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

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 5:28pm

Malani Important Hallway wrote: »

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

Well in all fairness the law is there to protect tenants from extortionate rents. People having a roof over their heads and being able to live is far more important than the landlord making a few extra quid every month.

tvjunki · 14-01-2019 5:31pm

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.

Of that 26k a minimum would have been paid to revenue of 13k as well as property tax etc.
Everyone has to live somewhere and you have to pay either rent or mortgage.

14-01-2019 5:42pm

It looks like market rate for the property is this much if it can be achieved, there was a mention that the property was not let for 6 months so perhaps a family member did move in, maybe this was while renovations were underway. That may not seem likely to some people but it's as probable as none of us, not even the OP seems to know for sure. It does seem that the landlord was somehow receiving significantly less than what he might have been market rate though, if the OP is paying current market rates I can see why they'd be annoyed but as one poster mentioned, maybe it was simply not possible for the landlord to keep their head above water financially, You have to think, how does this situation come to pass? The Govt could legislate to protect tenants and landlords, I've said that here before but everyone is so polarised in their views they can't see that the Govt and their Real supporters (banks) are the benefactors of this situation, instead of releasing land for building quality housing and have people pay their own way, i guess they see more can be extracted long-term both from landlords in tax and forcing people who would otherwise be paying down their own home into long-term renting, landlords, small time have no effect on the number of homes available, the state do.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 5:43pm

tvjunki wrote: »

Of that 26k a minimum would have been paid to revenue of 13k as well as property tax etc.
Everyone has to live somewhere and you have to pay either rent or mortgage.

So because the revenue charge him x amount it’s ok for him to add that cost onto the tenant. By law he’s only suppose to charge the new tenant €988. €1350 would be the majority of a persons monthly income so is it ok that they can’t afford to live so that the landlord can?

14-01-2019 5:49pm

I empathise with the OP situation, but I've been in both situations, it's easy to not see the other side, but I feel I know who is really at fault, that's not much consolation to the OP,

Garibaldi? · 14-01-2019 5:52pm

No wonder so many"landlords" are opting out! "Not my circus, not my monkeys" to coin a phrase

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 5:55pm

1874 wrote: »

It looks like market rate for the property is this much if it can be achieved, there was a mention that the property was not let for 6 months so perhaps a family member did move in, maybe this was while renovations were underway. That may not seem likely to some people but it's as probable as none of us, not even the OP seems to know for sure. It does seem that the landlord was somehow receiving significantly less than what he might have been market rate though, if the OP is paying current market rates I can see why they'd be annoyed but as one poster mentioned, maybe it was simply not possible for the landlord to keep their head above water financially, You have to think, how does this situation come to pass? The Govt could legislate to protect tenants and landlords, I've said that here before but everyone is so polarised in their views they can't see that the Govt and their Real supporters (banks) are the benefactors of this situation, instead of releasing land for building quality housing and have people pay their own way, i guess they see more can be extracted long-term both from landlords in tax and forcing people who would otherwise be paying down their own home into long-term renting, landlords, small time have no effect on the number of homes available, the state do.

I meet up with a friend of mine across from the house 1-2 times a week so I know the house has stayed empty and I have been told by my old neighbor what has been done. The house isn’t worth near what he’s asking for it. We where asking for the windows to be fixed from the time we moved in. Said they would be done before we signed the lease. There was nothing but trouble with the house from day one. We tried quite often to find a new house with no success and only found the place we are in now because of a mutual friend of ours and the landlords. The new landlord is great and we get along brilliant with him so don’t think I’m saying all landlords are the same but it’s because of landlords chancing their arm like this that the market is the way it is.

14-01-2019 8:06pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

Well in all fairness the law is there to protect tenants from extortionate rents. People having a roof over their heads and being able to live is far more important than the landlord making a few extra quid every month.

Sorry but it isn’t, the LL is running a business to make money and any business owner aims to maximize their profits. It’s not a charity to house people it’s a business. LLs should be alloed to charge whatever the market will pay, the new tenants have a roof over their head so obviously they can afford it.

It’s a disgrace what LL have to put up with, constant interference in their business and idiotic rules that are only making things worse. You would probably not have been asked to leave if the LL could have increased the rent from the very low level you were paying. In other words the new rules are the reason your tenancy was terminated, think about that before singing the praises of the rules.

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

So because the revenue charge him x amount it’s ok for him to add that cost onto the tenant. By law he’s only suppose to charge the new tenant €988. €1350 would be the majority of a persons monthly income so is it ok that they can’t afford to live so that the landlord can?

1350 is not the majority of a lot of people’s income especially if it’s a couple. 988 sounds like cheap rent for a house in a RPZ and likely is putting the LL in hardship.

Kaleb2015 · 14-01-2019 8:36pm

Malani Important Hallway wrote: »

Sorry but it isn’t, the LL is running a business to make money and any business owner aims to maximize their profits. It’s not a charity to house people it’s a business. LLs should be alloed to charge whatever the market will pay, the new tenants have a roof over their head so obviously they can afford it.

It’s a disgrace what LL have to put up with, constant interference in their business and idiotic rules that are only making things worse. You would probably not have been asked to leave if the LL could have increased the rent from the very low level you were paying. In other words the new rules are the reason your tenancy was terminated, think about that before singing the praises of the rules.

1350 is not the majority of a lot of people’s income especially if it’s a couple. 988 sounds like cheap rent for a house in a RPZ and likely is putting the LL in hardship.

If you think of it as a business then think of it this way. Just like any other business there are laws in place to protect the customer. So him charging more than 4% is screwing the customer and by law they have the right to be protected. Enough of this bull of the government stepping in and having their say. If you want to run a business be prepared to pay tax like every other business, be prepared for rules to protect the customer.

What you say by the way is basing it on a couple. Yes a couple where both work could afford to pay it. A single person though more than likely couldn’t afford it. What are they suppose to do in a market where landlords are driving up the prices because they think it’s perfectly acceptable. Yes it’s their house. But as you say it’s also their business. Business owners can’t just do what they want so why should landlords?

Garibaldi? · 14-01-2019 9:01pm

The state needs to provide housing for it's citizens. The whole charade is reaching crisis point because ordinary people who were doing a good job, albeit on an amateur basis, to house other people, have been taxed and regulated to the point of frustration. And it well get worse before it gets better! As the saying goes "Not my circus etc".

tvjunki · 14-01-2019 9:07pm

Kaleb2015 wrote: »

I meet up with a friend of mine across from the house 1-2 times a week so I know the house has stayed empty and I have been told by my old neighbor what has been done. The house isn’t worth near what he’s asking for it. We where asking for the windows to be fixed from the time we moved in. Said they would be done before we signed the lease. There was nothing but trouble with the house from day one. We tried quite often to find a new house with no success and only found the place we are in now because of a mutual friend of ours and the landlords. The new landlord is great and we get along brilliant with him so don’t think I’m saying all landlords are the same but it’s because of larndlords chancing their arm like this that the market is the way it is.

Your friend can't see everything. Your friend has to go to work etc and for all you know the landlord could have done the work themselves.
You stayed there 4 years so it could been that bad.

Daft is an advertisement but it does not mean it was rented for that amount.

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

Comments