The effect of that would have been to keep residential rents at Celtic Tiger levels long after the economic crash.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.
My observation stands. There is a single reason why rents have now spiralled: government policy.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.
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%.
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?
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.
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?
Sure. But you've not answered the question. Tenant has no reason to help with this.
the landlord would probably have to pay tax on the higher amount.
Why would a tenant agree to that?