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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Rent Increase without notice

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    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


  • Options
    #63
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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


  • Options
    #64
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Options
    #65
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    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.


  • Options
    #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Options
    #68
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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"?


  • Options
    #69
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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?


  • Options
    #70
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    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.


  • Options
    #71
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Options
    #73
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    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


  • Options
    #74
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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


  • Options
    #75
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    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.


  • Options
    #76
    Ginger83
    Registered Users Posts: 3,415 ✭✭✭Ginger83


    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.


  • Options
    #77
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Options
    #78
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    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.


  • Options
    #79
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.


  • Options
    #80
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What?! :pac:

    have you a problem?


  • Options
    #81
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    MacDanger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    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?


  • Options
    #83
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    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.


  • Options
    #84
    Ginger83
    Registered Users Posts: 3,415 ✭✭✭Ginger83


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


  • Options
    #85
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    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.


  • Options
    #86
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    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.


  • Options
    #87
    Time
    Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭Time


    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.


  • Options
    #88
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,403 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    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.


  • Options
    #89
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,001 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    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?


  • Options
    #90
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Seve OB
    Registered Users Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB


    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


Advertisement