutional and, even if it were not, it could not be retrospective.

The changes instead relate to the ability to terminate under s 34(b) "without grounds" provided the notice period expires in the six months between the ending of one 4/6 year Part IV tenancy and the next beginning.

If you want to evict for sale, to move in, because of a beach of tenancy obligations, etc., the Minister isn't proposing to change that. What he is proposing to change is the ability to evict for no reason at all simply because six years have passed and you'd like to, and damn the consequences for the tenants living there.

Presumably this is because in what passes for the Minister's mind, Irish landlords regularly decide to kick out long-term, decent, rent paying, no-problem tenants on a whim after six years! It must be happening every day of the week in his part of Dublin 4.

Subutai

Squatter wrote: »

Presumably this is because in what passes for the Minister's mind, Irish landlords regularly decide to kick out long-term, decent, rent paying, no-problem tenants on a whim after six years! It must be happening every day of the week in his part of Dublin 4.

If it's not happening, then the amendment will be of no consequence I suppose and there won't be any reason to worry about it.

At least it will ease the minds of the probably paranoiac tenants who fear that they might be removed in that way and provide them with some peace of mind -and a little extra security, even if they never truly needed it.

Fol20

Subutai wrote: »

If it's not happening, then the amendment will be of no consequence I suppose and there won't be any reason to worry about it.

At least it will ease the minds of the probably paranoiac tenants who fear that they might be removed in that way and provide them with some peace of mind -and a little extra security, even if they never truly needed it.

And cause more ll to leave the market....

Subutai

Fol20 wrote: »

And cause more ll to leave the market....

Why would someone running a business make such a massive business decision based on an amendment that won't have any impact on their business.

In any case, what is the justification for being able to remove tenants for no reason at all simply because they have been there for 4-6 years? Surely that is a horrible thing to do to a person, given the massive impact of an eviction on an individual and especially on a family.

Fol20

Subutai wrote: »

Why would someone running a business make such a massive business decision based on an amendment that won't have any impact on their business.

In any case, what is the justification for being able to remove tenants for no reason at all simply because they have been there for 4-6 years? Surely that is a horrible thing to do to a person, given the massive impact of an eviction on an individual and especially on a family.

Some ll, will see it edging closer and closer to not allowing ll to get tenants out when they want to sell and will preemptively sell because of this.

In my case for example, i have one tenant, that im not on the best of terms with, they call me over everything and anything. I also have to remind them to pay rent yet i cant get rid of them. Their more hassle than their worth and would prefer to remove them. This is one legal way of doing this. Its business i dont care if its horrible. All i want to do is minimize stress, hassle and costs. The majority of tenants are perfect however for that bad apple, id like to remove them any way possible.

Subutai

Fol20 wrote: »

Some ll, will see it edging closer and closer to not allowing ll to get tenants out when they want to sell and will preemptively sell because of this.

In my case for example, i have one tenant, that im not on the best of terms with, they call me over everything and anything. I also have to remind them to pay rent yet i cant get rid of them. Their more hassle than their worth and would prefer to remove them. This is one legal way of doing this. Its business i dont care if its horrible. All i want to do is minimize stress, hassle and costs. The majority of tenants are perfect however for that bad apple, id like to remove them any way possible.

I only accept correspondance by email or letter for this reason.

It's completely disproportionate to continue to hang a sword of damocles over all tenants simply because landlords like yourself are inconvenienced and cannot solve a very simple problem for themselves.

Fol20

Subutai wrote: »

I only accept correspondance by email or letter for this reason.

It's completely disproportionate to continue to hang a sword of damocles over all tenants simply because landlords like yourself are inconvenienced and cannot solve a very simple problem for themselves.

The exact same could be said right back to tenants. Why are all ll being punished for the few that do dodgy dealings.

Solve a simple problem, literally changing lightbulbs, being told there is a leak, only for my plumber to find out its a tap that is loose. Theses costs add up when most tenants either know what to do themself or dont fret over small stuff. We are solving this problem by removing these types of tenants the moment we get a chance. 6 years of a bad relationship with one tenant is bad enough as it is, sure its longer than the entire length of the rental crisis were seeing right now.

Why do you think interest rates are so high in ireland? Their high for one simple reason, its very difficult to evict bon paying mortgage holders and the few that dont pay their mortgage costs the rest of us more money - the same can be said for rentals.

What you fail to realize is that the more ant ll laws that are brought it without anything to ll will mean more will leave. A compromise is when both parties are not happy and sacrifice something. Right now its ll taking the hit on everything, tenants wanting less rental costs only for these to go up due to all the anti ll legislation that is coming out.

Squatter

Mod Note

Attack the post, not the poster.

The so-called "attack" was merely an expression of my keen wish for the poster in question to benefit in full from the implementation of the policy that s/he supported.

DubCount

Not content with stopping landlords and tenants agreeing a level of rent that is agreeable between them, its now time to stop them agreeing a term that is agreeable between them. If a marriage breaks down, there is a process to get a divorce and move on in a new relationship - but landlords are now committed for life to their tenants. I remember the happy days when adults could agree a contract between them.

YipeeDee

Missed the show, would love to hear it. Do you know if there’s a podcast available? Thanks.

the_syco

Subutai wrote: »

Why would someone running a business make such a massive business decision based on an amendment that won't have any impact on their business.

It's quickly becoming the straw that broke the camels back. Bringing in multiple laws that only help the tenant, and no stronger laws to assist the LL means that more LL's leave the market.

Subutai wrote: »

It's completely disproportionate to continue to hang a sword of damocles over all tenants simply because landlords like yourself are inconvenienced and cannot solve a very simple problem for themselves.

Being a LL is a business. If the tenant costs you more than you get in, you get rid of them. If the LL is unable to get rid of troublesome tenants, and is only able to exit the business, they they will exit the business. But this will mean less houses for tenants to rent, caused by the troublesome tenants.

the_syco

YipeeDee wrote: »

Missed the show, would love to hear it. Do you know if there’s a podcast available? Thanks.

I'm assuming it'll be on https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/ in a few days.

YipeeDee

Thanks a million

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

It's quickly becoming the straw that broke the camels back. Bringing in multiple laws that only help the tenant, and no stronger laws to assist the LL means that more LL's leave the market.


Being a LL is a business. If the tenant costs you more than you get in, you get rid of them. If the LL is unable to get rid of troublesome tenants, and is only able to exit the business, they they will exit the business. But this will mean less houses for tenants to rent, caused by the troublesome tenants.

Absolutely agree, great tenants moving out because they have bought a bigger family home, I could get a very good rental from this property but after 25 years experience of investing/renting properties, it is time to exit the market. I have 3 more properties that are high demand areas which I will also sell as Part 4s end/tenants move out. Rental sector is the Governments problem, not the property owners, bad laws make it no longer worth the hassle.

4ensic15

As more LLs sell up, it is better for remaining LLs.

overkill602

renting only to young mobile professionals & students you ll be ok.

boombang

Squatter wrote: »

Smug little git aren't we?

Hopefully some future tenant of yours will shove your patronising words right back down your throat - but not until after Cretin Murphy's legislation has gone through.

Charming.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

As more LLs sell up, it is better for remaining LLs.

In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

Rents forced even higher.

Fol20

Dav010 wrote: »

In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

Less supply = higher rental rates or least for people that do not need to follow rpz.

Tenants are less likely to move on with the tiny selection that is out there also.

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Dav010 wrote: »

In an open market, yes it would be as the market would set the rental price, but considering that there are already far more tenants than properties, how is it better for remaining LLs?

Rents forced even higher.

Not in the RPZ. It will likely lead to more restrictions as seems to be the case with what they are bringing in.

Claw Hammer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not in the RPZ. It will likely lead to more restrictions as seems to be the case with what they are bringing in.

Even in RPZs people can get around the rent caps.

Pkiernan

For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

the_syco

4ensic15 wrote: »

As more LLs sell up, it is better for remaining LLs.

As LL's exit the market, the crap tenants will just overhold longer when they stop paying their rents. Unfortunately, there's no reason why they shouldn't.

Old diesel

Pkiernan wrote: »

For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

Policymaker response.....

1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not in the RPZ. It will likely lead to more restrictions as seems to be the case with what they are bringing in.

Even in RPZs people can get around the rent caps.

Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

Ray Palmer

Old diesel wrote: »

Pkiernan wrote: »

For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

Policymaker response.....

1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.

Except they have done nothing and don't plan to do anything about leaving property idle

Are there changes to stop having the policy where family members needs are valid? Again I dont think there is anything there for this other than making sure it actually happens and not an excuse

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Absolutely agree, great tenants moving out because they have bought a bigger family home, I could get a very good rental from this property but after 25 years experience of investing/renting properties, it is time to exit the market. I have 3 more properties that are high demand areas which I will also sell as Part 4s end/tenants move out. Rental sector is the Governments problem, not the property owners, bad laws make it no longer worth the hassle.

Have you considered investing in a retail or office property as an alternative?

Claw Hammer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

Samuel T. Cogley

Why not simply bring in legislation for long term leases. I'd be delighted to rent my place for ten years.

This law is too one sided in that a tenant can leave at anytime and for any reason that's fine, but the flexibility has to cut bothways or not at all.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

Policymaker response.....

1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.

And herein lies the problem. If any person has purchased a property it is theirs to do what they like with it. Same can be said for a car. If you buy a brand new car and leave it on your driveway that should be your prerogative.

If the car is not on public road then you don't have to pay road tax or insurance etc. if it does go on public road then yes it should be taxed, insured and meet the required standards.

The same should be said about property, if you rent a property is it a commercial trans for a defined period of time were both parties have agreed to it and if either party wishes to leave the contract then they must give for example three months notice to the other or cash . The property should meet the required standards etc.

Except with the current housing situation, even though you own the property, you can't leave it vacant if you want, you will find it almost impossible to evict a non paying tenant and when you do you may still not get outstanding rent due.

If car owners were told you are not allowed leave your car on the driveway you must allow somebody else use it when you are not and you can charge them for using it. If they don't pay they can come back tomorrow and use it again and still not pay.

What a lot of posters on social media forget is that the majority of landlords are just you average person trying to get by, they are not making a killing on property that people think they are. Do posters not realize the one making the most out of the situation is the State in taxes. Remember for every increase of €1 in tax the govt have made the taxes on the income of the tenant and then again on the income of the landlord.

Gumbo

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Even in RPZs people can get around the rent caps.

How?

Old diesel

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

Pkiernan wrote: »

For me, it'll mean that my unit remains empty until my kids need it for college.

It's mortgage free, so costs are minimal.

So, this is a perfect example of government rules increasing homelessness.

Why are so many people so stupid that they cannot see that the only way to reduce homelessness is to increase the number of homes?

Not having a go at you personally but this is part of the problem for property owners in terms of rules.

A policymaker will see "having a house for the kids to go to college" as confirming their belief that landlords are in a good place.

A policymaker will also take a dim view that someone might be made homeless and end up in emergency accomodation in order for a Landlords kid to have a place to live.

Policymaker response.....

1) make it less attractive for a property to be kept empty.....

2) when it comes time for the landlords young fella to go to college - you pay the kid to stay in a hotel or even the new co living if it means a family in the home avoids homelessness.

It's not your fault but the having a place in Dublin for your kids when in college feeds into a policymakers negative perception of landlords.

Except they have done nothing and don't plan to do anything about leaving property idle

Are there changes to stop having the policy where family members needs are valid? Again I dont think there is anything there for this other than making sure it actually happens and not an excuse

My point is that PKiernans post is the sort of post that would encourage a policymaker if they read it to continue being tough on landlords.

Its hard for a policymaker to get enthusiastic about supporting property owners who talk of "having a place to stay for the kids when they go to college".

The likely problem at policymaker level is how they percieve landlords. If they were to percieve landlords as positive the rules would likely reflect this.

If landlords want to see policymakers improve rules for landlords then they will have to change the policymakers perception of who landlords are and how landlords could be an asset.

Gumbo

Claw Hammer wrote: »

13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

13k could easily erect a new stud wall and increase the number of bedrooms?
Would that count?

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

It will easily add another bathroom which is plenty to point to a substantial change. En suite bathrooms make a considerable different to sale and rent prices of property.

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Really do tell. I am about to upgrade a property so can up the rent. It is 6 months notice then spend about 13k doing it up.

Is this one of the ways around RPZ? See it isn't cheap and takes a long time. It would take 22 years to get the rent up to the same as others in the block at 4% ever 2 years. Relatives property who didn't keep rent inline with market rent

13k is unlikely to bring about a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation.

It will easily add another bathroom which is plenty to point to a substantial change. En suite bathrooms make a considerable different to sale and rent prices of property.

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Have you considered investing in a retail or office property as an alternative?

I have both residential and commercial.

Ray Palmer

Old diesel wrote: »

My point is that PKiernans post is the sort of post that would encourage a policymaker if they read it to continue being tough on landlords.

Its hard for a policymaker to get enthusiastic about supporting property owners who talk of "having a place to stay for the kids when they go to college".

The likely problem at policymaker level is how they percieve landlords. If they were to percieve landlords as positive the rules would likely reflect this.

If landlords want to see policymakers improve rules for landlords then they will have to change the policymakers perception of who landlords are and how landlords could be an asset.

LOL you think policy makers are going around reading posts on boards to determine policy????
You are cuckoo land thinking that.
As the minister pointed out there are constitutional issue on property ownership. On top of that they already tied homeownership to residential care payments. Are they now going to charge people for not living in their homes while in care? Going to force people to rent out homes they inherited?
The policy makers are fully aware of the need for landlords and think about it with insight into the other things it would affect. It is the ill informed public with stupid views on landlords that is the problem.
If somebody decides not to rent a property out due to legislation on long leases and planned later use the government can't have much say. We have the constitution and EU law to protect property rights.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

I have both residential and commercial.

I do too, I'm considering buying another commercial, may I ask how the experience has been compared to residential?

Claw Hammer

kceire wrote: »

How?

There are many methods, some legal, some dodgy. If the new letting is not under the RTB then anything can be charged. Some landlords are issuing letting agreements which are not caught by the act.
Some are upgrading. Some are changing the footprint so that it is not the same letting as before and registering with a different address.

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

kceire wrote: »

How?

There are many methods, some legal, some dodgy. If the new letting is not under the RTB then anything can be charged. Some landlords are issuing letting agreements which are not caught by the act.
Some are upgrading. Some are changing the footprint so that it is not the same letting as before and registering with a different address.

Obviously anybody can do something illegal but that isn't around the RPZ it is simply breaking the law.

Then you are getting into bizarre claims. RTB are not tracking rent amounts so absolutely no impact. You don't need to be registered to bring a claim against a landlord.
What are these letting agreements you speak of? If you are going to claim the licence issue for student accommodation you are wrong, different model.

Upgrading isn't a way around RPZ it is part of the policy.

How do you change the address of place you are renting and change the footprint?

Anyway it looks like you cobbled together hearsay, misunderstood discussions and claiming perfectly allowed things are somehow not right.

I really was curious if you had any valuable information unfortunately not just nonsense

Pkiernan

Old diesel wrote: »

My point is that PKiernans post is the sort of post that would encourage a policymaker if they read it to continue being tough on landlords.

Its hard for a policymaker to get enthusiastic about supporting property owners who talk of "having a place to stay for the kids when they go to college".

The likely problem at policymaker level is how they percieve landlords. If they were to percieve landlords as positive the rules would likely reflect this.

If landlords want to see policymakers improve rules for landlords then they will have to change the policymakers perception of who landlords are and how landlords could be an asset.

They don't need any encouragement to be tougher on landlords.
They've been screwing landlords for years now.

They also don't read Boards!

pwurple

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I do too, I'm considering buying another commercial, may I ask how the experience has been compared to residential?

I also have a mix. Commercial tenants are generally far easier to deal with (although, you do get unusual humans too), they don't expect the place to be furnished, they do it up themselves, and don't call you for things like a hoover bag being full.

They also tend to take longer leases. Most of my commercial leases are for 5 years.

However, there can be a lot more damage because the property is in heavier use. For example, fires, floods, smashed shop windows, theft or break-ins. I had one particular hairdresser lease a unit who refused point blank to use the aircon or open a window even with all the water running constantly in there. Place became absolutely coated in mould, which I was called me about. There was nothing I could do when they refuse to use the provided ventilation.

Insurance on commercial has absolutely rocketed in the last few years. I was fairly close to having to close down some units because the insurance was going to be more than the rent taken in for a whole year. Took a lot of digging to get a reasonable quote.

Claw Hammer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Obviously anybody can do something illegal but that isn't around the RPZ it is simply breaking the law.

Then you are getting into bizarre claims. RTB are not tracking rent amounts so absolutely no impact. You don't need to be registered to bring a claim against a landlord.
What are these letting agreements you speak of? If you are going to claim the licence issue for student accommodation you are wrong, different model.

Upgrading isn't a way around RPZ it is part of the policy.

How do you change the address of place you are renting and change the footprint?

Anyway it looks like you cobbled together hearsay, misunderstood discussions and claiming perfectly allowed things are somehow not right.

I really was curious if you had any valuable information unfortunately not just nonsense

i am not referring to student licences and I am not claiming perfectly allowable things are not right. they are perfectly legitimate ways around the rent cap. Some landlords have de-registered their property at the end of a letting an then re-registers the new tenancy using a different form of the address eg. Flat 6 becomes flat F on a new registration. Some have reconfigured units so that more or less or some different floor space is used. Some have leased the landing outside a flat to the tenant with rights of passage to the landlord so that it is no longer the rent-capped flat. there are other methods but I am not going to say any more since you have been so abusive.

Graham

Mod Note

friendly reminder of the forum charter:

Advocating illegal activity
Illegal stuff is illegal. It’s site-wide policy that advice, hints or suggestions of illegal or dubiously legal action are forbidden. Same applies to users who are looking for ways to circumvent situations in an illegal manner.

Ray Palmer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Obviously anybody can do something illegal but that isn't around the RPZ it is simply breaking the law.

Then you are getting into bizarre claims. RTB are not tracking rent amounts so absolutely no impact. You don't need to be registered to bring a claim against a landlord.
What are these letting agreements you speak of? If you are going to claim the licence issue for student accommodation you are wrong, different model.

Upgrading isn't a way around RPZ it is part of the policy.

How do you change the address of place you are renting and change the footprint?

Anyway it looks like you cobbled together hearsay, misunderstood discussions and claiming perfectly allowed things are somehow not right.

I really was curious if you had any valuable information unfortunately not just nonsense

i am not referring to student licences and I am not claiming perfectly allowable things are not right. they are perfectly legitimate ways around the rent cap. Some landlords have de-registered their property at the end of a letting an then re-registers the new tenancy using a different form of the address eg. Flat 6 becomes flat F on a new registration. Some have reconfigured units so that more or less or some different floor space is used. Some have leased the landing outside a flat to the tenant with rights of passage to the landlord so that it is no longer the rent-capped flat. there are other methods but I am not going to say any more since you have been so abusive.

I fail to see how most of what you are suggesting is anyway legal. It mostly sounds like ways to avoid detection from methods not used so pretty pointless.

You have to register new tenancies there is no de-registration.

You are saying upgrading a property is a way around RPZ but it isn't it is part of it.

overkill602

Many LLs in the past used to provide some additional utilities included in the rent in fact I use to provide heating,cable tv/wifi,unmetered comunal laundry and refuse free now they come with extra charge to new tenants and is now on-top of the rent perfectly legal the reits charge for everything.

Claw Hammer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I fail to see how most of what you are suggesting is anyway legal. It mostly sounds like ways to avoid detection from methods not used so pretty pointless.

You have to register new tenancies there is no de-registration.

You are saying upgrading a property is a way around RPZ but it isn't it is part of it.

There is de registration. It is an offence not to de register when a property ceases to be let.

Ray Palmer

Claw>
Still makes no sense. Doesn't hide anything if they aren't looking at it.