Ex Landlord charging new tenant more than 4% extra rent pressure zone.

Kaleb2015 · 13-01-2019 1:40pm #1

My ex landlord gave us notice when our part 4 tenancy ended last June. He told us he wasn’t renting it out again and was using it for family reasons. He did give the proper notice that just said he was entitled to end it and didn’t give a reason. We checked that out at the time and that was all legal. I said to my wife at the time that because we where paying €950 a month and in a rent pressure zone he wanted us out so he could charge the next tenant more. Well I just seen that he listed it on daft for €1350 a month. I know by law he can only charge 4% more than what we where paying for the new tenant and should disclose what we where paying by law but do we have any comeback the fact he verbally told us it was for family use? Anyone been in a similar situation? He was a nasty piece of work so I don’t want anyone to go through what we did so I want the new tenant to know. We were paying €800 when we moved in. Boiler broke and he upped our rent. Things he fixed always ended up being added to our rent.

amcalester · 13-01-2019 1:42pm

You’ve no comeback, tenancy was ended legally.

The information could be useful to the current tenant though.

Evd-Burner · 13-01-2019 1:49pm

I assume it was because a part 4 tenancy ended normally with no reason given?

Baby01032012 · 13-01-2019 1:56pm

I don’t think ex tenant is looking for comeback.

OP you can report landlord to RTB or call over when new tenant is in and have a word and let them deal with landlord or RTB.

If tenant finds out and reports to rtb they could be entitled to refund of any rent above the 4% limit and landlord could face a fine.

I’m a landlord but if I was the ex tenant I know what I’d do.

Samuel T. Cogley · 13-01-2019 2:06pm

He may have been a nasty piece of work but if he can legally increase the rent due to an increased cost and maintain occupancy then that's just good business sense.

Baby01032012 · 13-01-2019 2:12pm

Sam, nothing suggests it was done legally. If increasing above 4% for new tenancy with no evidence of substantial refurbishment.

There is no condoning this. He is a chancer not a landlord.

UpTheSlashers · 13-01-2019 2:16pm

Was the tenancy ended on the grounds of the dwelling being required for family use?

Grumpypants · 13-01-2019 2:19pm

amcalester wrote: »

You’ve no comeback, tenancy was ended legally.

The information could be useful to the current tenant though.

It wasn't, it was ended to give to a family member. He can't then up the rent by 40% and move someone else in.

tomfoolery60 · 13-01-2019 2:32pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

My ex landlord gave us notice when our part 4 tenancy ended last June. He told us he wasn’t renting it out again and was using it for family reasons. He did give the proper notice that just said he was entitled to end it and didn’t give a reason. We checked that out at the time and that was all legal. I said to my wife at the time that because we where paying €950 a month and in a rent pressure zone he wanted us out so he could charge the next tenant more. Well I just seen that he listed it on daft for €1350 a month. I know by law he can only charge 4% more than what we where paying for the new tenant and should disclose what we where paying by law but do we have any comeback the fact he verbally told us it was for family use? Anyone been in a similar situation? He was a nasty piece of work so I don’t want anyone to go through what we did so I want the new tenant to know. We were paying €800 when we moved in. Boiler broke and he upped our rent. Things he fixed always ended up being added to our rent.

This article has some useful information: https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/05/16/after-tenants-moved-on-one-apartment-saw-a-46-percent-rent-increase

The onous is on the new tenants to take a case. However you can always write to the new tenants and tell them that your rent was €x p.m and under the legistlation the 4% etc. They could then take a case if they wish.

Mike3549 · 13-01-2019 2:34pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

It wasn't, it was ended to give to a family member. He can't then up the rent by 40% and move someone else in.

Explain the "ended" part.
Was the tenancy terminated for family member, o was it that your 4 year cycle ended?
When did your tenancy start?

Samuel T. Cogley · 13-01-2019 3:09pm

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Sam, nothing suggests it was done legally. If increasing above 4% for new tenancy with no evidence of substantial refurbishment.

There is no condoning this. He is a chancer not a landlord.

No one is condoning the RPZ increase, but raising the rent to cover maintenance prior to the RPZ is perfectly acceptable.

Kaleb2015 · 13-01-2019 3:12pm

Mike3549 wrote: »

Explain the "ended" part.
Was the tenancy terminated for family member, o was it that your 4 year cycle ended?
When did your tenancy start?

He ended it because it came to the end of our part four tenancy but just put on the notice that he was entitled to end it and nothing else explaining why. It was in person that he said he needed it for family use. I don't really want a comeback or anything, its more so i dont want to see him rip off anyone else. I know the most he can charge this new tenant is €988.

Mike3549 · 13-01-2019 3:50pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He ended it because it came to the end of our part four tenancy but just put on the notice that he was entitled to end it and nothing else explaining why. It was in person that he said he needed it for family use. I don't really want a comeback or anything, its more so i dont want to see him rip off anyone else. I know the most he can charge this new tenant is €988.

Yeah looks like he doesnt need a reason to end this. The only thing you can do is tell this to new tenants and it will be up to them what they want to do. Dont forget that sometimes landlord can increase the rent by more than 4% based on some factors

amcalester · 13-01-2019 3:54pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

It wasn't, it was ended to give to a family member. He can't then up the rent by 40% and move someone else in.

The landlord can end the tenancy at the end of a part 4 cycle for any or no reason, OP has confirmed this is the case here.

Agreed about the 40% increase but it’s not the OP who is being wronged here.

overkill602 · 14-01-2019 5:00am

A LL does not need to give a reason to end a part4 legally as stated by the op so no reason had to be given there where rules applied to its application and extended notice periods to make it more difficult for LLs to execute.

Where renovations take place that require vacant procession typically after 10 years depending on the type of property the rents can be increased, no record of this being challenged to date despite many vexatious claims of laws broken.

You got the benefits sitting tenant where rewarded from the emergency legislation the dogs on the street knew with extra taxes already screwing LLs to mention 1 ie (when you move in there was no LPT)this party would end when part 4 would expire, LLs told on here to suck it up what business can survive extra charges now you are at the other end of rent controls wrath suck it up and get on with your life.

Dante7 · 14-01-2019 5:35am

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

My ex landlord gave us notice when our part 4 tenancy ended last June. He told us he wasn’t renting it out again and was using it for family reasons. He did give the proper notice that just said he was entitled to end it and didn’t give a reason. We checked that out at the time and that was all legal. I said to my wife at the time that because we where paying €950 a month and in a rent pressure zone he wanted us out so he could charge the next tenant more. Well I just seen that he listed it on daft for €1350 a month. I know by law he can only charge 4% more than what we where paying for the new tenant and should disclose what we where paying by law but do we have any comeback the fact he verbally told us it was for family use? Anyone been in a similar situation? He was a nasty piece of work so I don’t want anyone to go through what we did so I want the new tenant to know. We were paying €800 when we moved in. Boiler broke and he upped our rent. Things he fixed always ended up being added to our rent.

I wouldn't expect to get too much help here. This forum seems to be dominated by landlords. You might get a few responses humming and hawing about certain legislation, but there will be very few posts condemning the Landlord for breaking the law.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 8:15am

Dante7 wrote: »

I wouldn't expect to get too much help here. This forum seems to be dominated by landlords. You might get a few responses humming and hawing about certain legislation, but there will be very few posts condemning the Landlord for breaking the law.

I don’t think it’s very fair what is about to be done on this new tenant. I just don’t like knowing that the new tenant is going to be screwed over. If you think about, by the time the tenants part 4 is at an end they would have given this landlord just over 26,000 too much. If they stay longer than that god knows how much they would waste in the end.

amcalester · 14-01-2019 8:41am

Dante7 wrote: »

I wouldn't expect to get too much help here. This forum seems to be dominated by landlords. You might get a few responses humming and hawing about certain legislation, but there will be very few posts condemning the Landlord for breaking the law.

Nobody has defended the landlord here.

Baby01032012 · 14-01-2019 8:48am

Quiet a few have defended the landlord which I find quiet disturbing..especially being a landlord myself.

Someone of the posts above are completely fiction as regards the law. There is no indication of substantial refurbishment. And no basis for saying landlord was entitled to go above the 4% given that it was relet within a short timeframe never mind the 2 year rule for market value reset.

amcalester · 14-01-2019 9:01am

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Quiet a few have defended the landlord which I find quiet disturbing..especially being a landlord myself.

Someone of the posts above are completely fiction as regards the law. There is no indication of substantial refurbishment. And no basis for saying landlord was entitled to go above the 4% given that it was relet within a short timeframe never mind the 2 year rule for market value reset.

6 months isn't all that short a time frame.

We don't know of refurbishments were carried out, perhaps there were or probably not, but pointing out to the OP that there are exceptions to the 4% rule is not defending the landlord.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 10:06am

amcalester wrote: »

6 months isn't all that short a time frame.

We don't know of refurbishments were carried out, perhaps there were or probably not, but pointing out to the OP that there are exceptions to the 4% rule is not defending the landlord.

All he done was replace the wooden floor in the hall and sitting room and the fireplace. New carpet on the stairs, landing and bedrooms. The floors needed to be done anyway. No need to replace the fireplace, the other one was perfect but the new one is really fancy so I’d say it was to make the place look high end. He also updated the tiles in the en-suite shower and updated the electric shower in the main bathroom and a new paint job and that was it. Not really enough of a renovation to justify an extra €362 a month.

ted1 · 14-01-2019 10:24am

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He ended it because it came to the end of our part four tenancy but just put on the notice that he was entitled to end it and nothing else explaining why. It was in person that he said he needed it for family use. I don't really want a comeback or anything, its more so i dont want to see him rip off anyone else. I know the most he can charge this new tenant is €988.

How mong were you living there for and when was the last rent review?

Are you sure he didn’t renovate or repair ?

Graham · 14-01-2019 11:05am

ted1 wrote: »

Are you sure he didn’t renovate or repair ?

Renovations/repairs are not grounds for increasing rent beyond 4%.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 11:15am

Graham wrote: »

Renovations/repairs are not grounds for increasing rent beyond 4%.

I just spoke to the rtb there. He would have needed to do substantial renovations or renovations that would require planning permission in order to increase it above the 4% cap.

Graham · 14-01-2019 11:24am

The specific guidance is "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation".

There are further guidelines from the RTB on what may/may not qualify as "substantial change".

If the OP is correct in the scope of work completed, I can't see how it could be described as a substantial change.

RTB Guidelines for good practice on the substantial change exemption in Rent Pressure Zones

Infographic RTB Guidelines for good practice on the substantial change exemption in Rent Pressure Zones

LuckyLloyd · 14-01-2019 11:33am

If you wish to pursue the matter, put together an envelope with documented proof of your position (old lease copy, proof of rent payment to the amount you were paying, notice you received) and knock on the door to inform the new tenants of the situation. You should discuss the way the premises was before you left so that you and the new tenants can assess the scope of any renovations taken, just incase the Landlord tries to claim such as justification for the increase. It's then up to them whether to take this and open an RTB case. If they do - and assuming the RTB rules in their favour - they would be entitled to the difference in rent back plus some additional compensation potentially. And the Landlord will have been forced to play by the rules.

The recommendation would be that the new tenant waits six months before opening the dispute.

So it's up to you - they are your options in black and white. You'll get a lot of fluff around those bare facts in this thread due to entrenched ideological positions, but this is your decision based on how important the matter is to you.

marieholmfan · 14-01-2019 11:37am

Just do the below but send it to the RTB in six months as well.
Think you'll be happier if you 'get one in' at this landlord anyway.
There can be pleasure in spite.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you wish to pursue the matter, put together an envelope with documented proof of your position (old lease copy, proof of rent payment to the amount you were paying, notice you received) and knock on the door to inform the new tenants of the situation. You should discuss the way the premises was before you left so that you and the new tenants can assess the scope of any renovations taken, just incase the Landlord tries to claim such as justification for the increase. It's then up to them whether to take this and open an RTB case. If they do - and assuming the RTB rules in their favour - they would be entitled to the difference in rent back plus some additional compensation potentially. And the Landlord will have been forced to play by the rules.

The recommendation would be that the new tenant waits six months before opening the dispute.

So it's up to you - they are your options in black and white. You'll get a lot of fluff around those bare facts in this thread due to entrenched ideological positions, but this is your decision based on how important the matter is to you.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 11:43am

marieholmfan wrote: »

Just do the below but send it to the RTB in six months as well.
Think you'll be happier if you 'get one in' at this landlord anyway.
There can be pleasure in spite.

I’m not really doing it in spite. I just don’t want him taking advantage of anyone else the way he did with us.

Lux23 · 14-01-2019 11:43am

marieholmfan wrote: »

Just do the below but send it to the RTB in six months as well.
Think you'll be happier if you 'get one in' at this landlord anyway.
There can be pleasure in spite.

It's not spite. I think it's quite a decent thing to do when there will be no benefit to you especially when you might need the landlord's reference one day.

ted1 · 14-01-2019 11:53am

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I just spoke to the rtb there. He would have needed to do substantial renovations or renovations that would require planning permission in order to increase it above the 4% cap.

That’s not true. From their own website things like:
Attic insulation , cavity wall it dry lining , external wall insulation, replacement boiler, replacement pipe work and radiators, replacement cylinder, replacement doors and windows will allow for exemptions in RPZ. None of which require planning

Garibaldi? · 14-01-2019 12:01pm

I do not know where the property was but the rent you were paying seems to have been very reasonable indeed in today's market. I would just move on at this point and be happy to have had a low rent for as long as you did. It does not appear that the property owner has harmed you in any way. Another property owner might be very wary of doing business with someone who keeps tabs on another person like that.

my3cents · 14-01-2019 12:05pm

How else is the law going to be implemented if no one speaks out when this sort of thing happens?

The only worry I'd have is that the Landlord may chuck out the new tenants so he can make a substantial change before renting out again. With that in mind I'd make sure that nothing was done until the new tenants had part 4 rights.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 12:07pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

I do not know where the property was but the rent you were paying seems to have been very reasonable indeed in today's market. I would just move on at this point and be happy to have had a low rent for as long as you did. It does not appear that the property owner has harmed you in any way. Another property owner might be very wary of doing business with someone who keeps tabs on another person like that.

He turned around and evicted us with a newborn and told us that the property was for family use. Why would I let him con the next tenant when I’m the only one that can tell them what we where paying?

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 12:11pm

my3cents wrote: »

How else is the law going to be implemented if no one speaks out when this sort of thing happens?

The only worry I'd have is that the Landlord may chuck out the new tenants so he can make a substantial change before renting out again. With that in mind I'd make sure that nothing was done until the new tenants had part 4 rights.

I plan on telling them to sit on it for 6 months and then it’s in their hands if they follow up. I personally wouldn’t like paying out almost 4,500 extra a year.

Garibaldi? · 14-01-2019 12:18pm

If what you said is correct, and the Part 4 tenancy was ending, that did not constitute an eviction. The property owner probably found it very difficult to tell you that the lease would not be renewed.No one likes delivering bad news. He/she made it easier on themseles by making the excuse of a family member moving in.In reality, no explanation was required. The property owner may have found it impossible to continue letting out a house for this very low rent. I would move on at this point.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 12:19pm

ted1 wrote: »

That’s not true. From their own website things like:
Attic insulation , cavity wall it dry lining , external wall insulation, replacement boiler, replacement pipe work and radiators, replacement cylinder, replacement doors and windows will allow for exemptions in RPZ. None of which require planning

I think Attic insulation , cavity wall dry lining , external wall insulation, replacement boiler, replacement pipe work and radiators, replacement cylinder, replacement doors and windows would count as substantial work. He didn’t do any of that.

dashoonage · 14-01-2019 12:20pm

**** me lads im glad i aint a landlord anymore.

Mike3549 · 14-01-2019 12:21pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He turned around and evicted us with a newborn and told us that the property was for family use. Why would I let him con the next tenant when I’m the only one that can tell them what we where paying?

You said your 4 year part 4 tenancy ended. Thats not eviction

overkill602 · 14-01-2019 12:25pm

"ar it is these days"

tvjunki · 14-01-2019 12:37pm

The landlord just has to give you notice he is not continuing to a further part 4. For all you know he could have insulated to walls to improve the ber, change boiler, put in attic insulation.
The improvements would come under any work that would improve to footage of the house or energy efficency. You may not be able to see the improvements when it was painted or new floors put down.

How do you know that that tenant might only want a 6months lease and not a yearly lease and expect to pay more? Dont mess things up for them.

Dont forget you need this landlord as a reference in the future so being nasty may not go in your favour.

tvjunki · 14-01-2019 12:40pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He turned around and evicted us with a newborn and told us that the property was for family use. Why would I let him con the next tenant when I’m the only one that can tell them what we where paying?

You said the part 4 was coming to an end.
A landlord can say they will not be allowing a further part 4 with no reasons. I dont think you were evicted.

Bigmac1euro · 14-01-2019 12:41pm

dashoonage wrote: »

**** me lads im glad i aint a landlord anymore.

I’m glad your not as well!
Imagine throwing a family with a newborn out and illegally increasing the rent for the next suckers.

Good on you OP doing the right thing. Inform the new tenants. The 26k you mention in an earlier post would probably get the new tenants a mortgage and set them up for life.

Garibaldi? · 14-01-2019 1:25pm

If I were you OP I would devote all my energy towards getting the best possible accommodation for myself and for my young family. By all accounts it's a shark's market out there. I don't think your former landlord was one of them. If he had been he could have terminated your highly favourable conditions on one of the legal pretexts and then backtracked. I would not approach future tenants of this person. This would be highly inappropriate, embarrassing and would possibly compromise them.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 2:06pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If I were you OP I would devote all my energy towards getting the best possible accommodation for myself and for my young family. By all accounts it's a shark's market out there. I don't think your former landlord was one of them. If he had been he could have terminated your highly favourable conditions on one of the legal pretexts and then backtracked. I would not approach future tenants of this person. This would be highly inappropriate, embarrassing and would possibly compromise them.

I think it’s a sharks market because people seem to keep quiet. If it’s not enforced that he only put the rent up by 4% and he doesn’t disclose it, how then are people to know unless the previous tenant informs them? Things are just going to keep getting worse for people if the ones being screwed over don’t open their mouths. Like after a part 4 with an increase every 2 years by the time that ends they are paying €1,520 when it could have been €1,112. This only drives the market up and makes it harder for families to live.

pablopicasso1 · 14-01-2019 2:15pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

He ended it because it came to the end of our part four tenancy but just put on the notice that he was entitled to end it and nothing else explaining why. It was in person that he said he needed it for family use. I don't really want a comeback or anything, its more so i dont want to see him rip off anyone else. I know the most he can charge this new tenant is €988.

This exact same scenario happened me. Contacted threshold who told me to save screen prints of the rental ad and send it to the prtb immediately. They actually advised that I send a letter to the replacement tenant at the address advising them of the amount of rent you were paying and letting them know their rights.

The replacement tenant is entitled to any excess rent returned to him and you are entitled to any excess rent above what you were paying at the address for a certain period.

The prtb will definitely take this case if you have the ads as evidence. Please please please take the case to the prtb! I accidentally deleted the screenshots and it all came to nothing

Garibaldi? · 14-01-2019 2:15pm

If that landlord is increasing the rent excessively the PRTB will put a stop to it. They have the records. Surely it would be regarded as intrusive to approach people, perfect strangers, with regard to their private, legitimate business.

my3cents · 14-01-2019 2:16pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If that landlord is increasing the rent excessively the PRTB will put a stop to it. They have the records. Surely it would be regarded as intrusive to approach people, perfect strangers, with regard to their private, legitimate business.

Do you honestly believe that :eek:

"legitimate business" - breaking the law?

Personally I'd pass all the information direct to the PRTB rather than the current tenants then the landlord can't blame the current tenants.

TheChizler · 14-01-2019 2:20pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If that landlord is increasing the rent excessively the PRTB will put a stop to it. They have the records. Surely it would be regarded as intrusive to approach people, perfect strangers, with regard to their private, legitimate business.

The RTB have no remit to initiate investigations themselves, they can only act based on complaints. Though they were trying to get the law on that changed recently.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 2:30pm

TheChizler wrote: »

The RTB have no remit to initiate investigations themselves, they can only act based on complaints. Though they were trying to get the law on that changed recently.

I agree with that. The rtb said that the only way they will pursue it is if the current tenant files a complaint. If I don’t say anything then the new tenant will never know and the landlord will get away with it.

my3cents · 14-01-2019 3:17pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I agree with that. The rtb said that the only way they will pursue it is if the current tenant files a complaint. If I don’t say anything then the new tenant will never know and the landlord will get away with it.

Fair enough I thought they might have been able to act on your report.

14-01-2019 5:23pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I don’t think it’s very fair what is about to be done on this new tenant. I just don’t like knowing that the new tenant is going to be screwed over. If you think about, by the time the tenants part 4 is at an end they would have given this landlord just over 26,000 too much. If they stay longer than that god knows how much they would waste in the end.

What about the LL being screwed over by unconsitional laws forcing him to set rent well below market rate and preventing him from running his business properly.

Ex Landlord charging new tenant more than 4% extra rent pressure zone.

Comments