Landlords have put up rent!

drumswan wrote: »

Ive just read the act, it seems to say quite simply that either party can call for a rent review once every twelve months, theres no mention of whether theres a contract in place.

Can someone point out otherwise?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a2704.pdf

Correct, a rent review can be had once evry 12 months - however, it cannot be done (unless mutually agreed or there is provision in a fixed term contract) during a legally binding contract which states the rent to be paid - otherwise the contract would be broken.

Sarn

The landlord should have implemented the rent change before the new fixed term lease was signed. My own landlord gave me plenty of notice before my fixed term contract ended. The new lease clearly stated what the monthly rent would be for the next 12 months. Generally, this constitutes the rent book, so in the OP's case the landlord would need to reissue the lease with the new rent amount. As this constitutes a change in the agreed terms it cannot be done without mutual agreement.

Sarn wrote: »

The landlord should have implemented the rent change before the new fixed term lease was signed. My own landlord gave me plenty of notice before my fixed term contract ended. The new lease clearly stated what the monthly rent would be for the next 12 months. Generally, this constitutes the rent book, so in the OP's case the landlord would need to reissue the lease with the new rent amount. As this constitutes a change in the agreed terms it cannot be done without mutual agreement.

If the rent was changed without mutual agreement then the contract would be broken and the tenant would be entitled to break the lease giving 28 days notice of termination and have their deposit returned in full, excepting any damage in excess of normal wear and tear.

sunnysoutheast

Sarn wrote: »

The landlord should have implemented the rent change before the new fixed term lease was signed. My own landlord gave me plenty of notice before my fixed term contract ended. The new lease clearly stated what the monthly rent would be for the next 12 months. Generally, this constitutes the rent book, so in the OP's case the landlord would need to reissue the lease with the new rent amount. As this constitutes a change in the agreed terms it cannot be done without mutual agreement.

I would have thought that they are two separate contracts? If you, as the tenant, did not want to pay the increased rent then I don't know whether you would have been entitled to stay in the property under part 4 paying the original amount having requested a PRTB hearing which, should the landlord win, would be backdated to the original start date for the increased rent amount.

Anyway, I have just checked the leases we use and as I thought there is no mention of a review during the fixed term. In any case it seems counter-intuitive to me to propose a rent review part-way through a contract, of course this works both ways in that the tenant cannot request a review for falling market rent.

OP - if you want to raise a dispute with the PRTB this has to be within 28 days of the notification of the increase.

Thomas D

This isn't open to interpretation. You have a fixed term lease at a fixed monthly price.

Thomas D wrote: »

This isn't open to interpretation. You have a fixed term lease at a fixed monthly price.

Excellent reply - short, correct and to the point.

D3PO

odds_on wrote: »

Excellent reply - short, correct and to the point.

exactly how people think otherwise is beyond me. the mind truly does boggle

nukin_futs

professore wrote: »

That hasn't been my experience in the past with them. Basically told me to "keep quiet" about mould growing everywhere in an apartment I was renting at the time. Granted that was back in 1998.

PRTB was established in 2004, so not sure who gave you that advice...http://www.prtb.ie/about-prtb/who-we-are

Frank Lee Midere

Lots of people here don't understand contract law. All of the links apply to rents out of contract, which automatically roll

Look, imagine this. A developer/landlord rents an office to Google for five years. In the interim prices remain the same. When the next five year contract is to be signed therefore the rent is the same. Within a year of the resigning rents massively increase in the area - do you think the landlord can just declare a rent review per year and increase rents ignoring the contract? Or does the contract apply.

Of course he cannot. All links on these sites assume an out of contract tenancy. the PRTB is all wrong or misinformed, that or the OP explained things differently to us and them.

3DataModem

professore wrote: »

That hasn't been my experience in the past with them. Basically told me to "keep quiet" about mould growing everywhere in an apartment I was renting at the time. Granted that was back in 1998.

There was no PRTB in 1998

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Lots of people here don't understand contract law. All of the links apply to rents out of contract, which automatically roll

Look, imagine this. A developer/landlord rents an office to Google for five years. In the interim prices remain the same. When the next five year contract is to be signed therefore the rent is the same. Within a year of the resigning rents massively increase in the area - do you think the landlord can just declare a rent review per year and increase rents ignoring the contract? Or does the contract apply.

Of course he cannot. All links on these sites assume an out of contract tenancy. the PRTB is all wrong or misinformed, that or the OP explained things differently to us and them.

Commercial law is different to Private Residential Tenancy law.

Frank Lee Midere

odds_on wrote: »

Commercial law is different to Private Residential Tenancy law.

Contracts are contracts in both. You are proving my point about the ignorance of contract law in this country.

Does your latest lease state the monthly rent amount and that that is a fixed amount for the duration of the lease?

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Contracts are contracts in both. You are proving my point about the ignorance of contract law in this country.

I agree contracts are contract. But do you agree that commercial law is different to Residential tenancy law, which is what I said?

Knowing a thing or two about contracts myself all I can say for sure to the OP is that unless they post the lease, then nobody, but nobody can give them any advice. And anyone trying to give them advice without knowing the full facts are just showing their own ignorance to be fair.
Post up te lease OP and then those of us who know the law can guide you.
If you want PM it to me or anyone else you think can help you and i'm sure between us we can help out.

If the rental amount is written in the lease, how is it worded? Are there any other provisions in there about rent amounts? Dates etc.

And any advice taken from the PRTB has to be checked. They really havent a clue. And threshold are even worse. Both will say anything to get you off the phone. Ask them for it in writing, and to include documentation to back their position up, and see if they give the same advice again. Watch how the paddle back then.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

AFAIK PaulW is correct.

Also, most properly drawn up leases will have an express provision for rent review which mirrors the PRTA.

The lease can have any provision that it likes; the law states that the rent can be reviewed only once in a 12 month period. If the landlord hands the tenant a new lease to sign then they are effectively reviewing the rent at that point. If the new lease has no change to the rent then it cannot be reviewed again until the lease expires (or until 12 months have passed, in the case of a shorter lease).

djimi wrote: »

The lease can have any provision that it likes; the law states that the rent can be reviewed only once in a 12 month period. If the landlord hands the tenant a new lease to sign then they are effectively reviewing the rent at that point. If the new lease has no change to the rent then it cannot be reviewed again until the lease expires (or until 12 months have passed, in the case of a shorter lease).

The part in bold is simply not true.

GoldieLocks99 wrote: »

The part in bold is simply not true.

You reckon? Id love to see it tested in front of the PRTB, because I dont see how it could be interpreted in any other way. You fill out a new lease for a tenant to sign, you are reviewing the rent at that point. Just because it doesnt change doesnt mean it wasnt reviewed.

djimi wrote: »

You reckon? Id love to see it tested in front of the PRTB, because I dont see how it could be interpreted in any other way. You fill out a new lease for a tenant to sign, you are reviewing the rent at that point. Just because it doesnt change doesnt mean it wasnt reviewed.

I do reckon. You have stated you believe this to be the case. Point us to where you got the proof to satisfy yourself that this is the case. eg somewhere where there is a valid reference that a new lease is actually also a rent review? And "I believe it should be" wont stand up anywhere im afraid.

Ste.phen

GoldieLocks99 wrote: »

I do reckon. You have stated you believe this to be the case. Point us to where you got the proof to satisfy yourself that this is the case. eg somewhere where there is a valid reference that a new lease is actually also a rent review? And "I believe it should be" wont stand up anywhere im afraid.

Nether does your insistence that this isn't the case.

The way I see it there's at least three possibilities that people on this thread are confusing with each other:

A) The OP had a fixed term lease for one year; at the end of that year they signed a new fixed term lease for one year as did the landlord and this new lease outlines the rent to be paid in that (second) year

The OP had a fixed term lease for one year. At the end of that year they did not sign a new lease but agreed to stay for another year verbally or in some other format other than with a new physical lease being signed by both parties

C) The OP had a fixed term lease for one year and rolled into a tenancy covered by Part 4 of the RTA with no implied fixed period

My understanding is this:
if situation 'A' applies, the rent cannot be increased until the second lease expires.
if 'C' applies the rent can be increased in line with market rates (instead of 'increased', let's say 'reviewed', if we're going to split hairs, but I assume an increase is the most likely outcome);
if 'B' applies I'm unsure, but i'm inclined to believe it's the same as C

From what the OP has said, I believe their situation is 'A'

GoldieLocks99 wrote: »

I do reckon. You have stated you believe this to be the case. Point us to where you got the proof to satisfy yourself that this is the case. eg somewhere where there is a valid reference that a new lease is actually also a rent review? And "I believe it should be" wont stand up anywhere im afraid.

Its only an opinion, but its one that I believe in enough to fight it as far as I could if I was in that position.

Why do you feel that a new lease does not constitute a rent review? It is the landlord who fills in the details on the new lease, including the rent amount, so why would this not be considered to be a review, considering this is the point at which the rent could be adjusted up or down for the next 12 month period? A review does not mean that the amount has to be changed, just that it has been looked at. By filling out the details on the new lease, the landlord has determined that they do not wish to change the rent for the coming 12 months.

Ste.phen wrote: »

Nether does your insistence that this isn't the case.

The way I see it there's at least three possibilities that people on this thread are confusing with each other:

A) The OP had a fixed term lease for one year; at the end of that year they signed a new fixed term lease for one year as did the landlord and this new lease outlines the rent to be paid in that (second) year

The OP had a fixed term lease for one year. At the end of that year they did not sign a new lease but agreed to stay for another year verbally or in some other format other than with a new physical lease being signed by both parties

C) The OP had a fixed term lease for one year and rolled into a tenancy covered by Part 4 of the RTA with no implied fixed period

My understanding is this:
if situation 'A' applies, the rent cannot be increased until the second lease expires.
if 'C' applies the rent can be increased in line with market rates (instead of 'increased', let's say 'reviewed', if we're going to split hairs, but I assume an increase is the most likely outcome);
if 'B' applies I'm unsure, but i'm inclined to believe it's the same as C

From what the OP has said, I believe their situation is 'A'

Well we wont know until the OP clarifies what their lease says, so no point in guessing. Thats not going to help them. As I asked the OP to clarify i cant help with their situation until they do.

And your post is completely off the point I was making in my post anyway.

The poster said
"If the landlord hands the tenant a new lease to sign then they are effectively reviewing the rent at that point. If the new lease has no change to the rent then it cannot be reviewed again until the lease expires (or until 12 months have passed, in the case of a shorter lease)."

I said that that was simply not true. This is what I insist isnt the case.

And the poster said "You Reckon?"

I said "Prove what you are telling us is true is indeed true".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

djimi wrote: »

Its only an opinion, but its one that I believe in enough to fight it as far as I could if I was in that position.

Why do you feel that a new lease does not constitute a rent review? It is the landlord who fills in the details on the new lease, including the rent amount, so why would this not be considered to be a review, considering this is the point at which the rent could be adjusted up or down for the next 12 month period? A review does not mean that the amount has to be changed, just that it has been looked at. By filling out the details on the new lease, the landlord has determined that they do not wish to change the rent for the coming 12 months.

Now you re moving the goalposts. Its a different situation if the new lease states the rent in it.
Thats not what you said earlier.

You said.
"The lease can have any provision that it likes; the law states that the rent can be reviewed only once in a 12 month period. If the landlord hands the tenant a new lease to sign then they are effectively reviewing the rent at that point. If the new lease has no change to the rent then it cannot be reviewed again until the lease expires (or until 12 months have passed, in the case of a shorter lease)."

Yes, if a landlord gets the tenant to sign a new lease then they are bound to the terms set out in the lease. But a new lease does not mean you are "effectively reviewing the rent at that point". All it means is that you are signing a new lease. Its whats in the lease that has the meaning.

Again the OP needs to post their lease or we are just going around in circles and noone can help them.

Its possible, or probable even that they have a rental amount written in the new lease, but we need to see it.

I have always been basing my opinion on the rent amount being written into the lease (as it usually is); Im fairly sure I have said as much earlier in this thread.

djimi wrote: »

I have always been basing my opinion on the rent amount being written into the lease (as it usually is); Im fairly sure I have said as much earlier in this thread.

Fair enough.
I read back through the thread. One thing is for sure. The OP doesnt want to tell anyone whats in their lease. They were asked for it many times and were not clear at all in their answers. If there is anything that needs clarity, in order to be dissected its a lease.

xper

GoldieLocks99 wrote: »

I do reckon. You have stated you believe this to be the case. Point us to where you got the proof to satisfy yourself that this is the case. eg somewhere where there is a valid reference that a new lease is actually also a rent review? And "I believe it should be" wont stand up anywhere im afraid.

Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 includes the following subsection:

(3) References in this Part to the setting of a rent are references to the oral agreeing of the rent or to its being provided for in a lease or tenancy agreement or, in the context of a review of rent—
(a) the oral agreeing of the rent,
(b) the oral or written notification of the rent, or
(c) in the case of a provision of the kind referred to in subsection (2)(b), the rent being set by virtue of the operation of that provision.

Now I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that any 'follow-on' written fixed term lease that included a clause setting the rent for the duration of the fixed term would satisfy (b) and therefore a rent review would be deemed to have occurred when that new lease was signed by both parties. I don't see anything in the Act that implies that a rent review has to constitute an actual change in the rent amount.

xper wrote: »

Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 includes the following subsection:

Now I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that any 'follow-on' written fixed term lease that included a clause setting the rent for the duration of the fixed term would satisfy (b) and therefore a rent review would be deemed to have occurred when that new lease was signed by both parties. I don't see anything in the Act that implies that a rent review has to constitute an actual change in the rent amount.

Correct. The all important line is highlighted

GoldieLocks99 wrote: »

Now you re moving the goalposts. Its a different situation if the new lease states the rent in it.
Thats not what you said earlier.

You said.
"The lease can have any provision that it likes; the law states that the rent can be reviewed only once in a 12 month period. If the landlord hands the tenant a new lease to sign then they are effectively reviewing the rent at that point. If the new lease has no change to the rent then it cannot be reviewed again until the lease expires (or until 12 months have passed, in the case of a shorter lease)."

Yes, if a landlord gets the tenant to sign a new lease then they are bound to the terms set out in the lease. But a new lease does not mean you are "effectively reviewing the rent at that point". All it means is that you are signing a new lease. Its whats in the lease that has the meaning.

Again the OP needs to post their lease or we are just going around in circles and noone can help them.

Its possible, or probable even that they have a rental amount written in the new lease, but we need to see it.

Leases for Private Residential property where they are also used as the rent book MUST state to rent payable and when to be paid - this also covers the tenant's 1st obligation in the RTA 2004

(a) pay to the landlord or his or her authorised agent (or any other person where required to do so by any enactment)—
(i) the rent provided for under the tenancy concerned on the date it falls due for payment, .....

Where the agreement is oral or the lease agreement does not fulfil the requirements of the rent book, the landlord must supply a rent book which MUST have details of the rent to be paid and when.

The format of a lease which also serves as a rent book saves the landlord a lot of hassle by way of not having to complete a rent book on a regular basis. I have never seen a lease agreement which does not state the rent payable.

Victor

GoldieLocks99 wrote: »

Post up te lease OP and then those of us who know the law can guide you.
If you want PM it to me or anyone else you think can help you and i'm sure between us we can help out.

It is inappropriate to make such requests or comments.

Moderator