Rent increase for new tenant
Comments
-
The OP being a model tenant does not mean the cousin would be. The cousin could be a terrible tenant and the OP being family might be willing to put in a good word to give them the advantage. We could speculate and come up with other reasons aside from financial gain, but we don't and won't know the answer.
Your words to the OP were
you can request with the LL to assign the lease to your cousin. If they refuse and you see it being advertised at a much higher rate than legally allowed, it's at your discretion what to do with that information.Call it moral obligation, or greater good, but I see the suggestion of being along the line of "if the LL doesn't play ball, shaft him/her if you can". Maybe that's a little on the harsh side, but that's the suggestion, because it is based on whether the LL gives the tenancy to a relative of the OP. If they refuse, go see what the new rent is and report if above RPZ allowance.
By the way, i'm not championing the idea of a LL breaking the rules, but I see good LLs being forced to either charge a tenant more than they would be satisfied with, or lose out later when a new tenancy starts.
There is plenty of data to show that rent controls and caps negatively impact a market. Not that it matters to a Government just looking to get re-elected for another term, or two. The impact takes a few years to really hit home and decades to reverse some of the damage. It's outside of the scope of this thread, but here is an article worth a read.
It's quite balanced, but the important bit of text which we are now seeing here in Ireland is
"A substantial body of economic research has used theoretical arguments to highlight the potential negative efficiency consequences to keeping rents below market rates, going back to Friedman and Stigler (1946). They argued that a cap on rents would lead landlords to sell their rental properties to owner occupants so that landlords could still earn the market price for their real estate."
Stay Free
3 -
Yes, that's true, but a recommendation from somebody you know could save time and hassle and they could always evict them before 6 months if they did have issues with them. Whatever risks there may be with the cousin, are greater with somebody completely unknown besides a few references and bank statements. They could ask to meet the cousin to see if they are a good fit too.
I'm sorry that your experiences have lead you to interpret my post as being driven by spite. My post was on the basis of them seeing it advertised at a much higher rate and if they feel this as immoral and reporting them would be for the greater good, that's up to them. Nothing to do with spite :)
You mentioned in your previous post "as he knew he would have been at a loss" and mention "or lose out later" above too. What loss are you referring to? The loss of opportunity to profit more or have their investment perform better than investing elsewhere? As long as they are earning a reasonable gross yield then any loss is just lost opportunity to gain more.
The housing issue is complex and there's many factors at play, there's probably a much better solution which involves an element of capping rent. The system we have in Ireland is a complete mess, and as much as I feel that legality does not equal morality, I think LL's breaking the law to boost yield when they already had a good yield, when their tenants are not taking their place out of anything other than sheer desperation, is wrong.
0 -
I don’t think your post was driven by spite. I think the suggestion you made was one which if carried out would have been an act of spite if the OP were to follow the direction.
A LL renting a property is providing a service. The LL should be free to charge the market rate rather than be tied to lower rates which had been offered to a good tenant. Government interference in the form of RPZs doesn’t work. It collapses confidence in the market and leads to LLs exiting the market and a reduction in investment in rental properties.
If a LL was giving a tenant below market rate before RPZ was introduced, they were going to be stuck charging the next tenant below market rate when the good tenant moved out. They might have been happy just having the mortgage payment covered, but now many are receiving near the same low rent while the mortgage interest on the property has dramatically increased.
Stay Free
4 -
It would only be an act of spite if spite was the motive rather than moral obligation.
Being free to charge market rate when there is a drastic under supply of something that is a basic need will lead to spiralling market rates, far beyond what is affordable for renters, we're already there even with RPZ's. Having laws in place that will somewhat curtail that spiral isn't the solution to the mess, but along with other policy changes, it may at lessen the madness.
If an LL isn't profiting as much as they had hoped with their investment, then they may just have to something a little more creative :)
0 -
I think you are confusing legality with morality. If something is illegal, it is not necessarily immoral. It's illegal to drive a car without a valid tax disc, but it's not immoral.
If there is any tangible connection between the LL and the person reporting an increase in rent above the approved RPZ allowance, it is not a moral decision to report the LL. It is a spiteful one. There is no other logical way to view it.
I have already pointed out why having RPZ rules does not lessen the madness. The opposite is true as less LLs come into the market and existing LLs, (particularly single property LLs) exit the market as a direct consequence of the RPZ rules, which happen to also increase the overall price of properties. It is counter-productive.
Around half of LLs here own a single rental property and make very little ROI. About 80% in total rental properties are owned by LLs with 2 or less properties according to a 2021 Irish Times article. This time last year, 40% of residential sales were small LLs exiting the market. How does that help renter?
The spiraling market we are currently in is not to be placed at the feet of LLs. That's similar to saying the price of bread is the fault of the supermarket. The truth is more complex in both. However, we don't see the Government coming in and putting price caps on what retailers can charge, or what energy providers could charge. There were some bluffs made on the latter in the form of taxes on energy companies, but nothing was to come of it despite the huge increases we saw.
The answer to reduced rents is competition. With limited supply, competition is zero at present. RPZs don't work at all. You can clearly see this.
Suggesting they get more creative to increase their income is what I would consider to be a snide insult to the LLs stuck on low, or negative income because they can't raise the rent to market rates. Your comment suggests you don't know very much about rentals from a business, or investment perspective. I don't know of any other business where the Government have come in and put caps on the prices consumers, or service users pay. But yeah, fcuk the LLs. They were asking for it, weren't they? How dare they for wanting to charge the market rate for renting their property.
I've made my point of view clear, so I will leave it there.
Stay Free
1 -
Advertisement
-
https://threshold.ie/faq/rent-increases/
A landlord is therefore required to provide the tenant, in writing, with the following information when the tenancy begins:
- The amount of rent that was last set, which is the rent amount the previous tenant was paying in the rental dwelling.
- The date the rent was last set, which is the date that the tenancy commenced or the date the landlord previously set and served the notice of rent review.
- A statement as to how the rent was set in the rental property having regard to the RTB Rent Pressure Zone calculator which reflects the latest HICP inflation. Landlords can use the print option from the calculator to present this information.
0 -
Thanks for the post. I'm not confusing legality with morality. Reporting somebody for doing something illegal that has no affect on anyone else would be most likely driven by spite, or some obsession with adhering to the law. If somebody holds the opinion that reporting somebody would help contribute to a greater good of society, then this would have a moral motive.
I'm not saying RPZ's are the answer and LL's are the problem, far from it. I think putting people's basic needs of shelter in the hands of people who want to maximise ROI is always going to be problematic, especially when there's such a low supply. Investing in property is a very obvious and comparatively easy way to make money in general. There's more creative and rewarding (not just financially) ways but they tend to be more risky and require a lot more work.
2 -
but it does affect someone else - the new tenant, and potentially even tenants in other properties who might get a rent increase based on that valuation
1 -
I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm guessing you're referring to where I've said "Reporting somebody for doing something illegal that has no affect on anyone else would be most likely driven by spite, or some obsession with adhering to the law". This was referring to something completely different than what is being spoken about here, like if someone was to report someone for selling alcohol at 12:29 on a Sunday :)
0 -
This is one of the negative effects of the rent pressure zones.
A LL has a good tenant, they don’t really increase the rent and the rent falls below market value. They are then blocked from increasing the rent in line with inflation. This devalues their investment. So whenever a tenant leaves they increase the rent to the max they can get to recover some of the lost rent and to bring it back into line with current rents. This causes rents to increase faster for new lest.
Any new rental properties have to set their rent to the max from the outset, it’s the only time they will be allowed to do it.
It also stops people from moving because if they do their rent jumps.
OK so they set new rules. You can’t increase the rent by more than inflation, inflation runs away. Panic, you now can’t increase rents by more than 2% or inflation which ever is the lower. And you can’t increase the rent when there is change of tenant by more than 2%.
It’s also crazy that the most affordable way increase rents to the market rate for an apartment that can’t be made 25% bigger is to leave it empty for two years.
LLs who break the law and charge the market rate for new tenants, could get prosecuted but in reality I don’t think they will. Tenant reports them to the RTB, LL ignores it what will the RTB do. If they take a prosecution they run the risk of high court challenge on conational grounds and the whole RPZ gets struck out. Or the LLs sells and pays the tenant out of the sales proceeds
It’s the last two or three governments fault we are in this mess. They stopped build social housing and didn’t restart it during the crash or just after it. They should have build state owned housing when interest rates were low. Instead they interfered from the sidelines
Any wonder LL’s are selling up.
2 -
Advertisement
