Can a landlord complain the RTB to the FSPO for loss of earnings?

E

Equality

Registered User
Messages
31
Approximately 42,000 people went through the tracker mortgage scandal and this feels similar to us. AAM was a font of information for us during the tracker mortgage redress scheme and we were wondering will the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ) be another financial scandal for 135,000 Irish landlords? We invested in property for the rental market but the rules were changed with the introduction of the 2016 RTB RPZ penalising private landlords.

Private landlords are prevented, by the RTB, from setting the same market rent to properties in the same RPZ area and of similar specification when the annual rent review takes place. Maximum rent increase presently capped at 2% annually, irrespective of inflation rate.

This has resulted in a substantial annual loss of earnings that continues to increase year on year and we were wondering if either a landlord or a landlord representative group could complain the RTB to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) about the loss of earnings caused by the RPZ? If the FSPO is not the correct avenue, we wonder are there any other options available to landlords to recoup these losses as the private rental market is becoming unviable for us? Or is that the government plan all along?
 
RPZs were introduced through legislation. The RTB is enforcing the legislation. If you want RPZs to change, then you should lobby government TDs about a change in legislation.
 
FSPO is completely the wrong way to go.
 
The RPZ legislation is possibly unconstitutional, or its operation may be unconstitutional. Or it’s effect in certain instances maybe unconstitutional.

You could challenge the law, or its effect in your case in the court.

Not as easy as making a complaint to an ombudsman.

You might win or achieve a partial victory or you might loose.
 
cremeegg said:
The RPZ legislation is possibly unconstitutional, or its operation may be unconstitutional. Or it’s effect in certain instances maybe unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

I’m not a lawyer, but the constitution provides for a balance between private property rights and the common good.

A case would have to go to the Supreme Court, which would in turn have to decide that the legislature in the RPZ legislation had put too much weight on the common good objective and not enough weight on the private property rights objective.

Getting there would not be quick or cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register