Rent Review

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If the rent is incorrect you need to bring it to the landlord's attention within the specified time. I am aware of a case where a tenant accepted the increase, which was incorrect, and complained to the PRTB two years later. He got no satisfaction. The landlord may have been penalized(I don't know about that) but the tenant was definitely not reimbursed. You need to stand your ground.

The position in rent pressure zones is different. Legally you cannot agree to a rent higher than that allowable by the formula and any such increase is automatically invalid.

Outside a rent pressure zone one can agree to a rent review that is procedurally or otherwise incorrect. That does then limit your ability to raise a dispute later.

Subutai wrote: »

The position in rent pressure zones is different. Legally you cannot agree to a rent higher than that allowable by the formula and any such increase is automatically invalid.

Outside a rent pressure zone one can agree to a rent review that is procedurally or otherwise incorrect. That does then limit your ability to raise a dispute later.

the rtb rent increase notice says if the new rent is wrong it has to be notified before 28 days or new rent. How can it be raised years later?

mrslancaster wrote: »

the rtb rent increase notice says if the new rent is wrong it has to be notified before 28 days or new rent. How can it be raised years later?

The 28 days relates to disputing the rent review. In the case of the RPZ there is no need to dispute, any increase outside of the formula is prima facie invalid, and unlike in the above situation any agreement from the tenant cannot render it valid.

It is analogous to the minium wage. You can sign a contract for an rate below that, but a payment of wages claim will later succeed regardless of your agreement. It is prudent to raise it as early as you can, but it is not the case that failing to raise it will kill your claim.

The idea of preventing tenants (or workers) from contracting out of their rights is to counter the economic power differential. If the legislation didn't do that it would be worthless, as your landlord (employer) would simply not accomodate (hire) you or would evict (dismiss) you.

McGiver wrote: »

It is not an entitlement but a law.

Tenant greed, now that's an innovative term.

Tenant is absolutely the weaker party in the tenant-landlord relationship hence most civilised European countries have tenants protected by the law and have rental market regulated.

I understand that this does not go down well in Ireland culturally where rules, regulations and law are generally frowned upon and where exists a class of super greedy tax avoiding landlords, but it's about time this changed and the existing, comparatively quite weak, regulation of RPZs is a first step in the right direction.

How does that sound?

I think its human greed, both the tenant and ll want the best outcome and neither are better than the other.

Please explain to me how tenants are the weaker party here? The legislation over the past 5 years or more say otherwise. Please tell me one other western country that have stronger protections for tenants as places like usa, germany that do have some forms of rent control have less risk as tenants in arrears are kicked out promptly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZygWICdi4U&t=455s

Please take a look at the video above. its cheesy but it talks about the main negatives of rent control coupled with the fact that in the end it actually creates a worse situation for the majority of tenants due to smaller supply and increased rent for people that do need to move for various reasons including new jobs, larger families etc.

What do you think will happen if if more anti ll come out. Do you not think the consequence of this is that more ll will leave the market when more are needed. Close to 2000 landlords have left the market and the total supply of rental accommodation has declined since 2015. Is this good for the market.

Tax avoid landlords? Please back this up with facts and not emotive fluff words that hold no meaning to reality. Most ll pay 50pc on the profit they make. In my case i earned 1/6 of my gross last year. The rest went to paying locally sourced material and labour and TAX.

How does that sound?

McGiver wrote: »

Sure, it's very simple.

Tenant - if the tenancy is lost, they are probably in a big trouble, have to look for new home, have to move somewhere else, and potentially end up homeless, with a crap house or with an unaffordable accommodation. Great prospect, indeed. This is especially true in a market with huge shortage of supply over demand. And the psychological pressure tenant is subjected to by thinking about moving, finding new house etc is quite serious.

Landlord - if the tenancy is lost, nothing happens, they just may lose profit otherwise no inconvenience apart from putting it on the market, no danger of homelessness, and in a short supply market they may not even lose profit. No psychological pressure really.

How on earth can you ever claim tenant is not the weaker party? Tenant has everything to lose, landlord very little.


Deregulation will never fix the rental market. I would like to see one example where this was proven not to increase prices and not to decrease tenants' rights and bargaining power - deregulation always favours the strong, the landlord. It's a fantasy. Certain markets must be regulated and rental market is one of them. Rental market isn't for example a commodity market which can be completely liberalised and deregulated. You deal with humans and their very basic important needs here, it cannot be subjected to "free" market situation.

How many countries have you lived in and/or have serious understanding of their rental market? The German market is way more functional (or if you wish way less dysfunctional) than the Irish one.

Ok this shall be fun.

Tenant:
Yes if a tenancy is lost, they will need to look for a new house. This is part of life and on average tenancies do not last that long especially for Irish culture. The norm for my properties in my case is 1- 4years with many moving on after it anyway. Yes you can have much longer tenancies however from my observations of the market, it isn’t as long as you make it out to be. There is 5000 homeless out of our entire population, the vast majority find somewhere else to live.

What you fail to realize is this rental crisis has been happening for what 4 years. People move from one hot topic to the next but 4 years is nothing and this will change in the future. People didn’t complain when ll were going bankrupt during the recession and rents were low. Normally in business there are Ebbs and flows and right now it’s the ll turn however this legislation is forcing it to be the tenants turn all the time. If you want an industry to remain in place from a macro economic level, this is not sustainable.

Landlord:
You make it sound like the ll has no risk whatsoever. The ll has a large proportion of their wealth tied up in one asset where they may also have a mortgage on it and have to supplement this with other income to keep this property. If they don’t receive rent just for a few months, this can put them in the red and as what happened in the last recession, a lot of them went bankrupt. This is part of business and you have to accept the risks however you seem to disregard it completely.

How about tenant arrears,overstaying, damage. The largest cost I have witnessed(thank god it wasn’t me) for this is 40k on one property from one tenant.financially the tenant has very little to loose bar a deposit which can be disputed with RTB while ll has very little to no recourse.

I put it to you, how on earth can ll be the stronger party?

Did you look at anything in the video, please back up your opinion with some form of critical thinking or logic. Yes in short term, rents will rise. This is a fact as all ll will want to get it back up to where market rate is. Long term, this should attract more investors which should increase supply. Thus decreasing rent. It also encourages good tenants to potentially get a better rate as previous to this law. A lot of ll never increased rent however since this came in, even the most kind hearted ll have to be thinking about it. Look at ny and San Fran and how well their rent controls are performing. It either causes ghetto like accommodation as ll have no incentive to improve or ll find a way to kick the tenant out. Both are loose loose and the video I linked earlier went into other cons for this.

Right now the horizon is bleak for both. From ll point of view, all we see is more regulation, higher costs without being able to charge higher rents. So its all take.

For tenants, even with all this extra regulation that is being increased year on year is higher rents, more and more ll selling up and getting out of the market. the only new units coming on board are REITs buying entire blocks letting them all out at market rate. The total stock is declining making it worse for tenants. If the government start targeting these reits, this investor money will also dry up further constraining the market further.

I have active knowledge of French and Irish market.
I have passing knowledge of German market as I was considering to invest. The German market is very different to here. Generally all places are unfurnished sometimes including kitchens, there is rent controls but they are also failing in the German market as you have seen from price increases and protest in Germany. It’s also easier to evict. The eu also recommend not to use rental controls as they had negative impacts on the industry which Ireland ignored also.
I have rented In the Australian market and have some knowledge of the USA market as that is where most of the material is from. Why are you asking?

Fol20 wrote:

How about tenant arrears,overstaying, damage. The largest cost I have witnessed(thank god it wasn’t me) for this is 40k on one property from one tenant.financially the tenant has very little to loose bar a deposit which can be disputed with RTB while ll has very little to no recourse.

Do you have stats on % of tenancies affected by this?

Fol20 wrote:

I put it to you, how on earth can ll be the stronger party?

You didn't convince me that it's not life vs profit i.e. huge qualitative difference between the parties.

What do you suggest then? I'd perfectly fine with expediting eviction in case of arrears and damage. But

Fol20 wrote: »

Ok this shall be fun.

I have passing knowledge of German market as I was considering to invest. The German market is very different to here. ... It’s also easier to evict.

That's not true. If the tenant resists eviction, you have an equally lengthy process to sue the tenant and get him out, and the landlord might even have to pay for the moving company and the storage of the possessions of the tenant. You also have fewer reasons in Germany to evict a tenant. You can't, like in Ireland, evict him after 4 or 6 years (Part 4 tenancies). The possibility to evict a tenant if the landlord is needing the house for himself or a close relative is also restricted, as there are several exemptions, where the tenant can resist this eviction legally.
There is also the possibility, that a tenant can reduce his rent if the landlord is not following his obligations (e.g. not repairing things in a timely manner).

mdebets wrote: »

That's not true. If the tenant resists eviction, you have an equally lengthy process to sue the tenant and get him out, and the landlord might even have to pay for the moving company and the storage of the possessions of the tenant. You also have fewer reasons in Germany to evict a tenant. You can't, like in Ireland, evict him after 4 or 6 years (Part 4 tenancies). The possibility to evict a tenant if the landlord is needing the house for himself or a close relative is also restricted, as there are several exemptions, where the tenant can resist this eviction legally.
There is also the possibility, that a tenant can reduce his rent if the landlord is not following his obligations (e.g. not repairing things in a timely manner).

yes it takes time, but the process is more rigid in nature where as in Ireland your really at the whim of a tenant if they will leave peacefully and follow whatever the legal order might be.