# Government to Introduce Rent Caps in Dublin & Cork



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...-limited-to-4-rent-rises-under-plan-1.2903235

Only bombs destroy a city more quickly than rent controls.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2016)

I heard this today and laughed.  4% apparently.  And the RTB are going to monitor it.  Legislation to be brought in quickly to stop landlords increasing the rents now.  Did they miss the fact they already brought in a rent cap of 2 years so all the rents were already increased.

I suspect this is anti constitutional too.  As property ownership rights are pretty strong there.

This is such nonsense.  Trying to appear to be doing something but not sorting out supply which is the main issue.  How does this give one single homeless person somewhere to stay.

Does it mean that landlords now can ignore the 2 year rule?


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Goodbody makes the rather obvious point that this proposal will not help with the supply of much needed new rental properties.

https://www.businessworld.ie/news-f...ill-not-aid-supply-warns-Goodbody-566886.html


----------



## Gordon Gekko (13 Dec 2016)

I have a property which is under-rented by around 20%.

What does this mean for me? Should I increase the rent now?

I don't want to be stuck at an artificially low baseline, with 4% increases thereafter.

That's not to say that I want to increase the rent, but if now's my only option to do so, then maybe I will.


----------



## Fella (13 Dec 2016)

I've free cash there that makes me very little, I find myself looking at myhome website thinking maybe i'll give landlord a go. But all these rules and regulations makes it so unattractive to become a landlord.The more the government interfere the more I think -Why would anyone want to become a landlord! 
You'd imagine they would want to give people an incentive to become landlords if there is a shortage not the other way around.


----------



## michaelm (13 Dec 2016)

More nonsense from an inept Government.  Costs nothing to implement, gives the appearance of doing something, will fix nothing.  I'm surprised that anyone wants to be a landlord.


----------



## Palerider (13 Dec 2016)

Fella said:


> I've free cash there that makes me very little, I find myself looking at myhome website thinking maybe i'll give landlord a go. But all these rules and regulations makes it so unattractive to become a landlord.The more the government interfere the more I think -Why would anyone want to become a landlord!
> You'd imagine they would want to give people an incentive to become landlords if there is a shortage not the other way around.



Agreed, I have bought a few overseas over the past ten years and these are performing for me, I came close here when a house came up near where I live but when I crunched the numbers, added risk from vacancy and repairs etc I could not justify the State taking such a high percentage, maybe 60% of what is left, this assumes I get a solid tenant that pays on time and that is becoming rare enough, nope not for me,risk / reward is way out of kilter, and don't start me off on the RTB, Rent caps will worsen the situation not improve it imo.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

This really is a bizarre proposal.

According to the RTB index, Dublin house rents actually fell by 0.6% in the last quarter (and rose by 3.6% outside Dublin).  The rate of increase in annual rents outside Dublin overtook the rate of increase in the capital in Q3 2015 and continues to rise at a faster rate.  So why would Dublin be designated as a "rent pressure zone" when all the available evidence suggests that the greater rent pressure is being felt outside Dublin?

How could it possibly be constitutional to limit the exercise of property rights in Dublin and Cork but not elsewhere in Ireland?  Surely the reported proposal clearly and deliberately restricts the exercise of the property rights of one group of citizens for the benefit of another group in a manner which fails to compensate the first group and disregards the financial capacity or needs of the members of both groups. 

If introduced, it is perfectly obvious that the proposals will restrict the supply of the rental accommodation as increasing numbers of landlords will inevitably exit the market - this could well be the straw that breaks the back of many landlords.  Those landlords that do try to stick it out (particularly "accidental" landlords in NE) will inevitably try to "front load" rental increases, thereby triggering further increases in homelessness.  They certainly won't have any incentive to improve their properties for the benefit of their tenants which, in time, will reduce the quality of our existing housing stock.

I thought the FTB tax rebate was bad but this really takes the biscuit. 

Massive fail Mr Coveney.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Dec 2016)

Will we ever see the powers applied I wonder? Seems to be an awful lots of schemes like this, and incentives, put into legislation in relation to housing that you have to wonder if they will ever be put into effect ... e.g. giving powers to the central bank controlling interest rates.


----------



## Dan Murray (13 Dec 2016)

Sarenco said:


> This really is a bizarre proposal.



Hi Sarenco,

Another of your first rate posts - well done.

Just a  question, if you get a chance, please....

If I buy an apartment, how much freedom do I have in setting the initial rent?


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Dan Murray said:


> If I buy an apartment, how much freedom do I have in setting the initial rent?



You can set the initial rent at whatever excruciating rate the (increasingly supply starved) market will bear.

It's one of the obvious market distortions that comes with rent control and will incentivise landlords to move on existing tenants, by legal means or otherwise.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Here's the details:-

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/def...iles/strategy_for_the_rental_sector_final.pdf

*Rent setting*

The effect of an order designating a Rent Pressure Zone will be that annual rent increases in that area will be limited to 4% for a maximum of 3 years.
The limitation will apply to rents set for new tenancies and to rent reviews within tenancies.
When issuing a notice of rent increase to the tenant, the landlord will include information demonstrating that the rent increase is in line with the legislation (i.e. not more than 4% p.a. for the period since the rent was last set).
If the tenant feels that the rent set is not in line with the legislation, they may refer the matter to the RTB for a determination.
Where an area is designated as a Rent Pressure Zone, the 4% p.a. limit will apply to all notices of rent increase issued from the date of designation.

*Exemptions*

Certain rental properties within a Rent Pressure Zone will be exempt –
(a)  those that are new to the rental market (i.e. they have not been rented at any time in the last two years), and
(b)  those that have been substantially refurbished in the last two years.​
Where a property is exempt from the measure, the landlord in issuing a notice of rent increase to the tenant will include information justifying the exemption.
If the tenant feels that the conditions for the exemption are not met, they may refer the matter to the RTB for a determination.
In addition, the provisions introduced in November 2015, whereby rent can only be reviewed every two years, will cease to apply in a Rent Pressure Zone when the next two-year review takes place – thereafter, annual rent reviews will apply.
The two-year rent review arrangements will continue to apply in other areas until the 2015 provision expires in 2019.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

What happens if a rent is scheduled to be reviewed some time next year after the 2-year period has elapsed? 

Can the rent be increased by 8% (i.e. 4% per annum) or 4% in total?  I would have thought it was the former but Fiona Redden seems to suggest otherwise in this article -

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...-they-might-impact-on-your-finances-1.2903863


----------



## Gordon Gekko (13 Dec 2016)

And what happens if the current rent is 20% below the market rent?


----------



## Páid (13 Dec 2016)

Sarenco said:


> The limitation will apply to rents set for new tenancies


This is new. Unless I'm mistaken, previously if the tenancy ceased due to a part 4 ending (or other valid termination) the landlord was free to set the rent at any rate for new tenants (even above the prevailing market rate). Now it seems that this is not allowed. Good luck policing that.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> And what happens if the current rent is 20% below the market rent?



Well if you haven't reviewed the rent in the last 24 months then you should so pronto, bearing in mind that you have to give 90 days' notice of any rent increase. - http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/increase-of-rent-guidelines.199950/

Otherwise, I'm afraid you're plumb out of luck - there's nothing much you can do (legally, at least).


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Páid said:


> This is new. Unless I'm mistaken, previously if the tenancy ceased due to a part 4 ending (or other valid termination) the landlord was free to set the rent at any rate for new tenants (even above the prevailing market rate). Now it seems that this is not allowed. Good luck policing that.



Agreed - that's a particularly daft proposal.

So, if a property hasn't been rented at any time in the last two years, a landlord can set the rent at whatever the market will bear but otherwise can only charge 4% (or possibly 8%) above whatever rent a previous tenant was paying.  Unless, of course, the property was "substantially refurbished" (whatever that means) at some point in the previous two years.


----------



## MajorTom (13 Dec 2016)

Fianna Fail want this changed to 2% !!


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Shares in iRes take a tumble...
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...-landlord-down-on-new-rent-controls-1.2903692


----------



## Gerard123 (13 Dec 2016)

Does anyone know the position if a rent review has already been communicated to a tenant, fully as required, and supported by three other properties. Tenant lease due to expire end February 2017. New rent level more than 4% higher. In Dublin.


----------



## triggs (13 Dec 2016)

An unintended consequence of cap at 4 %, in the case of properties now rented at levels well below market level,could be sale of such properties, at some distress to tennants.There is then the possibility of  purchasing another property which has never been rented with no restriction on setting a new rent


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2016)

Gerard123 said:


> Does anyone know the position if a rent review has already been communicated to a tenant, fully as required, and supported by three other properties. Tenant lease due to expire end February 2017. New rent level more than 4% higher. In Dublin.



Right now you gave your tenant a valid legal notice.  I cannot see how this new proposal, which is not law, can negate that.

The real facts are of course that the rent rises are mostly all done and dusted by now so this will help nobody. 

And nothing at all about supply.  Which is the real issue.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2016)

The good news for landlords is they are going to speed up arrears cases, they are then going to be allowed go to the district court which is a lot cheaper.  Of course the raison d'etre of the RTB in the first place was to take cases out of court.  So now you have to go to the RTB tribunal, and waste your time there when to really sort out your problem tenant you still have to go to court.  So more time and effort and money lost. 

And when the newspapers analyse Coveney's document and see that money is going to be paid directly to solicitors there will be skin and hair flying.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Bronte said:


> The real facts are of course that the rent rises are mostly all done and dusted by now so this will help nobody.



Not true.

Because of the 2-year restriction on rent reviews, a very considerable proportion of properties in Dublin and Cork are currently under rented.  And will now remain so until 2020.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Gerard123 said:


> Does anyone know the position if a rent review has already been communicated to a tenant, fully as required, and supported by three other properties. Tenant lease due to expire end February 2017. New rent level more than 4% higher. In Dublin.



Agree with Bronte here - the new requirements should have no impact on any validly notice of rent increase issued prior to the enactment of this daft law.

Any landlord in this position should be ultra-cautious that they have fully complied with all legal requirements in this regard - they won't get a second chance if they get any detail wrong.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2016)

Well Sarenco as rents are coming down in Dublin the point is moot !  This was in reply to post beginning 'not true'


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Bronte said:


> Well Sarenco as rents are coming down in Dublin the point is moot !  This was in reply to post beginning 'not true'



They are still a heck of a lot higher then they were 18, 12 or even 6 months ago.  

This is going to adversely impact a lot of "accidental" landlords with boom-time NE properties that were just starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Sarenco (13 Dec 2016)

Well the good news is that FF intend to block this daft proposal.

The bad news is that they want to extend its scope!  

You really couldn't make this up...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...eing-limited-to-dublin-and-cork-35289605.html


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Dec 2016)

"Ultimately you can decide to freeze rents in the morning but that doesn't actually solve the problem..."
- Simon Coveney

Way to destroy your credibility Minister Coveney.

Get more houses built, get more supply out there - anything else is a sticking plaster and he will be ultimately considered a failure without that.


----------



## Dan Murray (14 Dec 2016)

If I buy an apartment, are we saying that I can set the rent at whatever level if it hasn't been rented in the previous 2 years and am "referenced" to the previous rent if it has unless "substantial improvements" are carried out?

Has the term "substantial improvements" been defined?


----------



## Sarenco (14 Dec 2016)

I think we will have to see the draft legislation to answer those questions definitively but I don't see how the purchaser of a property is supposed to know whether or not that property has been rented in the previous 2 years and, if so, at what rent.


----------



## facetious (14 Dec 2016)

Again, the government are putting sticky plaster on a wound that requires stitches. Their every attempt at improving the legislation has resulted in a disaster.


----------



## Thirsty (14 Dec 2016)

If this becomes law, I'm getting out & selling up; and another family lose the roof over their heads.


----------



## Páid (14 Dec 2016)

Dr. Rory Ahearne has a piece about it on Broadsheet.



> The government’s Strategy for the Rental Sector, while containing the welcome provision of rental restrictions is ultimately flawed because it does not link rent increases to inflation, excludes areas outside Dublin and Cork (particularly the commuter counties), does not provide security of tenure, proposes the sale of public land ‘below market value’ (i.e. give away/privatising a valuable public resource) to global real estate funds to increase ‘supply’, and is based on the failed (and contradictory) market assumptions that increasing rents will lead to further supply and increased supply will lead to affordable rents/house prices.
> 
> Firstly, in relation to the Strategy for the Rental Sector, there is no evidence or research provided by the government or the Department of Housing as to how the 4% increase in rents is being justified.
> 
> For example, 4% per annum represents 8 times the increase in annual earnings for full-time employees in 2015. It has no justification from price inflation as the (Consumer price index) is running at -0.3%. Within the CPI there is a specific category, Furnishings, Household Equipment & Routine Household Maintenance, which you would think would be a reasonable indicator as to the main on-going cost for landlords. Inflation for that category is running at -4.3%



http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/12/14/an-alternative-strategy-for-affordable-homes/


----------



## valery (14 Dec 2016)

So you have a good tenant, didn't increase the rent to market levels and you will be effectively penalised when the current tenant leaves.  Madness.
Did whoever draft this legislation really think it out?


----------



## nbc (14 Dec 2016)

Question:
I currently rent a 3 bedroom property in Dublin for E1100- Its let as unfurnished and the tenants have been there for 3 years. The market rent for unfurnished is probably 1500 and furnished 1650.
My question is: If the tenants leave in 6 months and I let it Furnished I will only be able to charge 1100 plus 4% or can I argue that I should be able to charge more as I've had to furnish it?
This appears very unfair and in fact will cause an increase in rents as I will have no option but to write and advise of an increase now.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Dec 2016)

Well this policy initiative has now descended into a farcical game of political "chicken" between FF and FG.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1214/838799-rental-strategy/

Does it remind anybody else of the Irish Water fiasco?

Meanwhile, I was talking to a letting agent pal earlier today and he tells me that his office are flat out advising any client that can to issue rent increase notices ASAP.  

What a mess.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Dec 2016)

Sorry, so if I'm charging less than the market rent and my tenants move out, I'm still wedded to the lower rate plus 4% with the new people?

Unbelievable if true.

Sadly, my tenants are about to get a nasty surprise in the mouth of Christmas. Their rent is going up by 33%.


----------



## Sarenco (15 Dec 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Sadly, my tenants are about to get a nasty surprise in the mouth of Christmas.



They won't be alone Gordon.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...new-rules-to-cap-rent-increases-35295999.html


----------



## Bronte (15 Dec 2016)

Not a bit surprised that landlords are loading on increases now.  You'd be mad not to. So Coveney has actually made the situation worse for tenants this week. 

Of all times to introduce rent caps, when the market is surely at it's peak, is the worst.  It should have been done 10 years ago and linked to the rate of inflation. 

All of course this does nothing whatsoever to increase supply.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Dec 2016)

Plan appears to be collapsing...


----------



## Dan Murray (15 Dec 2016)

It seems to me there are two aspects to this.

Firstly, the merits of rent control which has been well debated here already.

The other is the government's handling of this. My sense is that the government in general and Coveney in particular have made a complete _liathróidí_ in managing this. Surely, the smart thing to have done (if you really wanted to implement ths measure) was to seek agreement with FF and then announce - rather than announce and then seek agreement - and with Cowen, of all people.

The impact of Coveney's hapless handling of this is that he has made the situation worse for the people he is purporting to help.


----------



## Bronte (15 Dec 2016)

Totally agree Dan that Coveney has made it worse.  Unbelievable it was not agreed with FF in advance.


----------



## T McGibney (15 Dec 2016)

Bronte said:


> Of all times to introduce rent caps, when the market is surely at it's peak, is the worst.  It should have been done 10 years ago and linked to the rate of inflation.


The effect of that would have been to keep residential rents at Celtic Tiger levels long after the economic crash.


----------



## Bronte (15 Dec 2016)

Tommy I don't remember rents being higher than now.  That's my point.  It's sticking plaster as another poster said, after the event.


----------



## T McGibney (15 Dec 2016)

Bronte said:


> Tommy I don't remember rents being higher than now.  That's my point.  It's sticking plaster as another poster said, after the event.


My observation stands. There is a single reason why rents have now spiralled: government policy.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Dec 2016)

Isn't it amazing that everyone wants wages back to 2007 levels but not rents.


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Dec 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Sorry, so if I'm charging less than the market rent and my tenants move out, I'm still wedded to the lower rate plus 4% with the new people?
> 
> Unbelievable if true.
> 
> Sadly, my tenants are about to get a nasty surprise in the mouth of Christmas. Their rent is going up by 33%.



They've actually now forced the hand of LL who were beneath the market rate to increase rent. Because they will be locked into it.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Dec 2016)

What's to stop a LL who was beneath the market rate - but with a tenant they want to keep - from jacking up the 'nominal' price right now by a huge amount.
But, verbally with the tenant say just keep paying what you are paying right now and I will 'write off' the difference between the nominal and actual rent?
That way the LL is covered into the future?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Dec 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> What's to stop a LL who was beneath the market rate - but with a tenant they want to keep - from jacking up the 'nominal' price right now by a huge amount.
> But, verbally with the tenant say just keep paying what you are paying right now and I will 'write off' the difference between the nominal and actual rent?
> That way the LL is covered into the future?



Why would a tenant agree to that?


----------



## Páid (16 Dec 2016)

Is there any way to see the draft legislation? I heard on the news this morning that they have closed off an error that would have allowed landlords increase the rent by 8%.  Depending on the wording in the legislation they could lock rents that are below market value into maximum 4% increases. Or will they allow increases up to market + 4% ?


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Dec 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Why would a tenant agree to that?



I' thinking to avoid a situation where the landlord in advance of the legislation puts the rent up to 'market levels' which is higher than their current rent and they can't afford it?
Some landlords may feel they need to resynch their rates with the market because of this legislation or be locked in forever on the 4% limit.


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Dec 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I' thinking to avoid a situation where the landlord in advance of the legislation puts the rent up to 'market levels' which is higher than their current rent and they can't afford it?
> Some landlords may feel they need to resynch their rates with the market because of this legislation or be locked in forever on the 4% limit.




Sure. But you've not answered the question. Tenant has no reason to help with this.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Dec 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> What's to stop a LL who was beneath the market rate - but with a tenant they want to keep - from jacking up the 'nominal' price right now by a huge amount.
> But, verbally with the tenant say just keep paying what you are paying right now and I will 'write off' the difference between the nominal and actual rent?
> That way the LL is covered into the future?



the landlord would probably have to pay tax on the higher amount.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Dec 2016)

AlbacoreA said:


> Sure. But you've not answered the question. Tenant has no reason to help with this.



If the LL puts the actual rent up today by 20%, and the tenant can't afford the rent next month, won't they end up on the streets?

There are reports of LLs putting up rents purely as a defensive measure in response to this proposal, because of the effect of limiting what rent they can charge in future. The LL seems ok with the current rent.

What I proposed was a way for LLs to 'defend' themselves against this measure without any adverse impact on the tenant. Otherwise, there will be LLs who put up the price, and tenants who end up on the streets because of it.

I'm not au fait with the tax implications, that might shoot it down. But let's say at the moment, if a tenant misses a rental payment, wouldn't the LL only declare received income?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Dec 2016)

cremeegg said:


> the landlord would probably have to pay tax on the higher amount.



No they wouldn't.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Dec 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Why would a tenant agree to that?



What about a tenant where the landlord does have scope to increase the rent?

Tell the tenant that you're not actually increasing it, but just want to optically.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Dec 2016)

OK, I have a tenant paying €1,500 a month and the market rate is €2,000. 

I write to him formally putting up the rent to €2,000 (assuming that the timing allows me to do that.) 

The tenant tells me that he can't afford it.  I nod and wink at him. "Keep paying me the €1,500". 

I might not pursue the arrears, but then he could later claim that we had agreed that the "real" rent was €1,500. 

Worse still, if he leaves, the next tenant could claim it was €1,500. They might not succeed but they could waste a lot of my time down in the PRTB. 

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Dec 2016)

Why would he or she claim that though?

Where there's a good relationship between landlord and tenant, simply agree it along those lines.

Even better, get them to pay you €2,000 and rebate them the €500.


----------



## elcato (16 Dec 2016)

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.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Dec 2016)

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.



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.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Dec 2016)

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."


----------



## elcato (16 Dec 2016)

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.


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.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Dec 2016)

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.



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.


You mean Revenue and RTB? Revenue routinely access RTB data.


----------



## Kine (16 Dec 2016)

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?!


----------



## aristotle (16 Dec 2016)

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?!


----------



## Sarenco (16 Dec 2016)

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.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Dec 2016)

Apparently the Dail has now passed the Minister's revised amendment -

[broken link removed]


----------



## Rory_W (17 Dec 2016)

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.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 Dec 2016)

What if the rent is increased from €1,500 to €2,000, but a "prompt payment rebate" of €500 is applied?


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Dec 2016)

Or a pay 11 months rent on time get 1 month free special loyalty deal ?


----------



## facetious (17 Dec 2016)

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.


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!


----------



## Sarenco (17 Dec 2016)

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%?



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.


----------



## carbine (18 Dec 2016)

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?


----------



## Sarenco (18 Dec 2016)

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.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Dec 2016)

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.


----------



## triggs (18 Dec 2016)

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.


----------



## jem20066 (19 Dec 2016)

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?


----------



## moneybox (19 Dec 2016)

carbine said:


> 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?



Is that not pushing it a bit


----------



## facetious (19 Dec 2016)

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.



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.


----------



## sublime1 (20 Dec 2016)

Has anyone been able to find a definition of what "substantial renovations" entails? And how would one go about demonstrating that? And to whom?


----------



## Sarenco (20 Dec 2016)

sublime1 said:


> Has anyone been able to find a definition of what "substantial renovations" entails? And how would one go about demonstrating that? And to whom?



http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=90&m=z

That phrase wasn't ultimately used in the amending legislation - it was replaced with "a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation provided under the tenancy occurs". 

In the event of a dispute, you might have to demonstrate that to the RTB.


----------



## sublime1 (20 Dec 2016)

I'm in an unusual situation, so would appreciate some advice. I'm a reluctant landlord, renting my own home after emigrating for work reasons. It's been a very difficult few years, and I've learned far more than I wished about the realities of renting out one's home from abroad. The last few years the rental income improved, but I didn't raise the rent by much as I was happy with the tenants. They have just told me they are moving out after Christmas to buy their own place, and while I was sad to see them go, I was pleased to see that I would be able to get a higher rental on the property as the market rate has increased. Pleased, that is, until I saw that this legislation was announced.

My property will be vacated in early January, and I'm wondering what is best to do. If I rent it out immediately, am I obliged to limit the new rent to 4% increase on the old rent? Should I wait in case landlords organisations appeal this legislation? There are some pretty significant improvements I could do to the house that might fit in with the "substantial change" ruling. If there were to be a dispute, would it be the RTB who would bring it based on the previous rent compared to the new rent? Or is it the new tenants who might dispute? We're talking a difference of €4000 per annum over a minimum of 3 years, so I need to make the best decision.

Would be great to get some insight from people here.


----------



## Sarenco (22 Dec 2016)

Seanad passes rent control legislation and passes a motion to urge President to sign the Bill as a matter of urgency -

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/seanad-passes-rent-cap-laws-769571.html


----------



## Bronte (23 Dec 2016)

sublime1 said:


> I'm in an unusual situation, so would appreciate some advice. I'm a reluctant landlord, renting my own home after emigrating for work reasons. It's been a very difficult few years, and I've learned far more than I wished about the realities of renting out one's home from abroad. The last few years the rental income improved, but I didn't raise the rent by much as I was happy with the tenants. They have just told me they are moving out after Christmas to buy their own place, and while I was sad to see them go, I was pleased to see that I would be able to get a higher rental on the property as the market rate has increased. Pleased, that is, until I saw that this legislation was announced.
> 
> My property will be vacated in early January, and I'm wondering what is best to do. If I rent it out immediately, am I obliged to limit the new rent to 4% increase on the old rent? Should I wait in case landlords organisations appeal this legislation? There are some pretty significant improvements I could do to the house that might fit in with the "substantial change" ruling. If there were to be a dispute, would it be the RTB who would bring it based on the previous rent compared to the new rent? Or is it the new tenants who might dispute? We're talking a difference of €4000 per annum over a minimum of 3 years, so I need to make the best decision.
> 
> Would be great to get some insight from people here.



How much will you be spending on renovating it? 

Of course if one were really clever one could increase the last months rent.  And make sure the tenant pays it.  Then let them stay free the two weeks in January, or give them a Christmas gift.  Equal to your rent increase, in cash.  And go into the PRTB website and change your rent amount now. 

I'm sorry but I think it's riduculous that a landlord has left tenants without rent increases and it's this landlord is now being penalised for doing so. 

I also would advise you to still do some renovations.  Houses need constant work and in my experience when long term tenants leave is a really good time.  (last time I did a house it cost 7K - painting, repairs, tiling kitchen and hall, tile bathroom, cleaning etc).  It also means you'll get top rent, and attract the right sort.


----------



## T McGibney (23 Dec 2016)

sublime1 said:


> I'm in an unusual situation, so would appreciate some advice. I'm a reluctant landlord, renting my own home after emigrating for work reasons. It's been a very difficult few years, and I've learned far more than I wished about the realities of renting out one's home from abroad. The last few years the rental income improved, but I didn't raise the rent by much as I was happy with the tenants. They have just told me they are moving out after Christmas to buy their own place, and while I was sad to see them go, I was pleased to see that I would be able to get a higher rental on the property as the market rate has increased. Pleased, that is, until I saw that this legislation was announced.
> 
> My property will be vacated in early January, and I'm wondering what is best to do. If I rent it out immediately, am I obliged to limit the new rent to 4% increase on the old rent? Should I wait in case landlords organisations appeal this legislation? There are some pretty significant improvements I could do to the house that might fit in with the "substantial change" ruling. If there were to be a dispute, would it be the RTB who would bring it based on the previous rent compared to the new rent? Or is it the new tenants who might dispute? We're talking a difference of €4000 per annum over a minimum of 3 years, so I need to make the best decision.
> 
> Would be great to get some insight from people here.



Get legal advice urgently. Today if possible.


----------



## sublime1 (23 Dec 2016)

Bronte said:


> How much will you be spending on renovating it?
> 
> Of course if one were really clever one could increase the last months rent.  And make sure the tenant pays it.  Then let them stay free the two weeks in January, or give them a Christmas gift.  Equal to your rent increase, in cash.  And go into the PRTB website and change your rent amount now.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the response. Well, regarding your last sentence, I certainly won't be getting top rent after this new law, that's for sure!

I don't think your advice about the rent would go well, either with the RTB or my existing tenants. I cetainly wouldn't feel comfortable myself going down that road. Like many posters I've seen, I actually don't mind the 4% limit that much, but the idea that it applies to new lettings is really absurd.

Regarding renovations, the house currently doesn't have central heating so was thinking of installing that. But only if it would be regarded as substantial enough to get an exemption per this law. The house is very warm and there is no actual requirement to do this, but it certainly is something I'd like to do at some point when I can afford it.


----------



## Sarenco (23 Dec 2016)

The President has now signed the rent control legislation - the caps come into effect tomorrow, 24 December 2016.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland...nd-cork-come-into-effect-tomorrow-769821.html


----------



## kelly123 (10 Jan 2017)

I have a 2 bed apartment with 2 secure underground car parking spaces rented in Dublin. Tenants have been there since 2011. Rent is currently about €400 per month below market rate. I kept it low as they are good tenants and I wanted to keep them. The original lease has expired and review on rent is due in August of this year. I can only get an extra €54 per month thanks to the new controls. To compensate, I was hoping to rent the car parking spaces separately. Is this allowed?


----------

