# Rent Rules for new tenancies



## On a Plain (11 Apr 2017)

I have a one bed apartment in Dublin city that i am currently renting out for 900 euro per month. The tenant has been there for about 4 years. The current tenant is leaving the country in June and will be vacating the apartment then. I am just wondering am I restricted to the 4 per cent rule if i bring in a new tenant (ie I can only rent it to the new tenant for 936) ?
Or as its a new tenancy there is no restriction there. The market value is considerably higher now


----------



## aristotle (11 Apr 2017)

Yes you are limited to 4% max increase.

https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rent-pressure-zones


----------



## On a Plain (11 Apr 2017)

ok, cheers


----------



## HollyBud (11 Apr 2017)

I have not seen anyone ask this question but who is policing this? I know of one apartment that was rented out recently and I cannot see how the rules were no broken? So what is to stop the OP putting this up for rent for say €1500 pm and what are the consequences?


----------



## aristotle (11 Apr 2017)

Suppose there is nothing to stop people breaking any law.

Consequences as I understand it will first need a dispute being raised with the RTB and the over charging being refunded.


----------



## On a Plain (11 Apr 2017)

Just reading the rules there, I guess this is the pertinent one to me

In the case of a new tenancy in a rent pressure zone, a landlord is required to  furnish the tenant, in writing, with the following information at the commencement of the tenancy:

(i)   The amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(ii)  The date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(iii) A statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to the rent pressure zone formula.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Apr 2017)

It was widely predicted that this aspect of the new rules would be widely, if not universally, ignored.  

There is no law against advertising a property for rent at whatever rate a property owner sees fit.  

To subsequently dispute the agreed rent, the incoming tenant would somehow have to prove the rent charged to his/her predecessor - that information is not publicly available.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Apr 2017)

On a Plain said:


> Just reading the rules there, I guess this is the pertinent one to me
> 
> In the case of a new tenancy in a rent pressure zone, a landlord is required to  furnish the tenant, in writing, with the following information at the commencement of the tenancy:
> 
> ...



I don't believe there is any legislative basis for this "requirement".


----------



## aristotle (11 Apr 2017)

Sarenco said:


> To subsequently dispute the agreed rent, the incoming tenant would somehow have to prove the rent charged to his/her predecessor - that information is not publicly available.



They would certainly need to know but I wonder if they need to prove it. The previous tenancy agreement would presumably be lodged with the RTB so I guess they have the numbers.

Only way I see this being enforced properly is by the RTB checking tenancy agreements being submitted to them and comparing to the old one. I doubt they have any intention to do that.


----------



## On a Plain (11 Apr 2017)

Sarenco said:


> It was widely predicted that this aspect of the new rules would be widely, if not universally, ignored.
> 
> There is no law against advertising a property for rent at whatever rate a property owner sees fit.
> 
> To subsequently dispute the agreed rent, the incoming tenant would somehow have to prove the rent charged to his/her predecessor - that information is not publicly available.



If the previous rent is lodged with the PTRB and the new rent is too, its a simple database check for them


----------



## HollyBud (11 Apr 2017)

On a Plain said:


> If the previous rent is lodged with the PTRB and the new rent is too, its a simple database check for them


a lot of landlords do not bother updating the PTRB tenant registration when they increase the rent so not possibly accurate


----------



## On a Plain (11 Apr 2017)

All I know is my current tenant is registered with the PTRB and the rental amount is registered at 900 euro
If I take in a new tenant in June, I am required to register the new tenancy and rental amount


----------



## Sarenco (11 Apr 2017)

On a Plain said:


> If the previous rent is lodged with the PTRB and the new rent is too, its a simple database check for them



Sure but rents are not publicly disclosed so how could your new tenant know for sure what rent your previous tenant was charged.  The RTB role is essentially to adjudicate on disputes - it doesn't have a broader policing role.


----------



## Ann1 (11 Apr 2017)

aristotle said:


> Yes you are limited to 4% max increase.
> 
> https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rent-pressure-zones


Hi Aristotle....I'm not sure that this information is correct in this instance. If the OP and his tenant are in a Part 4 tenancy
agreement isn't the landlord allowed terminate the tenancy at the end of the 4 years. I know in this case that the tenant is leaving
but I'm sure the fact the the tenancy is ending after the 4 years allows the landlord to rent his property again at whatever rent he chooses.

My understanding is that a landlord can terminate a tenancy after 4 years and even rent the property again to the same tenant at a much higher rent under a new tenancy. The next tenancy under the new rules is then covered by a 6 year tenancy.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Apr 2017)

Ann1 said:


> My understanding is that a landlord can terminate a tenancy after 4 years and even rent the property again to the same tenant at a much higher rent under a new tenancy.



No, that is not correct.  

In a rent pressure zone the 4% rent cap applies regardless of the length of the previous tenancy or the fact that it may have been a Part 4 tenancy.


----------



## SirMille (11 Apr 2017)

Tenant is leaving? Just put the rent to market rates and relax. The cops won't be breaking down your door anytime soon.

They can't be arsed chasing real criminals, so why worry about putting the rent to a reasonable level. Don't worry about Convey.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Apr 2017)

I often wonder why some posters think it is helpful to offer their opinions about what laws they feel others should abide by and what laws others should feel free to ignore.


SirMille said:


> ... why worry about putting the rent to a reasonable level.



Can you define what you mean by "reasonable level"?  Is it different to what our democratically elected legislature considered reasonable?


----------



## paddyd (11 Apr 2017)

I think the proof in the adherence to this rule will be bourne out in the next daft report. If every LL was to keep to the rule, then we should effectively see a fall in rents, as people like the OP rent a place for €936 which would otherwise be e.g. €1.3k. The current average rental duration is 3-4 years, so a lot of older/lower rents should come on the market over the coming 1-2 years.
As a full-time landlord of multiple properties, I don't see this rule being adhered to at all - simply because it punishes most the landlord who kept rents flat for sitting tenants over the past 3-4 years, and also fixed the rents permanently high for those who pushed them up each year.
Also, I track regularly the rents in the areas I have properties (all are single family units in commuter areas) and rents look to be still rising for new tenancies. I haven't seen a single "€936" type scenario.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Apr 2017)

paddyd said:


> I think the proof in the adherence to this rule will be bourne out in the next daft report.



Absolutely agree with all of that paddyd. 

It's a totally unfair law that will not be policed in any meaningful sense.  It's already pretty clear to me that it is being widely, if not universally, ignored.


----------



## Bronte (12 Apr 2017)

On a Plain said:


> If the previous rent is lodged with the PTRB and the new rent is too, its a simple database check for them


Ye Gods you think the PRTB are capable of this


----------



## facetious (12 Apr 2017)

On a Plain said:


> I have a one bed apartment in Dublin city that i am currently renting out for 900 euro per month. The tenant has been there for about 4 years. The current tenant is leaving the country in June and will be vacating the apartment then. I am just wondering am I restricted to the 4 per cent rule if i bring in a new tenant (ie I can only rent it to the new tenant for 936) ?
> Or as its a new tenancy there is no restriction there. The market value is considerably higher now



If the rent was last set/increased last year then the 4% applies. However, if you did not increase the rent since, say the start of the tenancy then you should apply the formula as set out in the Act. If you are not good at maths (or can't follow the formula which does not follow the normal way (BODMAS), have a look at the RTB website and their Rent Calculator.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (12 Apr 2017)

Bronte said:


> Ye Gods you think the PRTB are capable of this



Historically, rent increases in relation to existing tenancies were rarely logged with the PRTB.


----------



## Sarenco (12 Apr 2017)

Actually, on reflection, I would suggest using the RTB calculator in every case for the avoidance of doubt/confusion.


----------



## On a Plain (12 Apr 2017)

Bronte said:


> Ye Gods you think the PRTB are capable of this



I dont really know what they are capable of to be honest
I havent had any dealings with them beyond registering my tenancy


----------



## paddyd (12 Apr 2017)

facetious said:


> have a look at the RTB website and their Rent Calculator.



I didn't realise they had this, thanks - and it makes for interesting reading.

Heres a real example of mine:

3-bed semi rented for €1,200 in Jan 2015.

New tenancy: if it was to be rented to a new tenant in Jan '18, the RTB calculator says:

€1200 x ( 1 + 0.04 * 36/12) = €1344.00

Sitting tenant: However, if I was to increase the rent in Jan '18 for my sitting tenant (which I wouldn't, they're fantastic), it would be:

€1200 x ( 1 + 0.04 * 36/24) = €1272.00

For ref, the market rate is sitting around €1,400 at the moment.


----------



## Advicepls (5 May 2017)

This whole thing is a joke.  I have a 3 bed rented for 1200, I haven't put the rent up in a couple of years.  So this year I planned to bump it a bit as neighbouring houses are renting for 1800, but I am limited to 4%.  And if the tenants move out I'm still limited to that.  All because I was a decent person and didn't jack up the rent for a few years!  The property is with an estate agent and so he will have to adhere to this nonsense leaving me no choice but to take it back from him, rent and manage it myself for the going rate.  Not register with PRTB as I can't let them see the jump in rent.  Honestly what a joke you do everything above board in this country and they penalise you!  Is that it in a nutshell or am I missing something?


----------



## SirMille (5 May 2017)

I increased the rent on my place from 1200 to 2000, +60%.



Nobody moved out.


----------



## Sarenco (5 May 2017)

@SirMille 

It strikes me that you are very fortunate to have such generous (or uninformed) tenants if they have agreed to that rent increase.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 May 2017)

SirMille said:


> I increased the rent on my place from 1200 to 2000, +60%.



I am sure that they can claim back the €750 from you at any stage as you are breaking the law. I agree that it's a stupid law, but this tenant can hold this over you for a long time to come. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 May 2017)

Advicepls said:


> Not register with PRTB as I can't let them see the jump in rent.



Do you have a mortgage? If so, then you can't claim the interest as a deduction for tax purposes if you are not registered with the PRTB. 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (5 May 2017)

It's also an offence not to register a tenancy with the RTB and there have been a number of successful prosecutions recently.

Simply ignoring the law is not a risk-free option.


----------



## SirMille (5 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> @SirMille
> 
> It strikes me that you are very fortunate to have such generous (or uninformed) tenants if they have agreed to that rent increase.



I got the increase in before this rent pressure zone nonsense raised it's ugly head.


----------



## Sarenco (6 May 2017)

SirMille said:


> I got the increase in before this rent pressure zone nonsense raised it's ugly head.



I'm confused.

This thread is about the new rent control measures.  If those measures weren't applicable to your rent review decision, what exactly is the point you want to make?

Are you simply saying that you were lucky?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 May 2017)

In my experience, tenancies are generally registered but rent increases typically aren't. 

As a result, a huge spike in rent when a tenancy changes doesn't provoke outrage in PRTB Towers because they've no visibility on what went before.


----------



## Favourite (6 May 2017)

I have to be honest here but I did not understand the rules. I have some properties that I rent out...  tenants from a few of these properties moved out of their own accord... some only stayed for a few months (despite a one year lease) and moved on elsewhere. My understanding was that you could only raise the rent by 4% for sitting tenants.... and if new tenants moved in this did not apply. So each time there was a new tenancy I upped the rent to the market value. In one of the properties two of tenants started a bidding war... I created new tenancies with the PRTB using the actuals new rent.... so the RTB could easily see that I exceeded the 4% cap. 

So... if my reading of this thread is correct... it is only if the new tenants made a complaint with the PRTB about paying more than 4% than the previous tenants.... 

The new tenants have absolutely no idea what the previous tenants paid... so.... 

What happens next?


----------



## Sarenco (6 May 2017)

When did the change of tenants take place?  The new rules only came into effect last Christmas.

In any event, if your new tenants are happy with the freely negotiated rent, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  It is possible that they will make a complaint to the RTB that they are paying too high a rent but it seems unlikely.


----------



## facetious (8 May 2017)

Favourite said:


> I have to be honest here but I did not understand the rules. I have some properties that I rent out...  tenants from a few of these properties moved out of their own accord... some only stayed for a few months (despite a one year lease) and moved on elsewhere. My understanding was that you could only raise the rent by 4% for sitting tenants.... and if new tenants moved in this did not apply. So each time there was a new tenancy I upped the rent to the market value. In one of the properties two of tenants started a bidding war... I created new tenancies with the PRTB using the actuals new rent.... so the RTB could easily see that I exceeded the 4% cap.
> 
> So... if my reading of this thread is correct... it is only if the new tenants made a complaint with the PRTB about paying more than 4% than the previous tenants....
> 
> ...


I dread to think what the fines and damages awarded to tenants where there is an increase in rent above the 4% cap, knowing that the RTB are more favourable to tenants than to landlords. 
However the favouritism I do not believe - it is just a case of landlords not having or providing sufficient/correct evidence for their case.


----------



## Sarenco (8 May 2017)

The RTB does not impose fines or award damages.  Its role is simply to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants - either by mediation or adjudication.

I do, however, agree with your broader point - I have yet to see any real evidence that the RTB does not act impartially in discharging its statutory functions.


----------



## cremeegg (8 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> The RTB does not impose fines or award damages.  Its role is simply to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants - either by mediation or adjudication.



Are you sure about this, just going through a few of their determination orders I see two with amounts for damages. [broken link removed]


----------



## Sarenco (8 May 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Are you sure about this



Yes.  

The RTB seeks to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants by mediation or adjudication.  It does not award damages to a party, in the sense that a court may award damages to a party for breach of contract, negligence, etc.  The distinction may sound theoretical but it is an important distinction from an enforcement perspective.

Anyway, I think we are in danger of going off topic.  Let's try and stick to the new rent control rules on this thread.


----------



## SirMille (8 May 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Are you sure about this, just going through a few of their determination orders I see two with amounts for damages. [broken link removed]


1500eur to get rid of undesirable tenants, that's not so bad.


----------



## Mucker Man (11 May 2017)

I think I know the answer already, but just want to make sure!
Accidental landlord, property put into Rental Pressure Zone in January 2017, no rent increase since August 2015 due to 24 month limit on increases. Can I only put the rent up 4% at the rent review in August 2017? Good tenant in place but rented at about 60% of market rate.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Mucker Man said:


> I think I know the answer already, but just want to make sure!
> Accidental landlord, property put into Rental Pressure Zone in January 2017, no rent increase since August 2015 due to 24 month limit on increases. Can I only put the rent up 4% at the rent review in August 2017? Good tenant in place but rented at about 60% of market rate.



There's a calculator here where you enter the current rent, last rent review date and it gives you the max of the new rent... I think it can go up to 8% or 10% if there hasn't been a review ina  while.
https://www.rtb.ie/rent-pressure-zones/rpz-calculator


----------



## Mucker Man (11 May 2017)

Thanks, yep 4%, so I'm penalised for not trying to screw my tenant at the last review. 
It's helps with my decision to keep or sell.


----------



## Sarenco (11 May 2017)

Mucker Man said:


> ...so I'm penalised for not trying to screw my tenant at the last review.


That's about the height of it.

Mind you, your tenant will also be in a bad spot if and when you decide the exit the market.

Everybody is a loser in this scenario.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Mucker Man said:


> Thanks, yep 4%, so I'm penalised for not trying to screw my tenant at the last review.
> It's helps with my decision to keep or sell.



You didn't have to screw them. Charging 85%-90% of the market rate would not have been screwing them, up to 20% seems like fair 'loyalty\retention' bonus but in any line of business is 40% loyalty discount sustainable?
But this is 20-20 hindsight and who could have foreseen such a dreadful piece of legislation! I start to wonder about other sectors that might come into political firing line for price controls who should 'get their retaliation in first'...

In this specific case, does the legislation merely state 'rent review' or change in level of rent? Is there any wiggle room at all to go to 8-10% now because there were no actual increase last time?


----------



## Sarenco (11 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Is there any wiggle room at all to go to 8-10% now because there were no actual increase last time?



No but I think a review of the history of the passage of this legislation is instructive.

Initially, Minister Coveney's proposal allowed for a maximum annualised rate of increase of 4%, applied pro-rata to the date the last rent increase came into effect or the date the tenancy came into being, as appropriate.

My guess is that if the legislation had been enacted on that basis, there would have been some grumbling but most people would have grudgingly accepted the measures as a proportionate response to the current accommodation crisis (and let there be no doubt it - this is a crisis).  But that's not what happened.

At the 11th hour (quite literally), Sinn Fein (quite correctly) pointed out that Minister Coveney's proposed formula meant that some tenants were going to face an rent increase of 8%+ in the current calendar year.

Minister Coveney quickly announced that wasn't he intended at all, at all (which I suspect came as quite a surprise to his civil servants) and the formula was subsequently re-cast.

For existing tenancies that were still caught by the two-year moratorium on rent reviews, the initial rent increase in a RPZ was capped at an annualised rate of 2%, applied pro-rata to the date of the last rent increase or the date the tenancy came into existence, as appropriate.

All of a sudden, the gap between the "market rate" and the "controlled rate" became a gaping chasm.

Bear in mind that all this happened in the days (hours!) before the Dail and Seanad broke up for their Christmas break.  I've no doubt that physical exhaustion played a part in this process - it certainly wasn't a "focused, targeted strategy" as the Taoiseach said at the time.

(I tracked all of this in real time here:- https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/government-to-introduce-rent-caps-in-dublin-cork.201713/).

So, four months later and already the impact of the legislation is clear:-

The pace of the exodus of landlords from the long-term rental market (largely due to unfair taxation) has increased dramatically;
The shift to short-term corporate and AirB&B type lettings has increased significantly;
Landlords are issuing termination notices to tenants on increasingly tenuous or artificial pretexts;
The security of tenure of sitting tenants is becoming increasingly uncertain; and
Increasing numbers of new tenants are finding that they are simply priced out of the market with all that entails in terms of attracting FDI, etc.
From what I can gather, there is now almost universal acceptance that the RPZ regime, as enacted, was a mistake.  Even housing charities that initially welcomed the legislation now seem to accept that it is not achieving its objective - it's actually making things worse, not better.

The only question to my mind is whether or not the Government will accept that they made a significant mistake and re-act accordingly.

I would be really impressed if Minister Coveney was big enough to admit that he got this one badly wrong and that the key policy objective is to strive to ensure that appropriate accommodation is available for all citizens at an acceptable cost, without any ideological preference for owner occupation over any other form of tenure.

I'm ever hopeful but not terribly optimistic that this will happen.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Thanks for the back story @Sarenco, it really is unfair on the landlords who did not increase rents in last rent review. 
Far more unfair than hitting some tenants with 8% increases.
If even that one aspect could be changed it would likely dramatically reduce the situations of landlords going down the 'renovations' route.


----------



## Sarenco (11 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> If even that one aspect could be changed it would likely dramatically reduce the situations of landlords going down the 'renovations' route.



I don't disagree but my hunch is the Government might do something on the tax side to staunch the flow.  That would avoid having to admit making a mistake in the first place and could be presented in a postive light.

But what would I know!


----------



## odyssey06 (11 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I don't disagree but my hunch is the Government might do something on the tax side to staunch the flow.  That would avoid having to admit making a mistake in the first place and could be presented in a postive light.



To be honest, if the housing situation is such that we don't have enough supply, it's a perverse incentive to allow properties to be taken off the market for renovations. This further reduces the level of supply! It should be removed as one of the RPZ exclusions, assuming RPZ is meant as an emergency measure.


----------



## Sarenco (11 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> This further reduces the level of supply! It should be removed as one of the RPZ exclusions, assuming RPZ is meant as an emergency measure.



Well that wouldn't make sense.

It would mean that a landlord could simply say that he couldn't substantially renovate a property because he had no legal mechanism for terminating a tenancy to secure vacant possession of a property to allow for necessary works to be carried out.

Picture a situation where a family is renting a property with no running water or heating for example.

Incidentally, the "substantial renovation" ground for terminating a tenancy is not limited to dwellings in an RPZ.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> It would mean that a landlord could simply say that he couldn't substantially renovate a property because he had no legal mechanism for terminating a tenancy to secure vacant possession of a property to allow for necessary works to be carried out.
> Picture a situation where a family is renting a property with no running water or heating for example.
> Incidentally, the "substantial renovation" ground for terminating a tenancy is not limited to dwellings in an RPZ.



For me, no running water or heating doesnt count as a 'renovation' as renovation is an improvement ... that's remedial\necessary work that should be carried out with the tenant in situ.
I'm assuming there's no one renting in an RPZ property where the property wasn't designed with running water or heating, even if the system is now old.
People in their own homes upgrade their bathrooms, kitchens and heating facilities all the time without having to evict themselves.
They should have the option to remain in situ if the property is in an RPZ zone which means there is limited alternative supply.


----------



## SirMille (12 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> That's about the height of it.
> 
> Mind you, your tenant will also be in a bad spot if and when you decide the exit the market.
> 
> Everybody is a loser in this scenario.


I have to disagree, both parties are not losers here.
The tenant will be exposed to reality, which he is currently not exposed to, because the landlord is carrying the suffering for both of them.


----------



## Sarenco (12 May 2017)

Well, the landlord in this scenario is reluctantly exiting the market and his tenant will have to find new accommodation in a particularly difficult rental market.

I can't see how either party could be happy with that outcome.


----------



## qwerty5 (12 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> For me, no running water or heating doesnt count as a 'renovation' as renovation is an improvement ... that's remedial\necessary work that should be carried out with the tenant in situ.



I renovated my kitchen which required my water to be mostly off for a week. It wasn't remedial work.


----------



## Sarenco (12 May 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> They should have the option to remain in situ if the property is in an RPZ zone which means there is limited alternative supply.



That's an interesting idea but I think there would be uproar if a property owner was prevented from securing vacant possession of his property to develop or substantially renovate same. 

I doubt that would even be constitutional.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2017)

qwerty5 said:


> I renovated my kitchen which required my water to be mostly off for a week. It wasn't remedial work.



Perhaps I amn't using the right words here, but the general principle of what I'm saying is that if a tenant has been living there for months or years, I don't see how it's justified to evict them for a week or fortnight of work.

The tenant has to provide access of course. They could stay with friends or family or co-ordinate it with holidays. People who own their homes do this sort of stuff all the time, they don't necessarily have to buy an empty house to do up. They seem to manage. Why can't a tenant if they choose to do so?

The implication of RPZ is that there isn't an abundance of alternative accomodation for the tenant available.
The merits of RPZ as a whole is a separate argument but within the context of an RPZ operating it is not logical to allow properties to be taken out of the market for this reason.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> That's an interesting idea but I think there would be uproar if a property owner was prevented from securing vacant possession of his property to develop or substantially renovate same. I doubt that would even be constitutional.



For all I know RPZ is unconstitutional... possibly everything you've said applies just as much to RPZ as it does to my amendment to it


----------



## Sarenco (12 May 2017)

Well, I think there are good arguments that the RPZ regime is indeed unconstitutional but I think there is a far higher probability that a developer would take a case if a law prevented him from gaining vacant possession of a property.


----------



## redbunny (9 Oct 2019)

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread - but I didnt see a more up to date one on this topic after a search...

Speaking hypothetically of course...

Do any landlords know the current position on RTB enforcement of changing the rent by more than 4% after new tenants move in, in a rent pressure zone?

example:
-Property is in a rent pressure zone
-Old tenants voluntarily moved out
-If I were to charge market rent for a new tenancy, rent would be approx 16-17% higher than what was agreed with old tenants 12 months ago. This is higher than 4% allowed by the Rent Pressure Zone rules, but neither the new tenant nor the old tenant would know what the other's rent was.  So it would have to be something checked and enforced purely by the RTB.  My overall question is are the RTB policing this without prompting from a tenant?

Questions:
1. Are they doing an automated or manual comparison to check old rent vs new rent, and see if > 4% on the registration of a new tenancy?  It seemed like earlier in the thread (2017), they were not doing this.  What about now?  I see in recent months there has been vague talk about increased powers of policing in the RTB.  It's super easy to implement from an IT point of view so the cost of them doing it would be low.

2. There was some minor work done on the property between tenancies - anyone know how closely is this checked if I were to claim the renovations clause? Eg do I need to send in receipts / photos to prove work done? 

3. Has there been a definition of what renovations clause is? i.e a listing of possible work that qualifies as "renovations"?

4. What form does enforcement take, do they just ask you nicely to put the rent back down, first, and just give you a slap on the wrist? Or do they start prosecuting immediately?

5. In general, do you have any acquaintances who did something like this and didn't hear anything from the RTB on it?

Of course all of this is purely hypothetical

Thanks for any input.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Oct 2019)

One of your obligations as a landlord is to inform new tenant of the old rent and how it has been calculated in line with RPZ rules:



> In the case of a new tenancy in a Rent Pressure Zone, unless the property is exempt from the RPZ rental restrictions a landlord is required to furnish the tenant, in writing, with the following information at the commencement of the tenancy:
> 
> 
> The amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling,
> ...



I have no idea if the RTB are doing any kind of matching exercise. My guess would be that the data quality is poor so they would get a lot of false positives and negatives. I'm again speculating but I suspect the RTB relies on tenant reporting for enforcement.

However say you find a new tenant and sign a lease at market rates. They could subsequently take you to the RTB and force you to disclose previous rent, and set their own rent in line with it.


----------

