RTB Rent Register

[DannyBoyD]

It's up to us to pick the price that we feel is market rent.

This is contrary to what the RTB have published.

IT's not up to us to prove it, it's up to them to prove we are above market rent.

Based on the register provided & the examples published here, that won't be difficult. I don't believe they have sufficient / correct data, but that hasn't stopped them in the past.

Also, the tenant has to be the one that raises the issue with the RTB,

RTB have been given a mandate to investigate rents; they do not have to wait for a tenant to raise the issue.

so then the tenant would already know the real prices of properties in the area , they would have to find a property that has been under a new lease , not under RPZ rules, that is lower than the property they have rented.

On the contrary, all the need to do is point at this rent register.

Tenant also has six months after signing a lease / moving in to raise that complaint. So the property owner has signed a lease for a rent of (say) 2k per month; tenant raises an objection 6 months later, RTB take 3 months to adjudicate and make a determination based on their flawed rent register that the market rent should be 1k per month.

Property owner is now stuck with 50% of expected income for the next six years.

All property owners would be well advised to challenge their own rents with the RTB before signing a lease.

 

[misemoi]

Why would the old RPZ impacted rents not be included in market rent? Surely their purpose was to reduce market rent? So to me it is correct that market rent would be a mix of old rents and then the newer ones at higher rates. Taking aside all of the other issues I would have with the legislation RTB etc!

 

[ballyharpat]

published

We have to give 'regard' to the RTB register, that is the way it is worded in the legislation. Anything else is their take or bias on it.

They have to prove it, if you are in front of a board, they have facts and details, you have facts and details, Looking at the register, many of these numbers are just like smoke. I did a few inputs, smaller properties with fewer rooms, and lower BER get higher rent in some areas. THe register is a guide, it's not perfect-, it is flawed, but it is a guide.

The Investigations and Sanctions unit acts on reports of non-compliance, not just formal disputes. They act on reports from tenants, or others,

The tenant can point to the register, all they want, they can dispute it, as we have read, but if what A landlord is doing, is charging a rent that is already a part of the market, then it's very difficult to say that is not the value. If another house in the area has the same price, why would there be any other value? I can guarantee you, that after 6 months, and a few new leases, the value will be market value.

 

[Premos]

Why would the old RPZ impacted rents not be included in market rent? Surely their purpose was to reduce market rent? So to me it is correct that market rent would be a mix of old rents and then the newer ones at higher rates. They were always going to be included in the register as they are part of the tenancies.

They were always going to be included in the register as they are part of the tenancies. However, as the list is very limited (9+1 - mine in my case), it can provide very few examples of high rents, which would be the rents that new rentals going to the market would have commanded until now. The controlled market and the market rent are quite different. Market rent was until now defined as the amount a willing tenant would pay and a willing landlord accept for a similar property in a comparable area. Under RPZ, the LL can only accept a "controlled" rent if it is not a new rental. Yes, the LL accepts it as he is renting but at the same time, he doesn't really have a choice in that amount. Very few LL in RPZ would have willingly chosen that level of rent. Most were probably accepting these rents hoping that things would change in a near future.
Having to scroll through the register to find comparable properties because the initial list/ the data used is so limited is an issue. I have just done a search and 8 cost rental apartments came up out of 10 properties.

The fact that there is a register is for most not the problem but the information given is. It was always going to be difficult to compare properties on a few criteria. Now we compare on a few criteria on a limited list.

 

[ballyharpat]

The old RPZ rentals can be included in 'Market rent' , but they are not a guarantee of current market prices, they are historic, not current. a house that sold last year is not probably the price that the same house will make this year.

the amount of rent that can be expected for the use of a property, in comparison with similar properties in the same area.
The landlord chooses three of the properties and submits these as evidence to support their argument that the rent they are setting for the property is “market rent” and not above that.

If I put my property on the market for rent, if no one comes to view it, there's a problem, perhaps it's above market rent. If 10 people make an offer to rent my house, that shows that it's around market rent.

Here it is from the act, taken from another thread
“market rent”, in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling, means the rent which a willing tenant not already in occupation would give and a willing landlord would take for the dwelling"
"
.

 

[stormy]

Good to see a light being shone on the dodgy register in the Business Post


In one example, in Donaghmede, Dublin 13, checking comparables for a two-bedroom A2-rated apartment of 78 square metres in a build-to-rent (BTR) scheme, that is currently renting for €2,713 per month shows ten RTB examples, all recorded at exactly €1,635 per month. That represents a gap of roughly 40 per cent between the current rent in the scheme and the level implied by the RTB register. The database entry for each comparable also records zero bed spaces, an obvious error, highlighting potential data-quality issues.

Who's going to provide the touted new supply if achievable rates are 40% below the actual market rate?

Link to article here

 

[Greenbook]

all recorded at exactly €1,635 per month.

Very likely cost rentals.

Cost rentals are very handy for the RTB - inflate tenancy and landlord figures and, now, keep rents down.

 

[Wavelly]

In one example, in Donaghmede, Dublin 13, checking comparables for a two-bedroom A2-rated apartment of 78 square metres in a build-to-rent (BTR) scheme, that is currently renting for €2,713 per month shows ten RTB examples, all recorded at exactly €1,635 per month.

Yep, these are all cost rentals.

 

[JamieB_]

They need to flag the type of rent setting of each of the records returned. Whether it was first letting. Ne tenancy with rent reset. 2% increase or number of years the increase covered. Whether it is a controlled rent or a new market rent. Any other reason, eg cost rental, that the rent has been supressed. And they need to allow the public to access the full dataset to keep the RTB honest too.

 

[Greenbook]

Article here from Michael Powell estate agent in Cork saying exactly the same thing we have been saying here - the Register is fundamentally flawed because it uses old rent controlled properties as comparables. He suggests that only properties newly rented within the last six months should appear.

Plus there is a huge amount of administration involved.

 

[Greenbook]

This is from a podcast by A&L Goodbody a firm of large solicitors.

Michael Powell is right. The rent setting administration is huge

"So just to run through what this looks like in practice, for any new tenancy created after1 March 26, landlords must provide the tenant and the RTB with, the previous rent andthe date it was last set, an explanation of the new rent and how it was calculated, the RTB reference number for the previous tenancy, and the rent and reference number fo rthree comparable dwellings that might meet the matching criteria we just outlined. Forrent reviews served on or after the same date, the landlords must also include, a statement confirming the new rent does not exceed market rent, rent information andRTB reference number for three relevant comparables, the dwellings floor area, and it's BER where this is applicable.A copy of the rent review notice must also be sent to the RTB on the same day as the tenant, which is important to note."

 

[Greenbook]

The Solicitors also say

"And then transparency is also ramping up significantly. Between the rent register and Revenue data sharing, the residential sector will be operating under a level of oversight we haven't seen before. So compliance is no longer just a legal obligation. It's actually becoming a key part of asset management strategy. So a single misstep in a rent review notice can now carry meaningful legal and financial consequences"

 

[Mocame]

Interesting article in the Dublin Inquirer says that the RTB has no powers to enforce these rules: https://www.dublininquirer.com/rtb-...wer-rent-if-investigators-spot-illegal-hikes/

 

[Greenbook]

The article says that the landlord can be fined €15,000

 

[Greenbook]

Undated letter embedded in the article from the RTB to the Housing Agency. It is here

While there is no date on it, it must be relatively recent as it is written by Rosemary Steen but is before the June 25 announcement of the new system. It is very clear from the letter that there was never any intention to abolish rent control. Lots of references to a new system of rent control.

 

[bipped]

Undated letter embedded in the article from the RTB

That letter makes pretty depressing reading for any landlord. There’s two mentions saying to “ensure that landlords understand their obligations and that tenants understand their rights” and three of “illegal evictions”. The whole tone of the letter is that landlords need to be constantly monitored, controlled, curtailed, punished. It’s disturbing that the state has such a zealous attitude towards snaring and penalising landlords.

 

[Greenbook]

That letter makes pretty depressing reading for any landlord.

You are 100% correct there. It is.

The RTB no longer regard themselves as a neutral regulator adjudicating disputes and making sure that both landlords and tenants follow the rules. They are a police force policing landlords who are scum basically.

 

[Greenbook]

Quote from one of the many articles around about the Wexford NoTs

"Sinn Féin’s spokesperson for housing Eoin Ó Broin told us that greater oversight is needed in the sector."

This policing isn't going to end anytime soon. It will increase.

What a business to be involved in!

 

[Sr. Tayto]

We have seen that the complexity of current RPZ rules can lead to non-compliance inotherwise compliant landlords who are registered with the RTB. From our experience, somelandlords find that rent setting in an RPZ can be very confusing due to changes to regulationsintroduced in recent years. For example, many landlords do not understand the HICP ratewhich results in miscalculations of rent increases.



Any changes to the current RPZ system must allow sufficient time and resources for an orderly transition and communications plan to ensure that landlords understand their obligations, andthat tenants understand their rights.



The complexity of the rules can also impact on the compliance and investigation process.Further changes, depending on their nature, may increase the complexity and time taken to assess breaches of RPZ rules by RTB investigator



Well, how'd all that go then!

 

[Sr. Tayto]

That letter makes pretty depressing reading for any landlord. There’s two mentions saying to “ensure that landlords understand their obligations and that tenants understand their rights” and three of “illegal evictions”. The whole tone of the letter is that landlords need to be constantly monitored, controlled, curtailed, punished. It’s disturbing that the state has such a zealous attitude towards snaring and penalising landlords.

Era, it's not that bad really, tone wise.