RPZ regime extended to the end of 2024 and increases limited to inflation

And the main response from the political parties will be

"this does not go far enough. There should be a complete freeze on rents and it should be extended to all tenancies and not just those in RPZs".

We need a new political party.

Brendan
 
Yeah it really is another kick to individual landlords like myself who have rented out at below market rates. At least the 4% was slowly getting the rent up but tied to inflation that means the max increase might be <2%.

It would be fairer (to the landlord) if below market rents could be brought up as a once off and then carry on from there with inflation based increases.
 
My contract with my tenant end 30th September . I’m dropping in the rent review form today with an 8% increase as per the present legislation(no increase in 24 months). Will I get this increase or will the incoming legislation apply?
 
I can see merit in CPI for existing tenants but permanently linking rents on new tenancies to prior rents is too much. Particularly because it is already impossible to end a tenancy just because you hope to get a better rent from a new tenant.

For a landlord stuck at 70% of market rent by linking to CPI you are basically saying they will be stuck there forever.

Landlords will just continue to leave the market.
 
We don't have legislation to prevent homeowners from selling their home at the market value; so why is it ok for rents?
 
Thirsty said:
so why is it ok for rents?
Click to expand...
Because it's reasonable to have some kind of certainty as part of a contract. If market rents explode it's fair to give sitting tenants some kind of short-term protection as they may not have the income to pay more.

But I think rents for sitting tenants should be allowed to catch up with market rents over (say) 5 years.

No one should be allowed to permanently to live above their means at their landlord's expense.
 
Is there any agenda by the goverment to get so called landlords (individuals) out of the market? It sure looks like it, and looks like they're going to succeed. Very soon, if someone wants to rent a property they'll be dealing with big business. Be interesting to see how renters get on with late payments and negligence dealing with these boys.
 
Because it's reasonable to have some kind of certainty as part of a contract.
Click to expand...
Don't have a problem with that; and again to draw a correlation with a home owner, they have the ability to fix their mortgage rate to get that certainty.

But if a tenant leaves / contract ends, it's reasonable to review the rent in line with the market.

Ultimately it all comes down to supply and demand.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Thirsty

Don't be giving them ideas!

:)

Brendan
Click to expand...
for what it's worth in Sweden (and there are many things we should import from there re home purchasing and selling, but I digress); if you don't use the profit from selling your PPR towards a new PPR in Sweden or the EU you have to pay tax on it.
 
But in theory should this not trickle down, ie market rents will fall so that there won't be huge variances in rents apart from variances related to the rental product offered? The current rents are not sustainable. This is not good for anyone. If we price out the lower paid out of living in cities then cities will not be nice places to live.
 
misemoi said:
But in theory should this not trickle down, ie market rents will fall so that there won't be huge variances in rents apart from variances related to the rental product offered?
Click to expand...
Why would it trickle down? If anything, rent controls of this nature are likely to have the opposite effect.

If I'm renting out an apartment for the first time, rationally I will try to achieve the highest rent that the market will bear.

I wouldn't care that another apartment owner is prevented from renting his apartment at the market rate.
 
I have a property that is vacant. Under current RPZ rules I can put the rent up to a certain level for the new tenants. What happens if I get the new tenant after the new rules come into force? Is the calculation based entirely on the new rules or a combination of both new and old rules?
 
Delmer said:
I have a property that is vacant. Under current RPZ rules I can put the rent up to a certain level for the new tenants. What happens if I get the new tenant after the new rules come into force? Is the calculation based entirely on the new rules or a combination of both new and old rules?
Click to expand...
Interesting question.

If you get new tenants after the new rules come into effect, I would assume that the new rules would apply. So I presume you could only charge rent equivalent to the rent charged to your previous tenants, as increased in proportion to any changes to the HICP in the intervening period.

Mind you, it gets very messy if you advertised the property at a rent calculated under the current rules.

I guess we'll to wait to see the legislation to know for sure.
 
Sarenco said:
Mind you, it gets very messy if you advertised the property at a rent calculated under the current rules.
Click to expand...
This exists already to some extent. You sometimes see properties advertised for odd amounts like €1,768.

It makes more sense when you realise it's €1,700 plus 4%.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
This exists already to some extent. You sometimes see properties advertised for odd amounts like €1,768.
Click to expand...
Sure but what happens if the property is advertised at €1,768 (the maximum rent that can be charged under current rules) but the maximum amount that can be charged is (say) €1,738 when calculated under the new rules?

I guess a lot of ads will have to changed on the implementation date, unless there is some sort of transitional arrangement in the legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top