Government to Introduce Rent Caps in Dublin & Cork

elcato said:
cremeegg says - the landlord would probably have to pay tax on the higher amount.
GG says - No they wouldn't.

So the landlord tells the tenant I'm only putting 2k on the RTB form but still only charging you 1.5k. So when he fills in the tax form and puts rent in at 18k for the year mr revenue will say but you got 24k. While it's a big IF whether Mr rev and Mr RTB actually talk to each other, let alone notice anything amiss, I would think an audit may result in Mr rev claiming you got the 24k.
Click to expand...

Such a claim can only stand if the available evidence supports it. If the landlord has conclusive evidence of the actual amount paid, eg a completed rent book, Revenue would have difficulty contradicting this.
 
Last edited:
This is starting to get really silly...

RTE now reporting:

"Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has said his department has checked the wording of new legislation on the Government's rent certainty measures to ensure that rents in designated areas do not increase by more than 4% annually.

He said his team worked late into the night and took advice from the Attorney General last night following a drafting difficulty that arose in the legislation.

Some TDs were concerned that the wording could see rents for some tenancies rise by 8%.

Mr Coveney said the new wording would ensure that anyone who is a tenant in a rent pressure zone, will be sure that at the end of their two-year tenancy, they will not face more than a 4% increase, and thereafter there would no be more than a 4% increase.

Minister Coveney also clarified that regardless of when a rent reviews happen, a property in the designated zone could not have a rent increase of more than 4% in a 12-month period.

He explained that if there was a change of tenancy after six months, then the rise would be 2%.

He said they did not want to have an incentive for landlords in a rent pressure zone ending a tenancy early."
 
T McGibney said:
Such a claim can only stand if the available evidence supports it. If the landlord has conclusive evidence of the actual amount paid, eg a completed rent book, Revenue would have difficulty contradicting this.
Click to expand...
Point taken but would it not mean then that the RTB could prosecute as he has furnished incorrect information so either way I would think it a bad idea. Again I stress that either co-operating with each other would be unlikely.
 
elcato said:
Point taken but would it not mean then that the RTB could prosecute as he has furnished incorrect information so either way I would think it a bad idea.
Click to expand...

How has he furnished incorrect information? Landlords often get stiffed for unpaid rent, which doesn't require notification to the RTB. It would be a bizarre outcome if RTB were to prosecute a landlord for allowing a hard-up tenant a discount on a previously-agreed rent amount.

elcato said:
Again I stress that either co-operating with each other would be unlikely.
Click to expand...
You mean Revenue and RTB? Revenue routinely access RTB data.
 
What an absolute disaster. I have good tenants and am happy form THEM to pay below market rate. We've just re-agreed an uplift, but still several hundred off market. I, as a LL, am happy with this as I know they are good tenants and don't need to squeeze every penny. As I have just agreed the rent increase with them, I'm tied into it for the next 2 years. Until now, I was happy with that. But in 24 months the market could have moved on again somewhat (say 20%) and I will only be able to do a 4% increase on the already wwll off market rate. That can't be correct?!
 
Like others I am renting out to a tenant on way below market rate as they are good tenant. If\when they move out I expect to rent out at full market rate but surely this legislation isn't going to cap an increase to 4% of what I was renting out for?!
 
Well the Minister has now apparently withdrawn the amendment-to-his-amendment. Apparently it's still not quite right!

What a way to legislate - talk about drafting on the fly.

It's beyond ridiculous at this stage. Irish Water Mark II.
 
Apparently the Dail has now passed the Minister's revised amendment -

[broken link removed]
 
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it70.html#section17
What If Rent Is Not Received?
A landlord who proves that rents are irrecoverable or were waived without consideration and the waiver was reasonably made in order to avoid hardship, is treated as if there was no entitlement to receive the amount in question and all necessary adjustments are made.

If some or all of the amount is subsequently received, all relevant years are readjusted as necessary.
 
Sarenco said:
Minister Coveney also clarified that regardless of when a rent reviews happen, a property in the designated zone could not have a rent increase of more than 4% in a 12-month period.
Click to expand...
But has he forgotten that rents may only be reviewed/increased in periods of 24 months - or does that mean that after 24 months the rent may be increased by 8%?

Just thinking aloud!
 
facetious said:
But has he forgotten that rents may only be reviewed/increased in periods of 24 months - or does that mean that after 24 months the rent may be increased by 8%?
Click to expand...

Apparently he did and hence the amendment to his amendment.

If you look at the link posted above you can see the formula that was ultimately adopted.
 
My property is next due a rent review next August under the 2 year rule. Can I send a letter to the tenant now to increase the rent from next August? Has the legislation already been enacted and is it too late to do this?
 
No, under the current rules you can only review the rent next August and thereafter you would have to give 90 days' notice of any rent increase.
 
Also, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop a landlord, say of an apartment, in the next lease separating out the provision of car park space from the property rent and charging separately, for example.
 
Why would a landlord agree to this?.Many landlords have been more than fair to their tenants and could seriously consider selling their properties-this will seriously focus the minds of tenants -their options are limited.This legislation,I accept, has limited their potential market in that investors may not be interested in properties rented at below market rates.Landlords with a sense of decency now face a double whammy-restricted rent increases and a somewhat restricted market if property is offered for sale.This legislation favours incubments at the expense of future renters.Supply is the elephant in the room.Politicians are playing politics with this.Will we now have more legislation to cover payments for car parking,keys,passing on charges for any amount of things.Many tenants who know full well
they are being fairly treated may very well welcome alternative arrangements rather than face an uncertain future if the property is sold.
 
I have a property rented to good tenants below market I haven't reviewer it in 3 years do I still have time to increase it?
 
odyssey06 said:
Also, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop a landlord, say of an apartment, in the next lease separating out the provision of car park space from the property rent and charging separately, for example.
Click to expand...

Likewise, management charges. As there are some landlords who seem to not pay the management charges (certainly in my current development and my last one) it might be a good idea to let the tenant pay these charges. Then, there should be no problem at the end of the tenancy, if the charges have not been paid, deduct them from the deposit. However, this might require a deposit of the equivalent if 2/3 months rent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top