Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Phasing in rent increase

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,967 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    To even contemplate a 50% increase in a single rent review is all the evidence you need that we must introduce rent controls in this country, or at least in areas where rent is already high.


  • Options
    #33
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    spacetweek wrote: »
    To even contemplate a 50% increase in a single rent review is all the evidence you need that we must introduce rent controls in this country, or at least in areas where rent is already high.

    It's a 100% increase from 950 to 1900


  • Options
    #34
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,297 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    spacetweek wrote: »
    To even contemplate a 50% increase in a single rent review is all the evidence you need that we must introduce rent controls in this country, or at least in areas where rent is already high.

    They have been below the market price fir a long time and recent legislation introduced to protect the tenant is working against them as phased increments are not allowed


  • Options
    #35
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    L'prof wrote: »
    An increase so big would surely drive the tenants out?
    Ashbx wrote: »
    If he increased it by 50%....I would be gone. Simple as that.
    its 100% as said a few times. Are you both suggesting they will leave to go to a smaller place? cheaper area? or that they would leave out of spite and pay the same 100% increased rate in a similar place, which would cause them major disruption to themselves. Or have you simply not thought it through.

    If anything rather than leaving out of spite they more logically would stay loyal to the landlord who has been giving them such an easy ride for years, rather than leave and move into an identical place next door paying the new landlord the very same price that is being asked now. But I suppose many would not be rational about it, and could have this knee jerk reaction.


  • Options
    #36
    CiboC
    Registered Users Posts: 509 ✭✭✭CiboC


    OP here, well that didn't take long...!
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Uneducated, unprofessional landlords causing ridiculous rising rents, policed only by market rate. Aka each other.

    Thanks for jumping to a load of assumptions about me based on nothing whatsoever. For what it's worth, I would consider myself an educated professional.

    Do you not think a 'professional' landlord would have been raising the rent each year to the maximum of what they could instead of leaving it for years without adjusting it?

    In case you didn't pick up on the subtext of my original post, let me be a bit more explicit so you don't have to infer anything, as you seem to be having difficulty with that.

    I don't want to raise the rent by an excessive amount as I feel it would be unfair, on the other hand under current rules whatever it is raised to is locked for the next 24 months so raising it in steps is not possible.

    Being a tenant myself, I have a pretty good idea of what would qualify as a 'decent' landlord and treating tenants well.
    Ashbx wrote: »
    Hmmm, do you want the money because it is needed to pay off the mortgage or you sense an opportunity to bleed a bit more cash from your tenants?

    There is still a loan outstanding and although the rent hasn't increased the same cannot be said for property taxes and service charges. My father is entitled to a fair return on his investment, no?

    Stheno wrote: »
    Yeah OP is claiming that a rent of 1900 for a 3 bed is still below average.

    Just looking on daft there are plenty of three beds in Dublin below that

    I have checked and this would still leave it as the cheapest 3 bed townhouse in the area.

    Thanks for all the replies, some of which were even helpful...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    spacetweek wrote: »
    To even contemplate a 50% increase in a single rent review is all the evidence you need that we must introduce rent controls in this country, or at least in areas where rent is already high.

    So because a landlord has been charging half the going rate for a number of years he should be financially punished now?


  • Options
    #38
    McGrath5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,330 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    OP, take the emotion out of this situation.

    You need to be fair to your family investment, do you want to run a charity or a business?

    Raise the rent to the correct market rate, these tenants have been availing of a rather generous discount on their rent for long enough, there is absolutely no obligation on you or your father as a LL to continue to offer such a discount for any longer.


  • Options
    #39
    893bet
    Registered Users Posts: 8,765 ✭✭✭893bet


    ted1 wrote: »
    Tenants shouldn't be paying less than a mortgage would cost.

    Why not? A landlord may not like it but why not?


  • Options
    #40
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    893bet wrote: »
    Why not? A landlord may not like it but why not?

    For one, a financially unviable investment does not make a secure home for any tenant.


  • Options
    #41
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    spacetweek wrote: »
    To even contemplate a 50% increase in a single rent review is all the evidence you need that we must introduce rent controls in this country, or at least in areas where rent is already high.

    Rent control doesn't work.
    For as long as mankind has been buying and selling goods and services to each other, the law of supply and demand has ruled firm in determining price.

    Rewind the clock, 7 years ago. Its 2009 and theres plentiful supply of properties to rent. A Landlord can't let out his property at 1000 for a 2 bed, so reduces it to a level that tenants are willing to pay.
    The market set the rent. The reason the price was low and unsustainable was due to excess supply in the market at the tail end of the celtic tiger.
    Now we've gone full circle and we don't have enough supply. As a result rental prices have gone up. Again, the market, being the tenants set the rate.
    The only way to reduce rental prices is to increase supply.
    Rent control has been shown to have the opposite effect on supply. It reduces it further.
    Instead of investing in properties, landlords will decide to invest their money elsewhere.

    Tell me, please, why, when rents are at their highest level ever, are landlords exiting the buy to let market in their droves?
    Generally when the return is increasing, you don't exit the market.
    Also tell me, if we have rent control what happens when the demand for rental housing increases further over the next few years? Where are the people who want to live in Dublin going to live? Will they pay key money to current tenants to reassign their lease?

    I can't stress it enough, the only way to reduce rental prices is to increase supply. Rent controls will ease the problem in the short term, but it has catastrophic consequences in the medium to long term.
    Thankfully other countries have already made this mistake, so we don't need to.



    OP, if its currently 50% of market rate, I'd increase to 90% of market rate. a 10% discount for being good tenants and not to mention, numerous years of paying rent at significant levels below the market rate as well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,297 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    893bet wrote: »
    Why not? A landlord may not like it but why not?

    Because that's not How markets work ,if the cost of providing a service falls below the cost of obtaining the service, then the market collapses.


  • Options
    #43
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Double the rent and you will basically put them in an impossible situation and multiply the chances of the tenants not paying rent at all, over-holding for at least a year and costing you thousands to get them out.


  • Options
    #44
    Senecio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 971 ✭✭✭Senecio


    Your fathers lack of management of his property has put you in this situation but increasing it to market rate in one go is not the answer. You cannot undo his wrongs in one go.

    The fair thing to do would be to increase it to 75-80% of market rate now and up to market rate in 2 years.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

    I can't stress it enough, the only way to reduce rental prices is to increase supply.
    But also celtic tiger era gold plated building regs, bureaucracy and planning rules have all conspired to prolong the process, reduce supply and raise prices when something eventually gets built.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Increase it to market rate asap (or at the very least 95% of market rate). I don't really get why posters in here appear to think LL should act as a charity giving a massive discount in rent over what the market has set as the rate. The point of being a LL is to make money and to do this you maximise your return by getting as much rent as you can.

    When rents were falling tenants were not saying "oh he was a good LL we should keep paying him the full rent and not ask for a lower rent like all the houses around"

    The people saying they will move, where will they move to? they aren't going to want to move to a dump somewhere far away from where they are now and even a dump in Dublin would be getting more than 950 a month. So what if they leave anyway, new tenants you can ask 10% above market rate to se if you get it, at that value you are unlikely to get dodgy tenants and in the current climate there isn't going to be any vacant period. Some LLs would even rather get in fresh tenants every few years than have the same people there long term who start thinking it's their house etc.


  • Options
    #47
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,670 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I agree that landlords can’t really be expected to take moral considerations like the tenant’s ability to pay or keep a roof over their head into account when assessing rent increases. Landlords will act in accordance with the market. This is why our rental market needs to be regulated.

    We need a stable rental sector. Bubble like rises and falls in the cost of rent aren’t good for anyone except vultures looking to make a killing. Rent regulation, properly implemented, will help do this. I don’t care about the impact of WWI emergency rent controls in Ireland or New York that were never lifted. Modern rent regulation measures have been used very effectively in other European countries and the sky hasn’t fallen.

    We also need proper security of tenure so that the landlord’s indebtedness doesn’t impact the tenant. House gets sold, bank repossesses house, landlord decides to cash out – the tenant should not be affected. Sitting tenancies are the norm in many European countries. If the Irish constitution is a problem, and I'm not convinced that it is, it should be changed.

    Housing should not be a commodity.


  • Options
    #48
    FAILSAFE 00
    Registered Users Posts: 5,416 ✭✭✭FAILSAFE 00


    CiboC wrote: »
    I have recently taken over management of my father's rental property, he is getting on a bit and it was getting too much hassle for him at his age.

    I would be pretty familiar with the rules covering residential rentals, mostly from the perspective of being a tenant.

    He has one 3-bed townhouse that has been let out to the same tenants for a good few years, but they are way overdue a rent review, they are paying about 50% of the going rate for the area.

    I don't want to be completely unreasonable and put the rent up to market level in one fell swoop, but on the other hand there is no way of increasing it more gradually now that there is a 2 year review limit.

    I was thinking along the lines of giving them notice of an increase to market level and coming to a separate arrangement with them to agree not to collect the 'full' amount for a period of months to allow them to adjust accordingly, but I also don't want to dig a hole for myself either!

    Other than being too soft, am I creating trouble for further down the road by considering this route?

    Bring the rent up to market value.

    You never know when you might have some unforeseen property expenses, personal expenses or the market takes a downturn.

    Speak to the tenants. If it is not financial viable for them to continue the lease make sure you give them the required notice (by law) and if you feel they need a bit longer add to this.


  • Options
    #49
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    its always the same with these arguments the landlord is never given credit for under charging. charge the full market rent and never less, you will never be thanked for giving money to your tenant in the form of reduced rent.


  • Options
    #50
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    Jack it up, I'm sure they have being telling everyone what a great deal they are getting.

    They professionals or a family? Imagine paying €320 a month if sharing


  • Options
    #51
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    893bet wrote: »
    Why not? A landlord may not like it but why not?
    I don't get this logic either
    Graham wrote: »
    For one, a financially unviable investment does not make a secure home for any tenant.
    rent being less than a mortgage does not necessarily/automatically make it an unviable investment.
    ted1 wrote: »
    Because that's not How markets work ,if the cost of providing a service falls below the cost of obtaining the service, then the market collapses.
    If the landlord was renting a property himself, and then renting it out then I would accept it is not viable. But that is not what is going on, the landlord has a house paid off at the end of it.

    If I took out a loan to buy a used TV to be paid off in 1 year, and had 12 payments of 100euro, I would not consider it unviable to buy it and be renting it out for 12 months to someone willing to rent it off me for 90euro a month. I could continue renting it afterwards if I wanted to recoup the entire cost, and have a TV at the end of it.

    Many years ago I remember people complaining that their rent was above what the mortgage would have been on a similar property, because of this very reason, that they have nothing to show at the end of it while the landlord would.

    Senecio wrote: »
    Your fathers lack of management of his property has put you in this situation but increasing it to market rate in one go is not the answer. You cannot undo his wrongs in one go.

    The fair thing to do would be to increase it to 75-80% of market rate now and up to market rate in 2 years.
    Many seem to think it is the answer. I don't see how its the fair thing to do, if anything the fairer thing to do would be the renters pay back even more to the landlord as they have seemingly being enjoying a huge discounted rate for years. Of course that is not going to happen, but I cannot see how you figure it should be only raised to 75%.

    I have heard of numerous people over the years effectively taking advantage of elderly landlords like this. Having a good laugh about how stupid they are not to be charging the going rate.

    Imagine tesco had some mispriced product for years, and then cop on and increase it. I would not expect them to cop their mistake and slowly increase the price 75% of what the dunnes next door have been charging for ages.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Double the rent and you will basically put them in an impossible situation
    According to the OP it would seem others in the area are capable of doing the impossible... someone better call ripleys. They could be wealthy landlords themselves for all we know, and could be laughing behind the LL's back at the moment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    stateofflux
    Registered Users Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭stateofflux


    Landyn Raspy Traveller wrote: »
    Increase it to market rate asap (or at the very least 95% of market rate). I don't really get why posters in here appear to think LL should act as a charity giving a massive discount in rent over what the market has set as the rate. The point of being a LL is to make money and to do this you maximise your return by getting as much rent as you can.

    When rents were falling tenants were not saying "oh he was a good LL we should keep paying him the full rent and not ask for a lower rent like all the houses around"

    The people saying they will move, where will they move to? they aren't going to want to move to a dump somewhere far away from where they are now and even a dump in Dublin would be getting more than 950 a month. So what if they leave anyway, new tenants you can ask 10% above market rate to se if you get it, at that value you are unlikely to get dodgy tenants and in the current climate there isn't going to be any vacant period. Some LLs would even rather get in fresh tenants every few years than have the same people there long term who start thinking it's their house etc.

    While i agree that landlords should not be a charity. Having a reliable troublefree tenant has to be a consideration given that the law is pretty one sided and if a tenant tells a landlord to F*** off & destroy the place it could take 18 months to get them out of the house...or longer


  • Options
    #53
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    stateofflux wrote: »
    While i agree that landlords should not be a charity. Having a reliable troublefree tenant has to be a consideration given that the law is pretty one sided and if a tenant tells a landlord to F*** off & destroy the place it could take 18 months to get them out of the house...or longer
    A reliable tenant is worth a small discount indeed, but not a 50% discount. The landlord needs to make hay while the sun shines because rents can fall too.


  • Options
    #54
    FAILSAFE 00
    Registered Users Posts: 5,416 ✭✭✭FAILSAFE 00


    Should I get a large discount from Electric Ireland since I pay my bill on time bimonthly.

    *I wish


  • Options
    #55
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,967 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Landyn Raspy Traveller wrote: »
    Increase it to market rate asap (or at the very least 95% of market rate). I don't really get why posters in here appear to think LL should act as a charity giving a massive discount in rent over what the market has set as the rate. The point of being a LL is to make money and to do this you maximise your return by getting as much rent as you can.

    When rents were falling tenants were not saying "oh he was a good LL we should keep paying him the full rent and not ask for a lower rent like all the houses around"

    The people saying they will move, where will they move to? they aren't going to want to move to a dump somewhere far away from where they are now and even a dump in Dublin would be getting more than 950 a month. So what if they leave anyway, new tenants you can ask 10% above market rate to se if you get it, at that value you are unlikely to get dodgy tenants and in the current climate there isn't going to be any vacant period. Some LLs would even rather get in fresh tenants every few years than have the same people there long term who start thinking it's their house etc.

    Jeeesus! It's like reading a sociopath's manifesto. I've highlighted the salient parts above.

    I certainly hope you never become a landlord. It's because people like you see housing as a commodity instead of a human right that we need increased regulation.

    We need proper fixity of tenure - no effect on tenants when house is bought/sold/repossessed, no eviction for family/sale/renovation reasons, and rent controls. If rent controls don't work why are they so widespread, even in America which is the bastion of free-market capitalism?

    If increasing supply is all that's needed to bring rents down then why were rents rising so rapidly during the boom years when there was massive oversupply of housing.


  • Options
    #56
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,967 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    rubadub wrote: »
    Many seem to think it is the answer. I don't see how its the fair thing to do, if anything the fairer thing to do would be the renters pay back even more to the landlord as they have seemingly being enjoying a huge discounted rate for years. Of course that is not going to happen, but I cannot see how you figure it should be only raised to 75%.

    I have heard of numerous people over the years effectively taking advantage of elderly landlords like this. Having a good laugh about how stupid they are not to be charging the going rate.

    Imagine tesco had some mispriced product for years, and then cop on and increase it. I would not expect them to cop their mistake and slowly increase the price 75% of what the dunnes next door have been charging for ages.

    According to the OP it would seem others in the area are capable of doing the impossible... someone better call ripleys. They could be wealthy landlords themselves for all we know, and could be laughing behind the LL's back at the moment.
    Truly astonishing from start to finish. Dismal capitalism at its worst.

    Nobody who gets a good deal on something ever laughs at the other person afterwards. If they did the person might reconsider, so the joke would very much be on them.

    Your tesco example is silly and irrelevant to housing which is not a commodity and to which people have an emotional attachment.

    To the people here encouraging the OP to double the rent in one go, have you ever had a friend evicted at short notice for no reason at all? I have, after they lived in the area for 8 years. After such a length of time, you have roots there and you have the right to stay. I do not believe it should be legal for you to be evicted at all.


  • Options
    #57
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    spacetweek wrote: »
    To the people here encouraging the OP to double the rent in one go, have you ever had a friend evicted at short notice for no reason at all?

    What's with the amateur dramatics, raising the rent is not evicting someone.


  • Options
    #58
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »
    Should I get a large discount from Electric Ireland since I pay my bill on time bimonthly.

    *I wish
    Stop paying them if they suddenly doubled the cost of the electricity and see how fast they disconnect you, a landlord can't evict a non paying tenant as fast as that and it could take 1-2 years.
    Graham wrote: »
    What's with the amateur dramatics, raising the rent is not evicting someone.
    For many people doubling the rent will effectively be the same as evicting them.


  • Options
    #59
    05eaftqbrs9jlh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭05eaftqbrs9jlh


    We're due a 30% - 50% (at least) increase soon and I'm dreading it. I'll actually have to change my lifestyle to live in the same exact place. The landlady is an alcoholic though, so actually getting organised to raise it is proving challenging for her. We'll grumble but we'll still pay it for the convenience of staying here, because we know we're paying well under market value and she is essentially entitled to the money.


  • Options
    #60
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Jeeesus! It's like reading a sociopath's manifesto. I've highlighted the salient parts above.

    I certainly hope you never become a landlord. It's because people like you see housing as a commodity instead of a human right that we need increased regulation.

    We need proper fixity of tenure - no effect on tenants when house is bought/sold/repossessed, no eviction for family/sale/renovation reasons, and rent controls. If rent controls don't work why are they so widespread, even in America which is the bastion of free-market capitalism?

    If increasing supply is all that's needed to bring rents down then why were rents rising so rapidly during the boom years when there was massive oversupply of housing.
    My tenants demanded huge rent reductions from me starting in 2008. Were they wrong to do so?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Senecio wrote: »
    Your fathers lack of management of his property has put you in this situation but increasing it to market rate in one go is not the answer. You cannot undo his wrongs in one go.

    The fair thing to do would be to increase it to 75-80% of market rate now and up to market rate in 2 years.


    So the tenants have benefited from half price rent for years ... And now its time to pay the market rent . The landlord is not the tenants money manager. If the tenants had any sence they would have put the money away that they saved over a number of years. Ago 100% market rent should be charged all the time other wise the sence of entitlement to cheap rent creeps in.


Advertisement