Rent Increase without notice

The DayDream · 01-03-2021 12:51am

Subutai wrote: »

OP does not need to open a dispute. All they need to do is continue to pay their rent as they've been doing. Leave it to them to open a dispute, if they're foolish enough to go down that route OP will happily continue paying his current rent for a few months while the case makes its way to arbitration where the landlord will lose, and then they'll additionally get the statutory increase notice period.

But this is a thickheaded idiot typical Irish agent who can't figure out how to offer a valid notice and probably thinks they can just evict the OP if they don't start paying. And will probably get an invalid notice for that too. They could even escalate to things like changing locks.

Opening a dispute yourself now is better IMO, as this is the point when the claims of landlord and tenant don't match up. This is the time of the dispute. If the tenant just keeps paying rent it looks like they just ignored all communications until they were chased down by RTB.

Ive never had a LL try and open a dispute on me they always try bully boy tactics and i won my cases after opening the disputes myself so that's what I recommend but that's just my experience.

jimmycrackcorm · 01-03-2021 6:47am

The DayDream wrote:

100%. Please listen to the advice given. This is why these agents get away with murder and fleecing people when they can't even do their job right they still bully people into paying money they don't even owe. They're scamming you, they never sent any letter or you would have got it. Those numbers are not proof, have you seen a copy of the letter. Why would they wait til now to contact you, wouldn't they want to make sure you got the letter and you agreed to the increase?

That's a lot of rubbish.
Any one of us can say we didn't get a letter. There is no actual system of proof.

Even signing for a letter can be done by anyone.

As I said in my post, it'll come down to their word against his and if they can show that they send it valid notices then they'll win in a case.

You're assuming that agencies operate without doing the basic thing they are in business for. That can't be true otherwise they'd be all out of business by now.

Seth Brundle · 01-03-2021 10:05am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's a lot of rubbish.
Any one of us can say we didn't get a letter. There is no actual system of proof.

Even signing for a letter can be done by anyone.

As I said in my post, it'll come down to their word against his and if they can show that they send it valid notices then they'll win in a case.

You're assuming that agencies operate without doing the basic thing they are in business for. That can't be true otherwise they'd be all out of business by now.

They can't show this though!

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:26pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They can't show this though!

Residential tenancies Act 2004
6.—(1) A notice required or authorised to be served or given by or under this Act shall, subject to subsection (2), be addressed to the person concerned by name and may be served on or given to the person in one of the following ways:

(a) by delivering it to the person;

(b) by leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid letter to the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, to that address;

(d) where the notice relates to a dwelling and it appears that no person is in actual occupation of the dwelling, by affixing it in a conspicuous position on the outside of the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 1:28pm

I think his point is that nowhere does it show a name or address and even An Post don't know this information.

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:30pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think his point is that nowhere does it show a name or address and even An Post don't know this information.

Your point being?

Seth Brundle · 01-03-2021 1:31pm

There is no evidence that they posted anything to the OP nor is there any evidence that they posted a notice of rent increase to the OP.

Time · 01-03-2021 1:32pm

Neither of the two parties here can definitively prove it was delivered or that it wasn’t. The RTB will have to look at this on balance of probabilities and on that the Agency has a lot of backup while the tenant has none.

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:34pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There is no evidence that they posted anything to the OP nor is there any evidence that they posted a notice of rent increase to the OP.

If someone from the agency states that they posted it and that the document they have is the receipt, that is evidence.

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 1:37pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If someone from the agency states that they posted it and that the document they have is the receipt, that is evidence.

It's evidence that they posted something to somebody but it's not evidence that they posted something to the OP

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 1:37pm

I contacted RTB and they said:

"The landlord would have to produce evidence to show it was delivered to this address if this was the case."

They suggested getting free legal advice from Threshold who said:

if you have not received formal written rent review notice then this increase is invalid so therefore you should not pay increase

https://www.threshold.ie/advice/dealing-with-problems-during-your-tenancy/how-to-deal-with-rent-increases/
This link will give you more information on this and help you go forward with this issue.

If the landlord/agent is insisting on the increase you can take a dispute with the residential tenancies board

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 1:38pm

Time wrote: »

Neither of the two parties here can definitively prove it was delivered or that it wasn’t. The RTB will have to look at this on balance of probabilities and on that the Agency has a lot of backup while the tenant has none.

The burden of proof surely lies with the agency though

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:38pm

MacDanger wrote: »

It's evidence that they posted something to somebody but it's not evidence that they posted something to the OP

If they say they posted it to the o/p, it is evidence that they posted it to the o/p.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 1:39pm

Time wrote: »

Neither of the two parties here can definitively prove it was delivered or that it wasn’t. The RTB will have to look at this on balance of probabilities and on that the Agency has a lot of backup while the tenant has none.

I've been paying rent increases here for 9 years without issue, I'd say the probability is that I do pay them when I receive them.

01-03-2021 1:41pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If they say they posted it to the o/p, it is evidence that they posted it to the o/p.

What?! :pac:

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:41pm

MacDanger wrote: »

The burden of proof surely lies with the agency though

The agency would have to lead evidence of service. Once they do, the tenant would have to rebut it.

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 1:45pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If they say they posted it to the o/p, it is evidence that they posted it to the o/p.

So do you think that the RTB would accept it as "evidence to show it was delivered to this address"?

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 1:46pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The agency would have to lead evidence of service. Once they do, the tenant would have to rebut it.

Do you have a point?

Time · 01-03-2021 1:48pm

MacDanger wrote: »

The burden of proof surely lies with the agency though

The RTB isn’t a court, they’ll look at both sides but again the agency has a lot of documentary evidence that the tribunal can’t just ignore. Just because they can’t demonstrate the tenant opened and read the letter, doesn’t mean they’ll lose. That’d be a ridiculous standard to impose on them.

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 1:51pm

Time wrote: »

The RTB isn’t a court, they’ll look at both sides but again the agency has a lot of documentary evidence that the tribunal can’t just ignore. Just because they can’t demonstrate the tenant opened and read the letter, doesn’t mean they’ll lose. That’d be a ridiculous standard to impose on them.

Does the agency have this though? They have a document that says they posted a letter on 29th Sept but no documented record of the addressee. If the OPs address was written on that paper, I'd agree with you but without it, I think the proof of postage is basically worthless

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 1:56pm

MacDanger wrote: »

So do you think that the RTB would accept it as "evidence to show it was delivered to this address"?

The agency only has to show it was posted to the address, not delivered to the address.

Time · 01-03-2021 1:56pm

MacDanger wrote: »

Does the agency have this though? They have a document that says they posted a letter on 29th Sept but no documented record of the addressee. If the OPs address was written on that paper, I'd agree with you but without it, I think the proof of postage is basically worthless

Well put it this way, if they can show that they have several letters dated that day, all sent registered post, but only this tenant says they didn’t receive one, even though an post say they were all delivered then I can’t see why that wouldn’t be sufficient.

The fact an posts systems don’t have the address isn’t the agencys fault, so it can’t be held against them. Otherwise anybody could lie and that would be enough, clearly that’s an untenable scenario

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 2:02pm

Time wrote: »

Well put it this way, if they can show that they have several letters dated that day, all sent registered post, but only this tenant says they didn’t receive one, even though an post say they were all delivered then I can’t see why that wouldn’t be sufficient.

The fact an posts systems don’t have the address isn’t the agencys fault, so it can’t be held against them.

They didn't use registered post as far as I'm aware.

The fact that the agency chose to use a system that doesn't record the addressee details is the agency's fault. As it stands, they cannot prove that they posted a valid rent review to the OPs address

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 2:02pm

Time wrote: »

The RTB isn’t a court, they’ll look at both sides but again the agency has a lot of documentary evidence that the tribunal can’t just ignore. Just because they can’t demonstrate the tenant opened and read the letter, doesn’t mean they’ll lose. That’d be a ridiculous standard to impose on them.

I think the standard here should be that they use registered post, like the RTB told me. They just don't because it would cost them money.
Nor do they choose the signature option with express post, again it costs more.

Ginger83 · 01-03-2021 2:03pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The agency only has to show it was posted to the address, not delivered to the address.

But it appears that they have not shown this.

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 2:06pm

Ginger83 wrote: »

But it appears that they have not shown this.

They haven't been asked to show anything yet. A dispute hasn't been started yet.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 2:07pm

As things stand threshold and RTB are indicating to me to not pay. RTB said they need proof to show it was delivered to this address, and they don't have it. Threshold say I did not receive it and therefore that I should not pay the increase.

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 2:07pm

MacDanger wrote: »

They didn't use registered post as far as I'm aware.

The fact that the agency chose to use a system that doesn't record the addressee details is the agency's fault. As it stands, they cannot prove that they posted a valid rent review to the OPs address

They can give evidence. The evidence will have to be rebutted. It will be a matter for the Tribunal to determine who to believe.

Claw Hammer · 01-03-2021 2:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What?! :pac:

have you a problem?

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 2:11pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They can give evidence. The evidence will have to be rebutted. It will be a matter for the Tribunal to determine who to believe.

Yet again, what is your point? Do you have anything constructive to add?

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 2:12pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

As things stand threshold and RTB are indicating to me to not pay. RTB said they need proof to show it was delivered to this address, and they don't have it. Threshold say I did not receive it and therefore that I should not pay the increase.

100% agree with that.

Have you heard anything since from the agency?

jimmycrackcorm · 01-03-2021 2:15pm

MacDanger wrote:

The fact that the agency chose to use a system that doesn't record the addressee details is the agency's fault. As it stands, they cannot prove that they posted a valid rent review to the OPs address

They might have an internal database that shows 7 rent increases due and a post receipt showing 7 letters sent.

It's not high court evidence standards that are required.

Ginger83 · 01-03-2021 2:16pm

Can random numbers on a receipt be considered evidence?
An post mention D7 but hardly proves anything.

cruizer101 · 01-03-2021 2:20pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They haven't been asked to show anything yet. A dispute hasn't been started yet.

If they had anything I'm pretty sure they would have shown it when they sent the an post receipt.
Instead all they sent was that receipt which shows they posted some letters, no more details on who sent to .

If I was OP I wouldn't be accepting that, I would put money aside so that if in the end you have to pay you have the money there. But I would be waiting on proper notice from them.

Time · 01-03-2021 2:23pm

MacDanger wrote: »

They didn't use registered post as far as I'm aware.

The fact that the agency chose to use a system that doesn't record the addressee details is the agency's fault. As it stands, they cannot prove that they posted a valid rent review to the OPs address

Post 6 has an image with a list of tracking numbers. If the postal system doesn’t offer the addresses then no it’s not, as that’s beyond their control and it’s perfectly reasonable for a business to use the national postal system. Also signatures aren’t being taken the past year for Covid reasons

You’re also making the mistake of assuming that they have to prove anything, they don’t, that’s not the standard in use.

Again, balance of probabilities applies. If someone could just lie in order to bypass that, the system would be unworkable.

Time · 01-03-2021 2:25pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think the standard here should be that they use registered post, like the RTB told me. They just don't because it would cost them money.
Nor do they choose the signature option with express post, again it costs more.

I thought they had sent it registered? What are the tracking numbers in your second post from? Signature isn’t being taken now anyway due to Covid so that wouldn’t show anything regardless.

TheChizler · 01-03-2021 2:25pm

MacDanger wrote: »

Yet again, what is your point? Do you have anything constructive to add?

I think the point is the agent's word that that is the receipt is in itself evidence that would have to be considered. Not proof mind. I'm not sure if that's any better than just giving their word that it was posted and not producing a receipt.

Caranica · 01-03-2021 2:27pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

As things stand threshold and RTB are indicating to me to not pay. RTB said they need proof to show it was delivered to this address, and they don't have it. Threshold say I did not receive it and therefore that I should not pay the increase.

ie exactly what you were told on here?

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 2:28pm

Time wrote: »

I thought they had sent it registered? What are the tracking numbers in your second post from? Signature isn’t being taken now anyway due to Covid so that wouldn’t show anything regardless.

They sent it using express post, basically faster post with some sort of tracking. You have an option for €2 to get a signature, or can pay more for proper registered post like the RTB said should be the standard.

They never send it registered, even before covid, usually they just drop it in the letterbox themselves as far as I remember.

Seve OB · 01-03-2021 2:28pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think the standard here should be that they use registered post, like the RTB told me. They just don't because it would cost them money.
Nor do they choose the signature option with express post, again it costs more.

they sent it express post which is actually more expensive then registered post

The J Stands for Jay · 01-03-2021 2:33pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Your point being?

The point being that all the agent can prove is that they send some letters to some addresses in on part of Dublin. They cannot prove that they sent a letter to OP's address.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-03-2021 2:35pm

Seve OB wrote: »

they sent it express post which is actually more expensive then registered post

Maybe it is, I just read the receipt and it showed the prepaid amount as €10 for all 7 letters, not for each, so assumed it was some sort of deal.

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 2:53pm

Time wrote: »

Post 6 has an image with a list of tracking numbers. If the postal system doesn’t offer the addresses then no it’s not, as that’s beyond their control and it’s perfectly reasonable for a business to use the national postal system. Also signatures aren’t being taken the past year for Covid reasons

You’re also making the mistake of assuming that they have to prove anything, they don’t, that’s not the standard in use.

Again, balance of probabilities applies. If someone could just lie in order to bypass that, the system would be unworkable.

Let's say this goes to the RTB tribunal and (based on what the OP has told us) it goes like this:

Agency: On 29th September, we posted a rent review to the OP

OP: I didn't receive any rent review

Agency: Here's proof that we posted it
*shows proof of postage but not to a specific address

OP: That doesn't show my address, you could have been posting something to a different address

Agency: It was to your address, take my word for it

Do you think that the agency wins this case?

In my opinion, the OP wins this 100% of the time (in the absence of any other evidence)

The J Stands for Jay · 01-03-2021 2:58pm

MacDanger wrote: »

Agency: Here's proof that we posted it
*shows proof of postage but not to a specific address

This should read:

Agency: Here is a receipt for some stamps.

01-03-2021 2:59pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Maybe it is, I just read the receipt and it showed the prepaid amount as €10 for all 7 letters, not for each, so assumed it was some sort of deal.

It's a tenner a go for express post. €8 for registered. There's no way they paid that for all 7 letters, but I digress.

If someone from the agency states that they posted it and that the document they have is the receipt, that is evidence

You're correct. However, multiple people, including myself, have already stated in this thread that 'evidence of posting' means nothing in terms of the RTA. You can stand there and claim whatever you want, the RTB will not accept proof of postage as proof of delivery. And with good reason. You could send a blank postcard to your tenant, get proof of postage, wait two months and say "I sent him the rent review back in January, here's proof" then evict an otherwise compliant tenant on spurious grounds of non-payment of rent.

The agency have zero proof of delivery, so that means Tar is well within his rights to tell them to PFO and start again.

01-03-2021 3:00pm

MacDanger wrote: »

Let's say this goes to the RTB tribunal and (based on what the OP has told us) it goes like this:

Agency: On 29th September, we posted a rent review to the OP

OP: I didn't receive any rent review

Agency: Here's proof that we posted it
*shows proof of postage but not to a specific address

OP: That doesn't show my address, you could have been posting something to a different address

Agency: It was to your address, take my word for it

Do you think that the agency wins this case?

In my opinion, the OP wins this 100% of the time (in the absence of any other evidence)

In certain cases hasn’t the courts allowed notices to be nailed to properties? That doesn’t prove the owner/tenant accepted/viewed it.

There are now more pages on this thread about proof of the letter being sent than there is advice to the op. The RTB will decide if either the op or the LL opens a dispute, but on the balance of probability, it does look as if the letter was sent. The best advice is just to say to the EA that it was not recieved, could they please reissue a valid notice, then leave the ball in their court to raise a dispute with the RTB.

MacDanger · 01-03-2021 3:03pm

True, probably a lot of discussion about An Post!

This advice from earlier is probably the way to go OP, good luck with it

Smee_Again wrote: »

As far as I can see this can only really go 3 ways -
OP pays the increased rate backdated to January

Agency issues OP with a valid notice and he pays the higher rate in 3 months

OP/Agency raises a dispute with RTB who may or may not decide valid notice was issued

I wouldn't take the first option when option 3 is there, and if I was the agency I wouldn't risk option 3 because it could delay matters for months when option 2 is there.

01-03-2021 3:04pm

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What do your neighbors say? Did they get the same letter?

This is a great question. If you really wanted to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, you could rally the neighbours and show them what the RTB said about the notice not being valid. I'd bet every last penny I have that they received the same, invalid notice (if they received anything), and are probably just paying it anyway.

MacDanger wrote: »

Pure speculation but I wonder if the agency is trying to cover their ass here i.e. did the LL ask the agent to review the rent, the agency made a balls of it and is now trying to recover because the LL will (rightly from their point of view) be expecting to see the increased amount coming in

I alluded to something similar in an earlier post. I can almost guarantee that is exactly what's going on. Especially if there are 7+ properties owned by the same landlord. They've asked the agent to increase the rents, the agents made a hames of it, and they are in damage limitation mode to try and rectify it ASAP without getting the bullet from the LL.

Time · 01-03-2021 3:08pm

MacDanger wrote: »

Let's say this goes to the RTB tribunal and (based on what the OP has told us) it goes like this:

Agency: On 29th September, we posted a rent review to the OP

OP: I didn't receive any rent review

Agency: Here's proof that we posted it
*shows proof of postage but not to a specific address

OP: That doesn't show my address, you could have been posting something to a different address

Agency: It was to your address, take my word for it

Do you think that the agency wins this case?

In my opinion, the OP wins this 100% of the time (in the absence of any other evidence)

Yes because that’s how balance of probabilities works. Especially if they can attest to the fact that there was no other issue with any other letters sent that day and that an post has says they delivered it.

cruizer101 · 01-03-2021 3:16pm

The receipt shows €10 x 7 for the 7 letters, there isn't any total as it is prepaid.
Given it is prepaid I would have thought they would have a copy of the prepaid label that they had to download and attach to the letter which should have the address on it, but I'm not too familiar with the prepaid labels.

Rent Increase without notice

Comments