Got a rent reduction

bridest

Moved into an apartment in Drumcondra back last August. Previous tenants contacted me in November looking for post.
Asked them how much they where paying before I moved in. It was significantly lower than what I was paying. 50% lower. I couldn't make contact with the landlord so intiated a case with the RTB.

Long story short, landlord bricked it, we came to an agreement and now my rent is significantly lower. I don't think a lot of new tenants are looking for evidence what previous tenants were paying before them, which under new rules is obliged to be given by the landlord. From tresholds website:

"the landlord is required to give you written information outlining the amount of rent and date it was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling and a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula. If you don't get this the landlord is in breach and you can take further action through the RTB. "

I really feel there should be an advertising campaign or something about this, because a lot of landlords seem to think that a new tenancy means they can put up the rent by whatever they like. They are not allowed to. Has to be the same as previous tenant or only increased by 4% if it wasn't increased on previous tenancy, I hope this helps some people get rents lowered and money back.

Graces7

Well done!

q85dw7osi4lebg

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

Enter name here

With any luck he puts the apartment up for sale and issues you a termination notice. About time tenants stopped depending on LL's to support them.

cosybeach

while it is the law to distort the market Id terminate move a family member in why should any business be required to subsidize some one else's living especially when they gloat about it .

handlemaster

Vada Melted Smallpox wrote: »

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

So true. No mention ever of how a landlord should get said rent when a tenant refuses to pay.

handlemaster

bridest wrote: »

Moved into an apartment in Drumcondra back last August. Previous tenants contacted me in November looking for post.
Asked them how much they where paying before I moved in. It was significantly lower than what I was paying. 50% lower. I couldn't make contact with the landlord so intiated a case with the RTB.

Long story short, landlord bricked it, we came to an agreement and now my rent is significantly lower. I don't think a lot of new tenants are looking for evidence what previous tenants were paying before them, which under new rules is obliged to be given by the landlord. From tresholds website:

"the landlord is required to give you written information outlining the amount of rent and date it was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling and a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula. If you don't get this the landlord is in breach and you can take further action through the RTB. "

I really feel there should be an advertising campaign or something about this, because a lot of landlords seem to think that a new tenancy means they can put up the rent by whatever they like. They are not allowed to. Has to be the same as previous tenant or only increased by 4% if it wasn't increased on previous tenancy, I hope this helps some people get rents lowered and money back.

And our course the campaign would be funded by landlords with their payments to RTB. What would your suggestion be for landlords to deal with tenants who are anti social and refuse to pay rent. Perhaps tenants could all pay into a fund for that??

Old diesel

Well done OP.

Unfortunately it's the idea that a landlord might circumvent the law or Cosybeachs thinking re just move a family member in on purpose.....

That encourages more rules and regulations.

If a minister saw evidence of deliberately moving a family member in just to get rid of a tenant......

Then it's not long before we get to a point where the landlord or family member has to prove a need for the house. THAT exact house - not a house.

And need it for a reasonable amount of time.

The problem is that tenants and landlords are in a forced relationship and neither side trusts the other.

lawred2

handlemaster wrote: »

So true. No mention ever of how a landlord should get said rent when a tenant refuses to pay.

Relevance to this thread? Did the OP threaten to withhold rent?

Old diesel

lawred2 wrote: »

Relevance to this thread? Did the OP threaten to withhold rent?

It was a reply to someone saying who'd be a landlord so perfectly relevant reply imo.

He was agreeing with the comment and citing an example of why he agreed.

It's a known issue that the system is too slow to deal with non payment of rent.

listermint

cosybeach wrote: »

while it is the law to distort the market Id terminate move a family member in why should any business be required to subsidize some one else's living especially when they gloat about it .

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

handlemaster

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

A large chunk of that rental goes in tax, mortgage payments , insuranceand repairs. This money is not in the pocket of the landlord but instead is supporting employment either directly or indirectly.

There are many big high paying positions in Dublin for example, rents are all relative.

Google employ 8000
Facebook employ 5000
LinkedIn 2000

The Student

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

That's a ridiculous post. Anybody can purchase a property who can afford to. If you can't afford to then let the State house you. We all know how well that works out.

handlemaster

The Student wrote: »

That's a ridiculous post. Anybody can purchase a property who can afford to. If you can't afford to then let the State house you. We all know how well that works out.

Exactly it's like the man or woman who save up and purchase a property to possible supplement their retirement are super humans and are doing the extraordinary. Landlords are not the social housing keepers fornths state that responsibility lies solely with the state.

Dodge

Vada Melted Smallpox wrote: »

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

And yet there are no shortage of landlords in Ireland...

Graces7

handlemaster wrote: »

And our course the campaign would be funded by landlords with their payments to RTB. What would your suggestion be for landlords to deal with tenants who are anti social and refuse to pay rent. Perhaps tenants could all pay into a fund for that??

Relevance to the OP?

Old diesel

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

It's a bit of a mess....

The cost of having the property if a landlord is high.

Landlords report having to put in too much of their own money and it's a financial strain on them.

For example the "excellent tenant" thread that's currently running.

There's also the risk factor of non payment of rent.

It's a headscratcher because we just don't know how to calculate what fair rent to BOTH parties actually is.

Just because the tenant is paying a marker rent of 2000 euros a month doesnt mean the tenant thinks it's fair.

And if a tenant thinks rent is fair then a landlord will think its too low.

It would be interesting to see an expert run a model based on no RPZ - rent at 2000 euro a month.

Covering the following.....

How the market moves from 2 k a month naturally - how high rent goes.

What's the trigger rent for more investment.

What's the expectation of that investment - ie does it expect continued increases.

What's the lifetime rental income at changed rent when market responds naturally - ie no RPZ.

If we take 2 k as a monthly rent - and we have no change - then......

It's 240 k over 10 years

480 k over 20 years.

720 k over 30 years.

960 k over 40 years.

1200 k over 50 years.

Those are not small sums of money.

The actual sums of money that comes in will differ as rent goes up and down as a result of market conditions.

So there is a need for both sides to be clear on what's needed and why.

Graces7

Old diesel wrote: »

Well done OP.

The problem is that tenants and landlords are in a forced relationship and neither side trusts the other.

Not always true thankfully. Landlord before last and I had a good relationship. I handled his paperwork for him, so when he told me he needed to sell the house I knew he was being truthful and was in a financial bind and with a large family to support . So I moved as soon as was feasible. Kept an eye on daft ie and was so glad when it sold well for him.

Now my last private landlord was a very different matter! Thankful to be in council accommodation now - something I would never have sought a few years ago

lawred2

Old diesel wrote: »

It was a reply to someone saying who'd be a landlord so perfectly relevant reply imo.

He was agreeing with the comment and citing an example of why he agreed.

It's a known issue that the system is too slow to deal with non payment of rent.

The OP in question found evidence that the landlord operated well outside regulations and was called out on it..

And the response is "who'd be a landlord"

Give me a break.. the OP showed no desire or intent to withhold rent.. so yeah irrelevant.

daithiK1

bridest wrote: »

Moved into an apartment in Drumcondra back last August. Previous tenants contacted me in November looking for post.
Asked them how much they where paying before I moved in. It was significantly lower than what I was paying. 50% lower. I couldn't make contact with the landlord so intiated a case with the RTB.

Long story short, landlord bricked it, we came to an agreement and now my rent is significantly lower. I don't think a lot of new tenants are looking for evidence what previous tenants were paying before them, which under new rules is obliged to be given by the landlord. From tresholds website:

"the landlord is required to give you written information outlining the amount of rent and date it was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling and a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula. If you don't get this the landlord is in breach and you can take further action through the RTB. "

I really feel there should be an advertising campaign or something about this, because a lot of landlords seem to think that a new tenancy means they can put up the rent by whatever they like. They are not allowed to. Has to be the same as previous tenant or only increased by 4% if it wasn't increased on previous tenancy, I hope this helps some people get rents lowered and money back.

probably should have waited until the end of Feb before going down that route.

bridest

handlemaster wrote: »

So true. No mention ever of how a landlord should get said rent when a tenant refuses to pay.

What a silly comment. Always pay my rent in time.

The fact of the matter is the landlord was breaking the law. Simple

bridest

daithiK1 wrote: »

probably should have waited until the end of Feb before going down that route.

Why is that?

handlemaster

Graces7 wrote: »

Relevance to the OP?

I was replying back to a post. If you have an issue take it up with the mod.

jay1988

So the landlord in this instance broke rental regulations and was caught out and had to fix rent to a price within the regulations (that im sure he was aware of when re-letting the property) and all we're getting here is the poor landlord talk?

What planet are you people living on? What other section of the population should be allowed break rules and regulations?

colm_mcm

I wonder if the previous tenants were getting a half price tenancy, or the OP was paying on the double..

handlemaster

Old diesel wrote: »

It's a bit of a mess....

The cost of having the property if a landlord is high.

Landlords report having to put in too much of their own money and it's a financial strain on them.

For example the "excellent tenant" thread that's currently running.

There's also the risk factor of non payment of rent.

It's a headscratcher because we just don't know how to calculate what fair rent to BOTH parties actually is.

Just because the tenant is paying a marker rent of 2000 euros a month doesnt mean the tenant thinks it's fair.

And if a tenant thinks rent is fair then a landlord will think its too low.

It would be interesting to see an expert run a model based on no RPZ - rent at 2000 euro a month.

Covering the following.....

How the market moves from 2 k a month naturally - how high rent goes.

What's the trigger rent for more investment.

What's the expectation of that investment - ie does it expect continued increases.

What's the lifetime rental income at changed rent when market responds naturally - ie no RPZ.

If we take 2 k as a monthly rent - and we have no change - then......

It's 240 k over 10 years

480 k over 20 years.

720 k over 30 years.

960 k over 40 years.

1200 k over 50 years.

Those are not small sums of money.

The actual sums of money that comes in will differ as rent goes up and down as a result of market conditions.

So there is a need for both sides to be clear on what's needed and why.

Lots of variables.
Cost of acquiring the asset
Cost of finance
Demand and supply in the area
Public transport
Employment level
Income.level
Insurance
Government position on private rental housing
Registration costs
Repair costs
Tax on rental
Guarantees on rent / risks

bridest

jay1988 wrote: »

So the landlord in this instance broke rental regulations and was caught out and had to fix rent to a price within the regulations (that im sure he was aware of when re-letting the property) and all we're getting here is the poor landlord talk?

What planet are you people living on? What other section of the population should be allowed break rules and regulations?

They're living in the land of degenerate Ireland!

Yellow_Fern

listermint wrote: »

Because it's the law. And frankly it's high time housing was stopped being used as a commodity for individuals pension plans based off BBC room to improve shows of the 90s it's actually harming the rest of the economy. It's not sustainable for people to be handing over 3/4 of their income on rent and have functioning economic activity elsewhere.

Madness .

Food is a commodity, who does it hurt?

handlemaster

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Food is a commodity, who does it hurt?

Good one

daithiK1

part 4 kicks in.. Not sticking up for the LL, (they were clearly in the wrong) but if you were my tenant and you had one over on me id be having you out. end off - would be cutting my losses and starting fresh on a clean slate, legally next time.

quickest way to do that is before part 4 kicks in, hope your not bricking it now.

handlemaster

daithiK1 wrote: »

part 4 kicks in.. Not sticking up for the LL, (they were clearly in the wrong) but if you were my tenant and you had one over on me id be having you out. end off - would be cutting my losses and starting fresh on a clean slate, legally next time.

quickest way to do that is before part 4 kicks in, hope your not bricking it now.

I think the op.is passed the 6 month period

circular flexing

daithiK1 wrote: »

part 4 kicks in.. Not sticking up for the LL, (they were clearly in the wrong) but if you were my tenant and you had one over on me id be having you out. end off - would be cutting my losses and starting fresh on a clean slate, legally next time.

quickest way to do that is before part 4 kicks in, hope your not bricking it now.

Assuming OP has signed a lease for 1 year, how would you propose kicking them out?

Great to see. I know there’s a lot of times Landlords are hard done by with the law favouring non paying tenants, etc but this one was completely in the wrong and deserved what they got.

I’d encourage tenant in a zone to send proof of the amount they were paying to the address a couple of months after they move out.

Jurgen Klopp

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

The Student

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

Some generalization there.

daithiK1

circular flexing wrote: »

Assuming OP has signed a lease for 1 year, how would you propose kicking them out?

I was assuming there was not one, its in the LL favour not to issue one, but sure when such a messer of a LL is involved its probably best not to assume anything

The Student

The Student wrote: »

Some generalization there.

I don’t think they were quite serious, but you’d have to find it strange the way landlords generally get unconditional support here.

Yellow_Fern

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I don’t think they were quite serious, but you’d have to find it strange the way landlords generally get unconditional support here.

Why, because they are dark wretched demons? maybe its just that they are more invested in this topic than tenants and are more chatty about it.

Assetbacked

cosybeach wrote: »

while it is the law to distort the market Id terminate move a family member in why should any business be required to subsidize some one else's living especially when they gloat about it .

My feelings about the beef farmers and their subsidised business!

The rental market is unfair on the players that follow the rules on the LL and tenant side. LLs paying far too much tax and not being able to kick out bad tenants easily. Tenants who take care of the place, pay rent on time but don't want to pay 40%+ of their after tax salary. The rules benefit the institutionals who pay no tax on rental income; no tax! Bad tenants know they can get away with paying no rent for months at a time without getting kicked out.

handlemaster

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Fair play to the OP.

It's obvious there's plenty of LLs on here bricking it at the thought of being caught out themselves by the posts

Hardly any decent landlord who has been in the business for a few years would know tenants dont appreciate getting rents below market rate. As in this case the old tenants paid well below market rent , then the landlord was screwed when he wanted to increase. While what he dont was not legal you can.appreciate how frustrated he must feel. That is a good lesson to all landlords. .charge full rent possible at all times. Of course while operating within the law.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Why, because they are dark wretched demons? maybe its just that they are more invested in this topic than tenants and are more chatty about it.

No, don’t be ridiculous. It’s because if someone is in the wrong they’re in the wrong.

Yellow_Fern

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

No, don’t be silly. It’s because if someone is in the wrong they’re in the wrong.

You are missing the dynamic. No one is justifying the landlord's actions here. Instead they are basically hinting it is law that is the real issue and thus implying that inevitably landlords will do this due to the legal regime. Its like the war on drugs. No matter how hard you try some laws dont work because they work against human nature. It is time we stop criminalizing Irish people for deciding whats best for them.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are missing the dynamic. No one is justifying the landlord's actions here. Instead they are basically hinting it is law that is the real issue and thus implying that inevitably landlords will do this due to the legal regime. Its like the war on drugs. No matter how hard you try some laws dont work because they work against human nature. It is time we stop criminalizing Irish people for deciding whats best for them.

But a non paying tenant is doing what’s best for themselves. Someone driving without insurance is doing what’s best for themselves.

Suiting yourself isn’t always the right thing to do or the place is anarchy.

The Student

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

But a non paying tenant is doing what’s best for themselves. Someone driving without insurance is doing what’s best for themselves.

Suiting yourself isn’t always the right thing to do or the place is anarchy.

But the law in this instance is not balanced. A landlord who breaks the law is fined and has assets that will pay the fine. A tenant who breaks the law can live rent free before evicted and has nothing to pay a fine. How exactly is this a fair balance?

The Student

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I don’t think they were quite serious, but you’d have to find it strange the way landlords generally get unconditional support here.

Maybe because there is no support for landlords at all. We have charities, housing bodies etc in the media every single day about housing yet we rarely hear of landlords destroyed by rogue tenants etc.

When this happens its just seen as a failed business trans. Nothing is mentioned about overholding tenants that led to this "failed business trans". What about outstanding arrears for both private and social housing tenants. These figs are not referencedreferencedas much in the media.

Perhaps some balanced reporting my reveal a different story than those portrayed in the media.

Assetbacked

It’s a disgrace that LLs are forced to subsidise tenants by not being able to maxamise the rent. The previous tenants were obviously paying disgracefully low rent and the LL did his best to try improve the income to his very costly and over regulated (in favour of tenants) business.

It’s the LL I feel sorry for and the op on gloating will get a karma kick at some stage I’m sure. If I were the LL I would be making a move to evict the op immediately.

Assetbacked wrote: »

My feelings about the beef farmers and their subsidised business!

Ha ha good one! I’m afraid to tell you that it’s consumers that are being subsidised not beef farmers.

bridest

The Student wrote: »

But the law in this instance is not balanced. A landlord who breaks the law is fined and has assets that will pay the fine. A tenant who breaks the law can live rent free before evicted and has nothing to pay a fine. How exactly is this a fair balance?

I actually agree with you. The laws should be fair and balanced. A tenant who doesn't pay should be perused. Everyone needs to be responsible.

cursai

Vada Melted Smallpox wrote: »

Why anyone would want to be a landlord in this country is beyond me.

Everyone harps on righteously about what they are owed and not what they might owe.

jay1988

Fox Elegant Leper wrote: »

It’s a disgrace that LLs are forced to subsidise tenants by not being able to maxamise the rent. The previous tenants were obviously paying disgracefully low rent and the LL did his best to try improve the income to his very costly and over regulated (in favour of tenants) business.

It’s the LL I feel sorry for and the op on gloating will kick a karma kick at some stage I’m sure.

Karma did kick in, the landlord acting illegally was forced to act within the law.

bridest

Fox Elegant Leper wrote: »

It’s a disgrace that LLs are forced to subsidise tenants by not being able to maxamise the rent. The previous tenants were obviously paying disgracefully low rent and the LL did his best to try improve the income to his very costly and over regulated business.

It’s the LL I feel sorry for and the op on gloating will kick a karma kick at some stage I’m sure.

I'm not gloating, I'm stating facts. I'm a working professional in Dublin who is struggling to make sense of living in this overpriced city. Unfortunately, the specialised work I do cannot be got easily elsewhere. I'd gladly move out of Dublin and take a salary cut to live somewhere more affordable. So no, I don't think karma will kick in, as I've been straight up and honest with the landlord and we both shook hands on an agreement that we are both happy with.

handlemaster

jay1988 wrote: »

Karma did kick in, the landlord acting illegally was forced to act within the law.

No one is disputing the LL has been corrected correctly . We have moved on from that. What when the issue is with the tenant. Nothing happens ever.