Rent increase above 4% in RPZ

TheSheriff

Hello Accomodation Forum,

Looking for some opinions on a matter I find myself in.

Myself and my other half currently rent a 1 bedroom apartment in Dublin, we pay approx 1300e/month rent. We have been here ~10 months. The apartment is in a RPZ. We are also currently trying to buy a house, so will likely be moving in the next 6 months - 1 year.

Recently, it has come to our attention that the previous tenants were paying 1000e/month in rent, so, our starting rent was above the 4% allowable increase per year. We don't necessarily have proof of this, just a conversation recently with the previous tenants where this came to light.

While my girlfriend doesn't care too much as the apartment is perfect and she is happy with the price, I am a bit miffed that the system is not being enforced. Is there any comeback on this ? Could we claim the difference back from the RTB? Is it worth the hassle?

Opinions appreciated....

The_Conductor

Its illegal to charge above the 4% per annum increase.
If the previous tenant was in fact paying 1,000 and you're paying 1,300- is it possible the previous tenant did not have a rent rise for a protracted period of time? Aka- the landlord is entitled to roll several 4%s together.

After that- unless the previous rent was registered with the RTB (which may be the case)- it could simply be the previous tenant causing trouble- or it could be viewed as hearsay.

It would involve a lot of investigation to prove it either way.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't pursue it- I'm simply pointing out that it may not be as clear cut a case as you imagine- and the RTB may not have the resources to chase it- esp. if its not clear when the previous rent review occurred (or indeed, what the previous rent was set at).

1,300 is pricey- but in the current market, depending on where the property is, it might actually be quite reasonable.

Its a bit of a gamble- roll the dice see what happens?

You can’t do anything until you confirm what previous tenant was paying, third hand info isn’t proof. Apart from that, if you are buying, you may benefit from some flexibility on the LLs part coming up to your completion/move out date.

TheSheriff

Thanks for the replies so far - I don't think it is the previous tenants causing trouble, they have absolutely zero reason too.

They had purchased locally and we we run into them every now and then in aldi, walking in the area etc. It just came up in conversation one day when we were joking about the people living above us in a penthouse apartment. Total small talk, wasn't deliberately stated or anything.

Our rent is registered with the RTB, so its possible the previous rent was also.

The_Conductor

TheSheriff wrote: »

Our rent is registered with the RTB, so its possible the previous rent was also.

However, how long was the previous tenant resident in the property- and when was the rent last reviewed prior to your commencing your tenancy.

It is possible that its above board- you simply don't have enough information to go on.

TheSheriff

I agree - we do not have all of the facts.

I do know the previous tenant was in situ for approx 3 years, or just over that time.

So, even if there was a compounding of those three years, we are still paying about the RPZ rules?

Again tough, all hearsay at this moment.

HeidiHeidi

The previous tenant would have to have been paying €1000 since 2011/2012 for €1300 to be an appropriate increase.

That's according to the calculator on the RTB website.

The_Conductor

TheSheriff wrote: »

So, even if there was a compounding of those three years, we are still paying about the RPZ rules?

Again tough, all hearsay at this moment.

It depends on when the last rent review occurred. If the previous tenant's rent is recorded (as it should have been)- so too will the tenant prior to them. Details of the last rent review (possibly for a tenant prior to this again) would also presumably be on file.

It is possible that you could be wrong- its also possible that you could be right.

Lets put this bluntly- are you happy in the unit? Are you trying to vacate the unit and see if you can get some cash out of the landlord in the process? What is motivating this?

Also- where is the unit? You say its in an RPZ- when did the area become RPZ'ed?

There are a lot of unknowns here.

I'd hazard a guess that you probably have a case against the landlord- however, there could well be consequences- and there are still unknowns.

If you take a case against the landlord- and win- are you going to move elsewhere- or do you want to remain in the unit?

If the previous tenants are living in the immediate neighbourhood- why did they leave?

There are a few things that don't seem to add up- however, from what you've detailed- if the area was an RPZ at the time of the previous rent review- its likely that you are on solid ground. What you do with that- and conscious of the fact that your partner is happy in the unit- is another matter........

For now- you need further information.

TheSheriff

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

The previous tenant would have to have been paying €1000 since 2011/2012 for €1300 to be an appropriate increase.

That's according to the calculator on the RTB website.

Yes - thank you for this.

While I know its not as simple as €1000 + 4% = what my rent should be, I know we are not at the right level.

We didn't question it at the time as I don't think we would have gotten the apartment, and we had no reason too question it either.

TheSheriff

TheSheriff wrote: »

I agree - we do not have all of the facts.

So, even if there was a compounding of those three years, we are still paying about the RPZ rules?
.

These two statements seem at odds, you don’t know for certain what the previous tenant was paying, and they may not be to interested in telling you. Yet you are think you are still paying above RPZ rules. Unless you can prove what you suspect, you are just speculating.

How do you “know” you are not at the right level without talking to the previous tenant?

The_Conductor

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

The previous tenant would have to have been paying €1000 since 2011/2012 for €1300 to be an appropriate increase.

That's according to the calculator on the RTB website.

Or the tenant previous to them- there is nothing to say the lease wasn't assigned etc (as very often happens).

Simply put- the OP sounds like he has a case- but he also might not- it depends on what happened historically.

For starters I'd be asking whether the previous tenants had a rent review- and if so- when.........

meijin

or just request details re. previous rent from the landlord, which should have already been included in the lease!

noodler

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its illegal to charge above the 4% per annum increase.
If the previous tenant was in fact paying 1,000 and you're paying 1,300- is it possible the previous tenant did not have a rent rise for a protracted period of time? Aka- the landlord is entitled to roll several 4%s together.

After that- unless the previous rent was registered with the RTB (which may be the case)- it could simply be the previous tenant causing trouble- or it could be viewed as hearsay.

It would involve a lot of investigation to prove it either way.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't pursue it- I'm simply pointing out that it may not be as clear cut a case as you imagine- and the RTB may not have the resources to chase it- esp. if its not clear when the previous rent review occurred (or indeed, what the previous rent was set at).

1,300 is pricey- but in the current market, depending on where the property is, it might actually be quite reasonable.

Its a bit of a gamble- roll the dice see what happens?

There's definitely nothing reasonable about it anyway OP.

We all need to be very careful about how we legitimise the effects of the current crisis.

TheSheriff

noodler wrote: »

There's definitely nothing reasonable about it anyway OP.

We all need to be very careful about how we legitimise the effects of the current crisis.

This is more so my thoughts on it.

I've rented in Dublin for years, and we always had somewhat more reasonable rents. While we accepted the current rent and can afford it, it's just not sitting well with me that the current 4% rule appears to have being ignored.

I'll run some of the comments here past my GF tonight and night give RTB a call. I'd be happy to push ahead, but conscious it will likely instigate us being told "need apartment for family", or something along those lines

handlemaster

1300 for 1 bed in Dublin seems the correct price

TheSheriff

TheSheriff wrote: »

This is more so my thoughts on it.

I've rented in Dublin for years, and we always had somewhat more reasonable rents. While we accepted the current rent and can afford it, it's just not sitting well with me that the current 4% rule appears to have being ignored.

I'll run some of the comments here past my GF tonight and night give RTB a call. I'd be happy to push ahead, but conscious it will likely instigate us being told "need apartment for family", or something along those lines

Will you get another apartment, will you get one at current rent, and if you do, will you be able to get one with a short lease that will allow you to leave when you buy? Certainly some risk there if you haven’t the basic requirement of a dispute, confirmation of what the previous tenant was paying and time of previous rent review.

It’s possible you could get a refund, and end up spending it and more in a new rental. €1300 seems around market price in Dublin.

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

1300 for 1 bed in Dublin seems the correct price

I agree- however, the OP would rather have the rent-controlled price as opposed to the headline price. Only there is insufficient information to determine the rent-controlled price.

I'm not excusing the breach of the regulation- I'm simply pointing out that the OP needs to be in possession of all the facts rather than going in all guns blazing- as the outcome is likely to be a bad deterioration in the relationship he has with the landlord.

I'm guessing its a small landlord who is a bit clueless about the regulations (which given how frequently they're amended, isn't terribly surprising). Ignorance is not an excuse however. I'd advise proceeding with caution as there are a lot of small landlords out there close to throwing in the towel- and the OP's might decide its simply not worth while remaining in the sector.

If the OP is right and its an illegal increase in rent- he/she has a legitimate bone to pick- however, depending on how they proceed, there could be wider ramifications- esp if the landlord decides to jump ship.

Its a bit of a tightrope- and should have been addressed at the outset rather than further into the tenancy.

A rough rule of thumb is if the rent is a nice round number- either the landlord has rounded it downwards- or it is in breach of RPZ rules. Plenty of rents in both camps...…….

Fol20

TheSheriff wrote: »

I agree - we do not have all of the facts.

I do know the previous tenant was in situ for approx 3 years, or just over that time.

So, even if there was a compounding of those three years, we are still paying about the RPZ rules?

Again tough, all hearsay at this moment.

As others have pointed out, you do not have all the facts.

The previous tenant might have paid 1k for 3 years. The tenant before them may have stayed for 6 years and also paid 1k. This would make the increase legal within their limits.

You need all the facts. Personally it does sound like you have a case but we don’t know for a fact yet. Likewise since you are hoping to buy your own place. That is stressful enough without trying to deal with an angry ll and rtb. I would focus on your new house and let this alone even if it is above rpz.

handlemaster

This is another example why landlords should charge the max they can at all times. E.g lets just assume the LL gave a good rate to the old tenants as they proved themselves to be good tenants, paid on time dont call if a light bulb needs to be changed , no anti social issues, and generalls looked after the place. It might be said they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Then along comes the new teants doesnt know them but ups the rent to what is allowable. The new tenants only look at the old rent and want that rental price also without knowing why the original rent was lower.

To save hassle like this Landlords will never be thanked for been to nice with the rental charged.

SteelyDanJalapeno

handlemaster wrote: »

This is another example why landlords should charge the max they can at all times. E.g lets just assume the LL gave a good rate to the old tenants as they proved themselves to be good tenants, paid on time dont call if a light bulb needs to be changed , no anti social issues, and generalls looked after the place. It might be said they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Then along comes the new teants doesnt know them but ups the rent to what is allowable. The new tenants only look at the old rent and want that rental price also without knowing why the original rent was lower.

To save hassle like this Landlords will never be thanked for been to nice with the rental charged.

I disagree, the landlord is protected as long as he hasn't upped it by more than the allowable %, you can undercharge tenants and reward them for being good tenants, and then legally increase it to the max allowable per year.

The_Conductor

SteelyDanJalapeno wrote: »

I disagree, the landlord is protected as long as he hasn't upped it by more than the allowable %, you can undercharge tenants and reward them for being good tenants, and then legally increase it to the max allowable per year.

The landlord is only protected, providing the regulatory regime doesn't change.
Changes to the regulatory regime have created a cohort of rent controlled property that are highly desirable for tenants- and receive up to 6 times as many normal viewers, than properties without a similar rent lock applied to them.

This is recognised by the government- and in a bid to try and entice some more landlords from leaving the sector- they did suggest a gradiated manner of allowing those caught out at the commencement of the RPZ legislation to catch up with those who had been shadowing the market- however, they baulked at enacting it following representations from tenancy groups.

The Irish market is a mess- and unless its regularised, the only thing that makes sense for landlords like the OP's- is to get vacant possession of their units, tidy them up and sell them (esp. in the current Dublin market). It simply doesn't make any sense to try and game the system- if this is what the landlord did- the only realistic option open to them is to end tenancies, freshen up properties, and sell for whatever the market will bear.

TheSheriff

handlemaster wrote: »

This is another example why landlords should charge the max they can at all times. E.g lets just assume the LL gave a good rate to the old tenants as they proved themselves to be good tenants, paid on time dont call if a light bulb needs to be changed , no anti social issues, and generalls looked after the place. It might be said they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Then along comes the new teants doesnt know them but ups the rent to what is allowable. The new tenants only look at the old rent and want that rental price also without knowing why the original rent was lower.

To save hassle like this Landlords will never be thanked for been to nice with the rental charged.

But here you are assuming there is some sort of "discount" applied for being a good tenant. I have rented in Dublin for years. In this particular apartment, I have not seen nor contacted the landlord really since moving in. I change light bulbs, keep the place immaculate and I am generally in work so much I wouldn't have the opportunity for any form of non-social behavior like parties etc etc.

Am I a good tenant? Yes.

Do I deserve a discount on my rent for being so? Not in my mind.

This is a business transaction. Nothing more for me, and I wouldn't expect it to be anything more for the landlord. I chose this apartment as it was within budget.

I actually think this apartment is worth €1300/month, it is probably worth more considering the standard and the current market. HOWEVER, the fact remains that we assume (I am aware its all hearsay) we are being charged outside of what we should be paying in terms of the rent pressure zone rules.

It doesn't matter what the landlord should have charged over the years. If the previous rent was €1000/month, and outside of no rent increases for several years then the rent shouldn't be at the level it is at.

Deanzoggggg

SteelyDanJalapeno wrote: »

I disagree, the landlord is protected as long as he hasn't upped it by more than the allowable %, you can undercharge tenants and reward them for being good tenants, and then legally increase it to the max allowable per year.

I am quite certain there is no mechanism to allow discounts.

The_Conductor

Deanzoggggg wrote: »

I am quite certain there is no mechanism to allow discounts.

Correct.
If you reward one tenant for taking good care of the property and being a good tenant in general- any subsequent tenant, despite not having any relationship with the landlord, is automatically entitled to a commensurate reduction.

No good deed goes unpunished.

In an ideal world- all tenants and landlords would act in a responsible business like manner towards one another. The legislation is predicated on this basis. Its not an ideal world though...........

antimatterx

Hahahahaha illegal to charge more than 4%. The state don’t own the properties, they don’t take any of the risk involved in renting property out, and they don’t guarantee you rent. So no, they can’t dictate the price

L1011

antimatterx wrote: »

Hahahahaha illegal to charge more than 4%. The state don’t own the properties, they don’t take any of the risk involved in renting property out, and they don’t guarantee you rent. So no, they can’t dictate the price

Are you intending to take the constitutional challenge then?

Because until then the legislation stands

Fol20

TheSheriff wrote: »

But here you are assuming there is some sort of "discount" applied for being a good tenant. I have rented in Dublin for years. In this particular apartment, I have not seen nor contacted the landlord really since moving in. I change light bulbs, keep the place immaculate and I am generally in work so much I wouldn't have the opportunity for any form of non-social behavior like parties etc etc.

Am I a good tenant? Yes.

Do I deserve a discount on my rent for being so? Not in my mind.

This is a business transaction. Nothing more for me, and I wouldn't expect it to be anything more for the landlord. I chose this apartment as it was within budget.

I actually think this apartment is worth €1300/month, it is probably worth more considering the standard and the current market. HOWEVER, the fact remains that we assume (I am aware its all hearsay) we are being charged outside of what we should be paying in terms of the rent pressure zone rules.

It doesn't matter what the landlord should have charged over the years. If the previous rent was €1000/month, and outside of no rent increases for several years then the rent shouldn't be at the level it is at.

You seem to contradict yourself.

The very fact that rent is 1000 and market rate is 1300 implies that there is a discount. It is transactional for both ll and the tenant. Why do you think a ll would give a discount if it isn’t for good behaviour from a tenant?

You agree that it’s worth 1300 but you still want the rent decreased - this shows how dysfunctional the market is and why ll should not give any discount for any tenant as it will hurt them eventually when the tenant moves out.

Fol20

antimatterx wrote: »

Hahahahaha illegal to charge more than 4%. The state don’t own the properties, they don’t take any of the risk involved in renting property out, and they don’t guarantee you rent. So no, they can’t dictate the price

I’m afraid they can and have. If caught, people will be fined and if you don’t pay up what do you think will happen?

jimmycrackcorm

TheSheriff wrote: »

(I am aware its all hearsay) we are being charged outside of what we should be paying in terms of the re.

You have no proof so there isn't anything you can do about it.

3DataModem

If you really want to get the money back, then wait until you are moving out and raise it with RTB. They will investigate. If the previous tenancy was registered, the rent will be registered, and they can act (and award you the whole lot back).

If you don't agree with RPZs and feel your landlord is doing you a good deal with the 1300 and should be allowed charge market rate, then do nothing.

3DataModem

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You have no proof so there isn't anything you can do about it.

You don’t need proof. You can just raise a concern, and they investigate.

3DataModem

3DataModem wrote: »

If you really want to get the money back, then wait until you are moving out and raise it with RTB. They will investigate. If the previous tenancy was registered, the rent will be registered, and they can act (and award you the whole lot back).

If you don't agree with RPZs and feel your landlord is doing you a good deal with the 1300 and should be allowed charge market rate, then do nothing.

Will the rent paid by the previous tenant be registered? Not according to the RTB website.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/register-a-tenancy/how-to-register-a-tenancy/

Seems the op will still need proof of what the previous tenant was paying, if that is not part of information necessary to register a tenancy, then LL does not have to provide it. There are new legislative requirements coming into force, but according to the RTB website they have not yet been enacted.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

Are you intending to take the constitutional challenge then?

Because until then the legislation stands

It is fair to assume that if the legislation was unconstitutional, the large funds which have enormous holdings and would gain most from it being struck down would have challenged it by now as they would have the means to do it.

What should be of more concern is whether it has actually made the rental situation worse by ensuring LLs increase rent yearly instead of when a new tenancy begins which was often the case, and the fact that LLs activity ignore it, or worse, leave the sector/don’t enter it because of it, therefore reducing stock further.

10pennymixup

Dav010 wrote: »

Will the rent paid by the previous tenant be registered? Not according to the RTB website.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/register-a-tenancy/how-to-register-a-tenancy/

Seems the op will still need proof of what the previous tenant was paying, if that is not part of information necessary to register a tenancy, then LL does not have to provide it. There are new legislative requirements coming into force, but according to the RTB website they have not yet been enacted.

Section 3, part 13 requires the rental amount, 14 looks for the deposit amount.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/forms/Tenancy_Registration_Application_Form_RTB1.pdf

10pennymixup

10pennymixup wrote: »

Section 3, part 13 requires the rental amount, 14 looks for the deposit amount.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/forms/Tenancy_Registration_Application_Form_RTB1.pdf

According to the RTB website that information is not a requirement even though it is on the form.

Edit: the form says it must be included, yet the link I posted on their website about info which must be provided makes no mention of it. Go figure. It’s possible the new legislation has been enacted and they haven’t updated their site, that does not however mean the previous tenants rent was registered.

10pennymixup

Dav010 wrote: »

According to the RTB website that information is not a requirement even though it is on the form.

Edit: the form says it must be included, yet the link I posted on their website about info which must be provided makes no mention of it. Go figure. It’s possible the new legislation has been enacted and they haven’t updated their site, that does not however mean the previous tenants rent was registered.

Not really arguing with you, it's a crap system. I remember having to declare the rent a few times in the past when registering a new tenancy. The last time was maybe three years ago.

I don't recall ever having to register any rent increases though.

L1011

Dav010 wrote: »

It is fair to assume that if the legislation was unconstitutional, the large funds which have enormous holdings and would gain most from it being struck down would have challenged it by now as they would have the means to do it.

What should be of more concern is whether it has actually made the rental situation worse by ensuring LLs increase rent yearly instead of when a new tenancy begins which was often the case, and the fact that LLs activity ignore it, or worse, leave the sector/don’t enter it because of it, therefore reducing stock further.

There is an opinion, that I'm not sure I fully agree with, that the large funds believe their tax situation will be made significantly more onerous than it currently is if there's a challenge.

Graham

Would the large funds be considered a 'citizen' afforded the property protections of the constitution?

handlemaster

3DataModem wrote: »

You don’t need proof. You can just raise a concern, and they investigate.

They work for the tenant. Have you ever heard of a landlord getting compensation and actually receiving it ?

The_Conductor

handlemaster wrote: »

They work for the tenant. Have you ever heard of a landlord getting compensation and actually receiving it ?

There are more awards to landlords (in 2018) than tenants- however, and despite knowing several landlords who have successfully brought cases, I am not personally aware of any who ever received a penny from their erstwhile tenants (regardless of the damage to the units).

Landlords are viewed as having an asset upon which they can draw to pay tenants (for whatever shortcoming). Tenants are viewed as not having any assets- and simply plead penury, even if they have caused structural damage to a unit- and get off scott free.........

One rule for landlords and a different rule for tenants.

The only surprising thing is landlords continue (and in increasing numbers) to bring cases against tenants. Why bother, when even when they win, they get nothing?

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

There are more awards to landlords (in 2018) than tenants- however, and despite knowing several landlords who have successfully brought cases, I am not personally aware of any who ever received a penny from their erstwhile tenants (regardless of the damage to the units).

Landlords are viewed as having an asset upon which they can draw to pay tenants (for whatever shortcoming). Tenants are viewed as not having any assets- and simply plead penury, even if they have caused structural damage to a unit- and get off scott free.........

One rule for landlords and a different rule for tenants.

The only surprising thing is landlords continue (and in increasing numbers) to bring cases against tenants. Why bother, when even when they win, they get nothing?

I would suspect a lot of cases form part of the process of eviction. The RTB is the best database for tenants you want to avoid renting to.

banchang

Dav010 wrote: »

I would suspect a lot of cases form part of the process of eviction. The RTB is the best database for tenants you want to avoid renting to.

Is this database available to view ? Can I see names of tenants who have had cases against them ?

3DataModem

The_Conductor wrote: »

the only realistic option open to them is to end tenancies, freshen up properties, and sell for whatever the market will bear.

But of course the low rent affects the resale value too.... as the rent rules apply to the new owners just as much as the seller. Sigh.

The_Conductor

3DataModem wrote: »

But of course the low rent affects the resale value too.... as the rent rules apply to the new owners just as much as the seller. Sigh.

The low rent affecting the selling price is only really an issue if you're selling it into the rental market. The fact of the matter is- the number of landlords abandoning the sector has not let up (save through the impossibility of doing anything at all at the moment). Landlords are not in the market for BTL units- they (as a group) are far more likely to be simply disposing of units- most frequently to owner occupiers. I can point at 23 units that have sold like this in the last 12 months within 200m of my front door.

Low rent- is a factor if your property is only suitable for the BTL market- which is why I was suggesting properties would have to be sufficiently spruced up to enable the landlords to dispose of them (to owner occupiers- many of whom might not be willing to look beyond a poorly kept rental property appearance).

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

It is fair to assume that if the legislation was unconstitutional, the large funds which have enormous holdings and would gain most from it being struck down would have challenged it by now as they would have the means to do it.

What should be of more concern is whether it has actually made the rental situation worse by ensuring LLs increase rent yearly instead of when a new tenancy begins which was often the case, and the fact that LLs activity ignore it, or worse, leave the sector/don’t enter it because of it, therefore reducing stock further.

The large funds were gaining from it because most of them had new units which were not caught an the rent cap. It also had the effect of driving the smaller operators out of the market, which suited them as well.