Change of contract within the first few months, can rent be increased?

[BLM]

I let out my house about 3 months ago, specifically stated "no rent allowance" on the ad but every month since the tenants have requested can they get rent allowance. I had specified in the contract that there was no rent allowance accepted also. I kept the rent reasonable at the time of letting but rents in the immediate area have gone up by about 20% since I let it.

Can I implement a completely new contract based on the fact that they want to break a clause in the current one? I would increase the rent by €100 per month if I could (and it would still be under the current local rents) Apart from the fact that I didn't want to accept rent allowance, the initial family that moved in were only 3 people and now there's 5 people living in the house? I have no problem with 'how many' but the wear and tear is going to be more evident based on the fact that there's more people and they will be in the house a lot more of the time (if they're not claiming rent allowance and not working or working part time)

They are registered with the PRTB so do I have to change that if I implement an increase in line with properties in the immediate area?

 

[facetious]

If you have a fixed term lease, you can't have a rent increase until the lease expires.

Furthermore, the law on rent increase in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 states that you cannot have a rent review during the first 12 months of a tenancy.

As you seem to be unaware of some basic facts relating to renting, I respectfully suggest that you download a copy of the RTA 2004 from the PRTB website and read it carefully.

I let out my house about 3 months ago, specifically stated "no rent allowance" on the ad but every month since the tenants have requested can they get rent allowance.

There is nothing illegal in the tenants asking you to accept rent allowance. If they are asking such a question, I ask myself if you did a proper reference check on the tenants.

Can I implement a completely new contract based on the fact that they want to break a clause in the current one?

No, you cannot have a new contract until the present one expires. You have a legally binding lease agreement. I feel that you do not know that once the tenants have been in the property for six months, they acquire Part 4 rights. Among other things, this allows the tenants to remain in the property for up to 4 years without signing any new contract. It is up to the tenant if they want to sign a new fixed term lease or remain on a Part 4 tenancy.

the initial family that moved in were only 3 people and now there's 5 people living in the house?

If only three people are recorded on the lease agreement, then the extra people must be lodgers or licensee. Most lease agreements have a clause prohibiting licensees and subletting. If this is the case, the tenants are in breach of their obligations and you could serve a Notice of termination without any warning letter / notice, giving them 28 days to vacate. If any tenant has been in occupancy for more that 6 months, you must first serve a warning letter of the breach of obligations and allow them to remedy the breach.

IMHO, this is probably your best course of action - you get rid of tenants who want RA, which you do not want. You can then, for any new tenants, set a new, increased rent. However, you will also have to pay another PRTB registration as it will be a new tenancy.

 

[Annie51]

As a landlord can I ask a tenant to sign an agreement for a month to month rent. I have the house for sale but it may not sell for 6 months and I would rather not be without the rent for that time. The present tenants are moving at the end of this month. I am not living in Dublin so the houses are selling much slower down here.

 

[facetious]

As a landlord can I ask a tenant to sign an agreement for a month to month rent. I have the house for sale but it may not sell for 6 months and I would rather not be without the rent for that time. The present tenants are moving at the end of this month. I am not living in Dublin so the houses are selling much slower down here.

This should really have been a new thread - perhaps the mods will split the thread?

If you are having a new tenancy with new tenants then the landlord can decide which type of tenancy to offer - a Fixed term or a Periodic / Part 4 agreement.

Part 4 tenancies cannot start until a tenant has been in occupation for six months, only then the tenant acquires all Part 4 rights, irrespective of the type of lease. However, where there is greater security of tenure as with a fixed term lease, this takes precedence over Part 4 which are minimum rights.

However, with any type of tenancy, a tenant always has the right "to enjoy peaceful and exclusive occupation of the dwelling". In the case of a landlord selling a property, the word "exclusive" is extremely important: it means that a landlord has no right to enter the property without the express permission of the tenant. Thus a tenant could prevent any and all viewings.

A clause in the lease allowing viewings would probably be illegal as it takes away the rights of the tenant. However, the tenant would have the problem with a periodic lease that the tenancy can be terminated with a 28 day notice period without reason. Thus, if the tenant does not allow a viewing, the landlord may terminate the lease. So the tenant will probably allow viewings if he wants to remain in occupation for a little while longer.

However, once the Part 4 rights become active (i.e. after six months in occupancy), the landlord must give a reason for the eviction and (a reason allowed under Part 4 is the landlord wishes to sell the property) not allowing viewings is not a legal reason as it impinges on the tenants rights of exclusive use of the property. Furthermore, the notice period also becomes longer - 35 days if the tenant is there between 6 months and 1 year. If by chance the tenant is there for more than 1 year but less than 2 years, 42 days notice is required, and so on.

Finally, I would say that it is good to advise the tenant that the property is for sale and that the rent reflects the fact that the tenant may have to vacate at relatively short notice. With this understanding, a "temporary" tenant would probably allow viewings, given sufficient notice as he may have to clean/tidy the house and he may want to be in the house if he has his personal belongings/equipment readily "viewable".

 

[Bronte]

Furthermore, the law on rent increase in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 states that you cannot have a rent review during the first 12 months of a tenancy.

.

The law may state that, but the law doesn't apply when the government reduces the limits on rent supplements and the local council tells your tenant that they have to get a rent reduction from you.

 

[facetious]

The law may state that, but the law doesn't apply when the government reduces the limits on rent supplements and the local council tells your tenant that they have to get a rent reduction from you.

The landlord doesn't have to give a rent reduction and if the RA reduces the allowance, the tenant gets in arrears, the landlord can evict, and get an none RA tenant at his original rent.

 

[BLM]

I can serve notice of termination as there is a no subletting condition in the contract. This may be the route I have to take.

The other option may be that the house (which was slightly in negative equity) may be put on the market in the new year as it was my house prior to moving in with partner and if I had put it on the market 3 months ago I would be looking at selling below what is owed on it. Even in the last couple of months asking prices have crept up and there are now houses in the same estate with asking prices that would get me out it without having to take out a term loan to settle the mortgage remainder. Luckily for me it's a 3 bed family home that seems to be in very short supply in Dublin right now. I was never the willing landlord/investor so this may be my better option.

 

[facetious]

I can serve notice of termination as there is a no subletting condition in the contract. This may be the route I have to take.

The other option may be that the house (which was slightly in negative equity) may be put on the market in the new year as it was my house prior to moving in with partner and if I had put it on the market 3 months ago I would be looking at selling below what is owed on it. Even in the last couple of months asking prices have crept up and there are now houses in the same estate with asking prices that would get me out it without having to take out a term loan to settle the mortgage remainder. Luckily for me it's a 3 bed family home that seems to be in very short supply in Dublin right now. I was never the willing landlord/investor so this may be my better option.

This is the first mention of sub-letting. Or possibly a misunderstanding of the term "sub-letting". Sub letting exists when a tenant vacates and he rents the property to someone else. thus, the tenant becomes what is known as the "head tenant". Therefore, there is no subletting.

The RTA 2004 states that a tenant can

(k) not assign or sub-let the tenancy without the written consent of the landlord (which consent the landlord may, in his or her discretion, withhold),

However, if a landlord refuses consent, the tenant may vacate with 28 days notice and have his full deposit returned (badly thought out by the lawyers writing the Act).

If you evict the tenants on the grounds that you are selling the house, you cannot then rent it to someone else within 6 months or you will be deemed to have evicted illegally. Thus, you will have six months without any rental income - but you will have access to the house at any time, without having to make arrangements with a tenant for viewings.

Tenants are allowed to have visitors to their home, however once the visitors become "resident" that is another matter. I do not know of a definition of when a visitor becomes resident. People do go on a month's holiday so I would guess that perhaps anything over a month may classify them as resident. If you can prove that they have used the address to gain offiicial documents - PPSN, welfare etc than that would imply that they are resident, IMO.