No more 4% rent increases

Piehead

So a lot lower increases based on inflation?



https://jrnl.ie/5482044

Graham

Well that came out of the blue.

Unfortunately mixed blessing I fear.

While it's undoubtedly going to help many tenants it will also be a disincentive for many landlords, particularly those still stuck on a below-market rent.

AlmightyCushion

It's a welcome change for tenants who stay put but doesn't fix issues of sky high rents. I could be wrong but I don't believe there is a way to check the previous rent of a property so once tenants move out landlords can just charge what they want because the new tenants won't know any better. Also, it doesn't do anything for places already rented at crazy prices or places entering the rental market for the first times.

My landlord could probably rent my place for €200 more a month or more but I've been a good tenant for a good while so there seemed to be an unspoken agreement to keep the rent lower so I would stay here. I'm in Dublin. This will penalise them when I move out next year and they won't give favourable terms to the next good tenant.

mrslancaster

If landlords are restricted to one month deposit will that mean more unfurnished places? No furniture /floor covering = no damage.
Read many posts on different threads here about unpaid rent and damage that is not covered by a months deposit so how will that work? will the new rules just cause more landlords to sell up so less places to rent?

handlemaster

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/lower-rent-rises-on-way-for-tenants-as-increases-to-be-capped-atinflation-rate-40600368.html


More government interfering. Its like they just can't help themselves trying to deflect from their own housing failures. Funny thing is inflation is on the rise couldn't have picked a worse time to do it. For land landlords the costs will be above inflation for such services as repairs etc as these are not taken into the inflation calculation. Again the landlord gets kicked.

The Student

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's a welcome change for tenants who stay put but doesn't fix issues of sky high rents. I could be wrong but I don't believe there is a way to check the previous rent of a property so once tenants move out landlords can just charge what they want because the new tenants won't know any better. Also, it doesn't do anything for places already rented at crazy prices or places entering the rental market for the first times.

What about the landlords with below market rent. We are individual's just like you. We could be your next door neighbour, a relative. We are not some faceless company making huge profits. We are those who purchased a property rather than relying on the State to look after us in old age.

But yet again the govt abdicate its responsibility for housing and does not expect any repercussions.

It's a property market. The key word is "market" if you don't want a market then supply the service by the State.

theboringfox

In general anytime government interferes things get worse.

Hopefully this helps though and rents can become more affordable.

Hopefully disincentives too people buying investment properties.

niallers1

Government interference is like the kiss of death.
What happens if we get double digit inflation/interest rates. Will they go back to capping rent at 4%

LL provide a vital service, be careful about driving them out.
The issue is lack of supply. Increase supply and rents will reduce.

Government policy has caused this problem not the LL.

handlemaster

theboringfox wrote: »

In general anytime government interferes things get worse.

Hopefully this helps though and rents can become more affordable.

Hopefully disincentives too people buying investment properties.

What will happen if there are no people willing to purchase property to rent to those who dont want to or are unable to buy ?

Flinty997

I think you are missing the point. It will increase the supply of housing for those wanting to buy. I'm sure next week they'll introduce another rule preventing rentals from being sold.

niallers1

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. It will increase the supply of housing for those wanting to buy. I'm sure next week they'll introduce another rule preventing rentals from being sold.

So LL sell up to people who can afford to buy to live in. What about the people who cannot buy/ do not want to buy. Where will they live . Supply / government policy is the issue

Amadan Dubh

Obviously the investors have had a hand in this; right when inflation is back, suddenly rents can be increased in line with inflation for the properties in the RPZs. It was this or else rent freezes but this at least will guarantee close to 2% increases if not more for the next few years. By way of example, in Germany inflation is already over 2% for this year and the economy is only opening. 4.5% is the level in the US for 2021.

This is nearly funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Flinty997

I'm not sure the Govt cares...

https://www.thejournal.ie/daft-rental-report-quarter-one-2021-5434222-May2021/

Adelman of Beamfleot

whatnow! wrote: »

My landlord could probably rent my place for €200 more a month or more but I've been a good tenant for a good while so there seemed to be an unspoken agreement to keep the rent lower so I would stay here. I'm in Dublin. This will penalise them when I move out next year and they won't give favourable terms to the next good tenant.

When RPZs came in, any concerns of landlords who had valued their good tenants and hadn't been charging the highest market rates to reflect this, were dismissed with statements implying that the landlord wasn't fit to be a landlord, that being a landlord is a business and should be treated as such.

The message to landlords was, often from renters ironically, that you should fleece while you can, no one will thank you for doing otherwise

Flinty997

Exactly they effectively punished landlords who kept rent low. Same thing again.

BillyBiggs

theboringfox wrote: »

In general anytime government interferes things get worse.

Hopefully this helps though and rents can become more affordable.

Hopefully disincentives too people buying investment properties.

I don’t think anybody would buy an investment property at the moment anyway, with the current insane house prices. I doubt you’d make any profit on a buy to let house.

Graham

theboringfox wrote: »

Hopefully disincentives too people buying investment properties.

and therein lies the problem.

One persons investment property is another persons rented home. If you disincentivise the investors, who are the tenants going to rent off?

landlord2020

I've 2 properties in NON-RPZ with rent well below but great tenants there a long time

Theres talk of the areas being designated as RPZ soon

I'd have to almost double the rent to get to market ... if I don't I'll be adversely affecting the properties value and future rent.

Whats the best thing to do?

BillyBiggs

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Obviously the investors have had a hand in this; right when inflation is back, suddenly rents can be increased in line with inflation for the properties in the RPZs. It was this or else rent freezes but at least will guarantee close to 2% increases if not more for the next few years. By way if example, in Germany inflation is already over 2% for this year and the economy is only opening. 4.5% is the level in the US for 2021.

This is nearly funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Exactly. There is talk of hyperinflation coming. This move is hardly surprising when many of the politicians themselves own buy to let properties. Father Ted stuff.

I’d love to see a headline that read “No More Jumping Through Long Expensive Hoops To Get A Tenant Who Won’t Pay Their Rent Out”

Everything is so one sided.

I’m glad I got out of the game. Yes, I do feel sorry for all those people who contact me asking would I rent to them. But I don’t trust anybody apart from my immediate family.

Flinty997

BillyBiggs wrote: »

Exactly. There is talk of hyperinflation coming. This move is hardly surprising when many of the politicians themselves own buy to let properties. Father Ted stuff.

Why would they bring in a Anti LL change then?

DubCount

BillyBiggs wrote: »

........This move is hardly surprising when many of the politicians themselves own buy to let properties....

Politicians owning property has nothing to do with government housing policy. You are attributing them with a depth of thought which most of them are not even capable of.

We have a media and "Homeless charity" industry pushing an agenda of "think of the tenants".

As with all these measures, they only help sitting tenants. Any new tenants or tenants looking to move pay the price.

Economics 101 is that price is determined by demand and supply. Ignoring supply side measures will put more upward pressure on rent prices. What has anyone done to encourage more supply?

The only people who should be celebrating this kind of policy are institutional landlords like IRES, who can fill up over-priced properties with tenants evicted from small landlord properties as the small landlord leaves the market.

Flinty997

DubCount wrote: »

...
The only people who should be celebrating this kind of policy are institutional landlords like IRES, who can fill up over-priced properties with tenants evicted from small landlord properties as the small landlord leaves the market.

REITs are mostly not in lower end of the market, they are creaming off the top.

Amadan Dubh

DubCount wrote: »

Politicians owning property has nothing to do with government housing policy. You are attributing them with a depth of thought which most of them are not even capable of.

We have a media and "Homeless charity" industry pushing an agenda of "think of the tenants".

As with all these measures, they only help sitting tenants. Any new tenants or tenants looking to move pay the price.

Economics 101 is that price is determined by demand and supply. Ignoring supply side measures will put more upward pressure on rent prices. What has anyone done to encourage more supply?

The only people who should be celebrating this kind of policy are institutional landlords like IRES, who can fill up over-priced properties with tenants evicted from small landlord properties as the small landlord leaves the market.

It absolutely is relevant that politicians are landlords.

If we were to ask them to answer this simple question; would you accept that the housing crisis needs additional supply but we need to target significant (ie 40%+) decreases in average rents in the next 5 years?

Do you think they would vote in favour of a policy with this as its stated outcome?

FileNotFound

Seems like a good move for tenants so I am happy with it at face value.
Few more protection for landlords against bad tenants and we will hopefully have a fairer system all round.

See how it is when impemented. Happy to see the Gov doing something on this at least

FileNotFound

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

It absolutely is relevant that politicians are landlords.

If we were to ask them to answer this simple question; would you accept that the housing crisis needs additional supply but we need to target significant (ie 40%+) decreases in average rents in the next 5 years?

Do you think they would vote in favour of a policy with this as its stated outcome?

Targeting 40% decrease in rent isn't really realistic is it? Rents move with prices - most landlords lose 40+% of the rent in tax.

If someone bought a house for X planning to charge Y for rent - they may have to surrender their investment if your proposed 40% decrease came in. Mind you I also don't agree with having the mortgage paid for you - but as stated above the tax on rental means most still pay part of the mortgage anyway.


So it would probably be many more than a few TD's that would question the logic of such a decrease.

I do think we need longer term renting, sustained at lower than inflation levels to ensure it becomes more affordable (slow fix sadly), then stronger laws around poor/unpaying tenants (easier evictions where tenant isn't meeting agreed).

DubCount

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

If we were to ask them to answer this simple question; would you accept that the housing crisis needs additional supply but we need to target significant (ie 40%+) decreases in average rents in the next 5 years?

Additional supply would put downward pressure on rental prices. Everyone wants additional supply - even politicians. The problem is that policies to make being a landlord more attractive or more profitable, are very unpopular. Who would want to suffer the media reaction to moves like tax breaks for landlords, or a quicker eviction process for rogue tenants. Unable to fix supply, the populist thing to do is rent controls, and politicians are more interested in populism than what really needs to be done.

AlmightyCushion

FileNotFound wrote: »

Seems like a good move for tenants so I am happy with it at face value.
Few more protection for landlords against bad tenants and we will hopefully have a fairer system all round.

See how it is when impemented. Happy to see the Gov doing something on this at least

That is something I can't see any government tackling unfortunately. The moment they talk about it, you can just see the opposition and media painting it as them wanting to throw people out on the streets who are good tenants that are down on their luck and are a day late when paying their rent. You just know they will. The fact you can stay in a place for years without paying a cent and wreck the place while you are at it, is just straight up wrong and should be tackled but likely won't be.

Amadan Dubh

FileNotFound wrote: »

Targeting 40% decrease in rent isn't really realistic is it? Rents move with prices - most landlords lose 40+% of the rent in tax.

If someone bought a house for X planning to charge Y for rent - they may have to surrender their investment if your proposed 40% decrease came in. Mind you I also don't agree with having the mortgage paid for you - but as stated above the tax on rental means most still pay part of the mortgage anyway.


So it would probably be many more than a few TD's that would question the logic of such a decrease.

I do think we need longer term renting, sustained at lower than inflation levels to ensure it becomes more affordable (slow fix sadly), then stronger laws around poor/unpaying tenants (easier evictions where tenant isn't meeting agreed).

40% is significant but I base it on the fact that it is mostly workers, paying income tax and prsi that rent. Therefore, it is appropriate to benchmark rents against salaries (moreso than comparing house prices to salaries).

At a very high level (averages as opposed to median);

Average salary after tax 2600.

2021 price for 1 bed apartment 1500-1800 pm in Dublin.
2021 price for 2 bed house 1600-2000 pm in Dublin.

Compare it to 2015 levels (not even the lows of 2012);

1 bed apartment 900-1250.
2 bed (house/apartment i can't tell from the Daft report) 1070-1700.

1 bed apartments are out of reach if you're earning the average salary in Dublin. Even sharing on the average salary, you'd be losing 30% of your salary sharing a place. It is far more sustainable if housing costs were brought down significantly as this cash would end up sloshing around the economy and be diversified more. People would be able to save more money meaning it would cost the State less in social spending. And as well, it would be easier to make raises to income tax. Who pays for these decreases? Landlords. Who benefits? Society as a whole.

Either we see salaries increase significantly / tax burdens decrease while at the same time rents do not increase or else we need rents to climb down significantly.

This is the only way to stop the rise of populism in the younger (ie renting generation). It is incompatible to not target significant reductions in rents while at the same time trying to keep the status quo with FF and/or FG, that is how I see it. I don't agree with populism but I understand the anger and how it is expressed at the ballot boxes.

Jjohnrockk

Piehead wrote: »

So a lot lower increases based on inflation?



https://jrnl.ie/5482044

It was never supposed to be 4% default increase. Big Vultures (Private LL may not be aware of it) fooled us.

Rule was 4% subject to market rate or rentals of similar apartments nearby. Look at the RTB website for average rents and you will realise 4% rule was exploited even though average rentals were less in surrounding areas.

Lack of awareness perhaps at both LL and Tenant end?? Benefit of doubt. But Big VULTURES always knew this and yet charged 4%

thegreatescape

I think this is great news for tenants. I've recently bought my own place but just before I did, we got notification in the apartment I was renting with another guy that the rent would be increasing by the max 8% increase because of the covid freeze. Some landlords take full advantage of the 4% increase per year rule.

Flinty997

Jjohnrockk wrote: »

It was never supposed to be 4% default increase. Big Vultures (Private LL may not be aware of it) fooled us.

Rule was 4% subject to market rate or rentals of similar apartments nearby. Look at the RTB website for average rents and you will realise 4% rule was exploited even though average rentals were less in surrounding areas.

Lack of awareness perhaps at both LL and Tenant end?? Benefit of doubt. But Big VULTURES always knew this and yet charged 4%

The door was left open for REIT entering the markets and shutting out small LL who are leaving. Which is what tenants wanted.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

It absolutely is relevant that politicians are landlords.

If we were to ask them to answer this simple question; would you accept that the housing crisis needs additional supply but we need to target significant (ie 40%+) decreases in average rents in the next 5 years?

Do you think they would vote in favour of a policy with this as its stated outcome?

I wonder how Healy-Rae would answer that as on one hand he is the man of the people shouting about injustice and on the other he has about 15 or so rental properties.

Flinty997

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

It absolutely is relevant that politicians are landlords.

If we were to ask them to answer this simple question; would you accept that the housing crisis needs additional supply but we need to target significant (ie 40%+) decreases in average rents in the next 5 years?

Do you think they would vote in favour of a policy with this as its stated outcome?

Sure, but its flawed thinking.

You are making investing in rentals Russian roulette.

FileNotFound

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

40% is significant but I base it on the fact that it is mostly workers, paying income tax and prsi that rent. Therefore, it is appropriate to benchmark rents against salaries (moreso than comparing house prices to salaries).

At a very high level (averages as opposed to median);

Average salary after tax 2600.

2021 price for 1 bed apartment 1500-1800 pm in Dublin.
2021 price for 2 bed house 1600-2000 pm in Dublin.

Compare it to 2015 levels (not even the lows of 2012);

1 bed apartment 900-1250.
2 bed (house/apartment i can't tell from the Daft report) 1070-1700.

1 bed apartments are out of reach if you're earning the average salary in Dublin. Even sharing on the average salary, you'd be losing 30% of your salary sharing a place. It is far more sustainable if housing costs were brought down significantly as this cash would end up sloshing around the economy and be diversified more. People would be able to save more money meaning it would cost the State less in social spending. And as well, it would be easier to make raises to income tax. Who pays for these decreases? Landlords. Who benefits? Society as a whole.

Either we see salaries increase significantly / tax burdens decrease while at the same time rents do not increase or else we need rents to climb down significantly.

This is the only way to stop the rise of populism in the younger (ie renting generation). It is incompatible to not target significant reductions in rents while at the same time trying to keep the status quo with FF and/or FG, that is how I see it. I don't agree with populism but I understand the anger and how it is expressed at the ballot boxes.

I do agree the rents are currently too high for a single low wage person to be renting a 1 bed for example and even for a couple its a very high proportion of their salary.

When you highlight recession rents had they decreased from 2005-2007 times? If they had its not really realistic to expect recession prices to be viable in a more active economy.

Up until not so long ago (2 years) I was sharing a 3 bed with mates at 1800 in dublin. 600 a head. Even that was steep and many other apts around were rising closer to 800 a bed. It is a lot of money when you are trying to save etc.

Does a single wage earner not have the ability to apply for HAP?

I do agree that ideally rents v salaries is the fairest for the tenant but ignoring the rent v cost to the landlord is just us going back to one point of view.

Being as the Gov probably have no real legal way of forcing rents down - incentives like tax relief for low cost rental would be the only realistic way I can see it reducing.

If a landlord only payed 12.5% tax on their rental income - they could reduce the rent by as much as 30%.

Maybe that is a potential path forward where the 2 sides can kind of win?

Heraclius

thegreatescape wrote: »

I think this is great news for tenants. I've recently bought my own place but just before I did, we got notification in the apartment I was renting with another guy that the rent would be increasing by the max 8% increase because of the covid freeze. Some landlords take full advantage of the 4% increase per year rule.

Congratulations! I've just gotten the 4% increase letter in the past few days. I feel some sympathy for small scale landlords dealing with difficult tenants but overall that well of sympathy is pretty shallow (especially for institutional landlords). I don't feel that landlords can expect a rent that increases by 4% every year to be sustainable. Wage rises simply won't allow it in the long term.

It would be good if there was more fixed tenures with agreed rents and rent increases. It should surely be possible to give more resources and powers to the RTB to resolve disputes and make it faster for landlords to deal with the minority of tenants who damage properties or fail to pay. It shouldn't be other tenants who get penalised for this.

titan18

FileNotFound wrote: »

Targeting 40% decrease in rent isn't really realistic is it? Rents move with prices - most landlords lose 40+% of the rent in tax.

If someone bought a house for X planning to charge Y for rent - they may have to surrender their investment if your proposed 40% decrease came in. Mind you I also don't agree with having the mortgage paid for you - but as stated above the tax on rental means most still pay part of the mortgage anyway.


So it would probably be many more than a few TD's that would question the logic of such a decrease.

I do think we need longer term renting, sustained at lower than inflation levels to ensure it becomes more affordable (slow fix sadly), then stronger laws around poor/unpaying tenants (easier evictions where tenant isn't meeting agreed).

What they'd nearly be better off doing is something akin to rent a room and set a max per year per house that is tax free and anything over that is taxed on the full amount. You pretty much encourage landlords to let at that limit then or they'd need to rent at nearly double it to get the same amount. If you set it at a decent amount that landlords cover costs and make enough and where it's also affordable rent based on average salaries, you likely drive down rent a lot and make things more comfortable.

Flinty997

The issue with rents is supply.

I thought that was solved...https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058067544

FileNotFound

thegreatescape wrote: »

I think this is great news for tenants. I've recently bought my own place but just before I did, we got notification in the apartment I was renting with another guy that the rent would be increasing by the max 8% increase because of the covid freeze. Some landlords take full advantage of the 4% increase per year rule.

Seems it became a target rather than a maximum.

For years in many rentals may rent rarely changed during my tenancy, but now it seems the standard.

rightmove

rented properties have higher occupancy they owned properties. This is really crucial so when you push out LL's you are displacing ppl and causing more pressure on the rental sector which lead to rent increases. I got out and never regret it.

fash

Jjohnrockk wrote: »

It was never supposed to be 4% default increase. Big Vultures (Private LL may not be aware of it) fooled us.

Rule was 4% subject to market rate or rentals of similar apartments nearby. Look at the RTB website for average rents and you will realise 4% rule was exploited even though average rentals were less in surrounding areas.

Lack of awareness perhaps at both LL and Tenant end?? Benefit of doubt. But Big VULTURES always knew this and yet charged 4%

If incoming new tenants were willing to pay 4%, it does indicate that the 4% was not above the market value.

The housing situation in Ireland is a mess - and now that rent control has been brought in, it can never be removed- as has been the case everywhere in the world.

Mad_maxx

BillyBiggs wrote: »

I don’t think anybody would buy an investment property at the moment anyway, with the current insane house prices. I doubt you’d make any profit on a buy to let house.

the relatively small minority of investors who buy entirely with cash would still do ok by buying and leaving empty , been happening in London for years

the rental market is too much hassle , better to buy , hold for a few years and sell

DubCount

Heraclius wrote: »

I don't feel that landlords can expect a rent that increases by 4% every year to be sustainable.

I think that depends on the starting point. If tenant A is in an apartment with a monthly rent of 1,000, and market rent is 2,100 per month, a 4% increase still leaves tenant A in a pretty good position. If tenant B is in the apartment next door with a starting monthly rent of 2,000, a 4% increase will be 2x the increase tenant A received and their rent just went from too high to too high +4%. Its not fair on anyone, landlords or tenants. Its down to the lottery of where your base rent started.

Heraclius wrote: »

It would be good if there was more fixed tenures with agreed rents and rent increases.

Agreed, but longer fixed contracts should be enforceable on both landlords and tenants. At present, there is no incentive for a LL to give a fixed term lease, as the tenant can walk away from the commitment at any time without penalty (except maybe loosing a deposit, which is now being restricted to 1 month)

Heraclius wrote: »

It should surely be possible to give more resources and powers to the RTB to resolve disputes and make it faster for landlords to deal with the minority of tenants who damage properties or fail to pay. It shouldn't be other tenants who get penalised for this.

Spot on. Yet you never hear any politicians or media complaining that the RTB is slow and ineffective, or that good tenants are paying higher rents because of the rogues milking the system.

Mad_maxx

thegreatescape wrote: »

I think this is great news for tenants. I've recently bought my own place but just before I did, we got notification in the apartment I was renting with another guy that the rent would be increasing by the max 8% increase because of the covid freeze. Some landlords take full advantage of the 4% increase per year rule.

and so they should take full advantage , the system is set up against them , they have to maximise where they can

Mad_maxx

says this will be activated july 19th ?

does this mean if a landlord issues a rent review notice prior to that date , they can increase rent by 4% or does the three months notice need to expire first ?

in essence , is it too late now for someone who has not yet issued notification for a rent review ?

Amadan Dubh

FileNotFound wrote: »

I do agree the rents are currently too high for a single low wage person to be renting a 1 bed for example and even for a couple its a very high proportion of their salary.

When you highlight recession rents had they decreased from 2005-2007 times? If they had its not really realistic to expect recession prices to be viable in a more active economy.

Up until not so long ago (2 years) I was sharing a 3 bed with mates at 1800 in dublin. 600 a head. Even that was steep and many other apts around were rising closer to 800 a bed. It is a lot of money when you are trying to save etc.

Does a single wage earner not have the ability to apply for HAP?

I do agree that ideally rents v salaries is the fairest for the tenant but ignoring the rent v cost to the landlord is just us going back to one point of view.

Being as the Gov probably have no real legal way of forcing rents down - incentives like tax relief for low cost rental would be the only realistic way I can see it reducing.

If a landlord only payed 12.5% tax on their rental income - they could reduce the rent by as much as 30%.

Maybe that is a potential path forward where the 2 sides can kind of win?

Small landlords have been kicked out of the market by FF and FG the last few years, likely aided by lobbying in behalf of institutionals. It is a disgrace. We need smaller landlords and not a few super sized landlords. So I absolutely agree that the playing field needs to be levelled between individual landlords and the institutionals. Something like rent freezes for corporate landlords only, no tax breaks for institutionals but reduced tax for individual landlords, (wishful thinking) easier to kick out non-paying/unruly tenants, anything like that which would stimulate the market for individual landlords.

Flinty997

FileNotFound wrote: »

Seems it became a target rather than a maximum.

For years in many rentals may rent rarely changed during my tenancy, but now it seems the standard.

These policies punish landlords who dont maximize their rents.

I'm not sure people get that.

Flinty997

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

... We need smaller landlords and not a few super sized landlords. ...

That ship has sailed.

rightmove

fash wrote: »

If incoming new tenants were willing to pay 4%, it does indicate that the 4% was not above the market value.

The housing situation in Ireland is a mess - and now that rent control has been brought in, it can never be removed- as has been the case everywhere in the world.

we have a country run by fools and being egged on by fools

AlmightyCushion

titan18 wrote: »

What they'd nearly be better off doing is something akin to rent a room and set a max per year per house that is tax free and anything over that is taxed on the full amount. You pretty much encourage landlords to let at that limit then or they'd need to rent at nearly double it to get the same amount. If you set it at a decent amount that landlords cover costs and make enough and where it's also affordable rent based on average salaries, you likely drive down rent a lot and make things more comfortable.

That would just lead to landlords sub-dividing houses up into separate properties or renting on a room by room basis and saying tenant 1 is in 1A, tenant 2 is in 1B etc.