RPZ Help ! Advice needed...

Redcat

Registered User
Messages
8
Hi All

First time posting here, so apologies if this has been covered already

I really need some advice here....

I am an accidental landlord stuck with a negative equity property and big mortgage in a commuter town near Dublin

For the last few years I have been generous to the tenant and charged a very low rent. It emerged a few months ago that I was getting 400 a month less than I could have. This was brought to my attention by the letting agency who look after the place

In around August the tenant had been 2 years with the same low rent. I decided on an increase of 200 euro a month, again I was being very fair. This was done in writing with the required 90 days notice, the agency took care of that. The tenant accepted this , all were happy and the new rent was due to kick in on November 1 st

Then today all went wrong. The entire town has been declared a RPZ so rent is fixed. That would have been ok except, with exquisite timing, the tenant announced they were leaving having got somewhere else

Now the agency can find me a new tenant but I have one big question....

The new higher rent was agreed weeks BEFORE the sudden RPZ announcement but I had yet to receive the first increased payment. Can I charge the new tenant that same rate or am I stuck with the old very low rent plus 4 percent?

I feel I have been royally shafted and punished for treating people fairly

Surely when a fair rent was agreed I should be allowed to charge that?

Do I need to get a lawyer to fight this?

Any advice much appreciated and sorry for length of post!
 
There's no need to panic - you can charge any future tenant the same rate as per your recent review.

You were actually very lucky with your timing as things turned out.
 
Thanks a million!

Are you sure ? I rang someone in ptrb and was told because the tenant had not actually yet paid the new increased rent I was shafted with the existing rate plus 4%. That sounded grossly unfair hence my post here...
 
Yes, I'm quite sure!

From what you have told us, you were entitled to review the rent in August and you did so, apparently following all the prescribed formalities. The dwelling was not in an area that had been designated an RPZ at the time that you reviewed the rent so you were entitled to increase the rent in line with local market rates.

That's what matters - not whether the notice period had expired or whether your existing tenants had actually paid the rent at the new rate.

Like I said, you got lucky - the RPZ regime is grossly unfair.
 
Thanks!

Very good to know. Also interesting to note that the ptrb are giving out such apparently false info , I got the impression they really dislike landlords...
 
As a professional landlord, by which I mean someone who earns their living in the main from property rental, one of my pet hates is amateur landlords who mess up the market for everyone tenants and landlords alike, by running their business badly. My second pet hate is self pity.

I am an accidental landlord.....stuck with a negative equity property.....and big mortgage.....I have been generous to the tenant and charged a very low rent......It emerged a few months ago that I was getting 400 a month less than I could have. This was brought to my attention by the letting agency who look after the place
.....the tenant had been 2 years with the same low rent.....I was being very fair.....Then today all went wrong.....I feel I have been royally shafted and punished for treating people fairly

Poor you.
 
That seems very harsh.

Redcat played by the rules and thought she had been badly burnt by the overnight designation of the town as an RPZ. It turns out she was lucky with her timing but plenty of landlords in that town will not be so lucky and will be stuck renting their properties at substantially below market rates because of the two year freeze on rent reviews.

The RPZ regime is grossly unfair and I'm not at all surprised that some landlords feel royally shafted.
 
I'm an accidental landlord too and like Redcat charge well below the market rate for my property. Even though my town is not currently designated a RPZ, I fear it will in the near future. As a consequence, I have informed my tenants I will be increasing the rent by €200. I probably wouldn't be doing this only for the new rules.

The big winner here is the government with increasing tax returns!
 
I'm an accidental landlord too and like Redcat charge well below the market rate for my property.

Why do you do that. It is extremely antisocial.

It means that the tenant cannot leave, because their standard of living would fall if they tried to move and had to pay market rent.

It means that landlords like me who are trying to make a living from renting property have access to a reduced pool of potential tenants.

It is all very well for people like you who are wealthy enough to leave €200 a month behind, to amuse themselves by letting out property but some of us are trying to run a business. Why don't you give the €200 a month to charity and stop undermining the property market.
 
What a bizarre attitude.

Firstly, you seem to be totally ignoring the two year embargo on carrying out rent reviews. Market rents have risen by around 20% nationally over the last 24 months.

Secondly, it is not at all uncommon for landlords to charge good tenants a rent that is below the market rate for perfectly sound economic reasons. Call it a "loyalty bonus" if you like - there is a cost associated with replacing tenants.
 
I second Sarenco - your comments are bizarre Cremegg. Not worth wasting my time with an explanation.
 
What a bizarre attitude.

Firstly, you seem to be totally ignoring the two year embargo on carrying out rent reviews. Market rents have risen by around 20% nationally over the last 24 months.

Thats is a fair point in general, but it does not appear to be relevant to the OPs particular situation. She appears to have been guided by a sense of generosity

For the last few years I have been generous to the tenant and charged a very low rent.

and cluelessness

It emerged a few months ago that I was getting 400 a month less than I could have. This was brought to my attention by the letting agency who look after the place


Secondly, it is not at all uncommon for landlords to charge good tenants a rent that is below the market rate for perfectly sound economic reasons. Call it a "loyalty bonus" if you like - there is a cost associated with replacing tenants.

This is I understand not uncommon, though what advantage there is to a landlord in having a "loyal" tenant I do not understand. Exactly what type of "loyalty" does €400 a month buy.
 
Thats is a fair point in general, but it does not appear to be relevant to the OPs particular situation.
Of course it's relevant in these circumstances! The OP specifically told us that the rent hadn't been reviewed in two years.
This is I understand not uncommon, though what advantage there is to a landlord in having a "loyal" tenant I do not understand. Exactly what type of "loyalty" does €400 a month buy.
It is a rare businessman that does not provide some level of discount for long-term, reliable customers.

Again, the OP told us that, prior to the recent review, the rent was €400pm below market. We weren't told that it was €400pm below market when set two years ago - you just assumed that was the case.
 
cremegg,

I did this for years; I did not increase the rent because the tenants were excellent, because it costs money to switch tenants, because they were a young couple with a young child living paycheck to paycheck, and I'd only get 48% of any increase in any event, money which wasn't going to change my life.

I reflected on the risk/reward/decency aspects and decided not to charge them as much as possible.

Have you an issue with that?
 
I did not increase the rent because the tenants were excellent, because it costs money to switch tenants, because they were a young couple with a young child living paycheck to paycheck, and I'd only get 48% of any increase in any event, money which wasn't going to change my life.

I reflected on the risk/reward/decency aspects and decided not to charge them as much as possible.

Have you an issue with that?

An issue with it? Well its your property and your income, so you can do as you wish with it. I am just pointing out that it distorts the market. €400 a month as in the OPs case might not change your life, but it would pay my kids college fees and feed him for the college year.

Maybe I am just jealous, I certainly wish that I could afford to give money away like that.

And at least you are not coming here looking for sympathy.
 
Who was looking for sympathy?

The OP was looking for advice - which he got - and you started calling him names.

Bizarre.
 
If this isn't looking for sympathy, I don't know what is.

I am an accidental landlord.....stuck with a negative equity property.....and big mortgage.....I have been generous to the tenant and charged a very low rent
.....the tenant had been 2 years with the same low rent.....I was being very fair.....Then today all went wrong.....I feel I have been royally shafted and punished for treating people fairly

as for calling anybody names I said that my pet hates were amateur landlords and self pity, not exactly calling anybody names. I also described one of the OPs reasons for charging a below market rent as cluelessness. How better could you describe this

It emerged a few months ago that I was getting 400 a month less than I could have. This was brought to my attention by the letting agency who look after the place

It's the "it emerged" that irritates me, as if the OP is some type of uninvolved bystander in their own business.
 
I'd describe it as Price Fixing to a specific industry.

If you were to adopt the same stance in any other sector, you'd have the Competition Authority hauling you off to the courts.
 
@cremeegg

If the "advice" received from the person in the RTB was correct - as it happens it wasn't - then the OP would have every right to feel royally shafted. How exactly is that looking for sympathy?

Lots of landlords have been royally shafted by the RPZ regime - it's completely random and discriminatory.
..not exactly calling anybody names.
You called the OP "clueless" and suggested that charging a tenant anything less than the full market rate was "antisocial"!

Investors are wise to take advice from agents re valuations, achievable rents, etc. Taking or relying on such advice doesn't make them "clueless". Far from it. I can assure you that some of the biggest residential landlords in the State regularly take advice from agents.
 
An issue with it? Well its your property and your income, so you can do as you wish with it. I am just pointing out that it distorts the market. €400 a month as in the OPs case might not change your life, but it would pay my kids college fees and feed him for the college year.

Maybe I am just jealous, I certainly wish that I could afford to give money away like that.

And at least you are not coming here looking for sympathy.

€400 is only worth €192 after tax. And it's not entirely humanitarian; when you have a top-class tenant, is it worth €192 to have the property vacant for a period, to have to do it up somewhat, and to run the risk of getting a bad new tenant?

There is the concept of "penny-wise/pound foolish".

In any event, the attacks on the OP we over the top.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top