You are 100% right there. And the RTB site is full of currently controlled rents too. These have no relationship at all to current market rents. How could they? And then there is the obvious situation where in a rising market the market rent today is going to be higher than the last property let before and so on.
RTB Rent Register
- Thread starter Sr. Tayto
- Start date
I finishing my code replicating the RTB rent register lookup algorithm
(algorithm here: https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/rtb-rent-register.243258/page-20#post-1991965)
First I scraped fresh data for the Firhouse - Bohernabreena area of Dublin (2/3/4/5 beds, all BER ratings, 70-140sqm). Result 231 houses. Interestingly my own property not found. And I struggle to imagine there wouldn't be more rented houses in this area of Dublin.
Then, I ran my new 'RTB lookup' code to find comparables for a 3-bed 90sqm Exempt BER house.
I included a few stats. Browing through the data I don't see anything remarkable. Naturally there are higher rents outside the top 10, but with considerably lower match scores, e.g. the highest rent had 6 bedrooms.
(algorithm here: https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/rtb-rent-register.243258/page-20#post-1991965)
First I scraped fresh data for the Firhouse - Bohernabreena area of Dublin (2/3/4/5 beds, all BER ratings, 70-140sqm). Result 231 houses. Interestingly my own property not found. And I struggle to imagine there wouldn't be more rented houses in this area of Dublin.
Then, I ran my new 'RTB lookup' code to find comparables for a 3-bed 90sqm Exempt BER house.
- It found the same "top 10" as the RTB rent register for the reference property.
- The ordering of the Top 10 was slightly different. I believe that is because when match score is the same, one of the other sort criteria is the Tenancy Commencement date. I don't have access to this to other than deriving it from the RTB registration number, which may not be entirely accurate.
I included a few stats. Browing through the data I don't see anything remarkable. Naturally there are higher rents outside the top 10, but with considerably lower match scores, e.g. the highest rent had 6 bedrooms.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, not actually moot - these details must be given to the tenant on the rent setting/review form. I don't see on what basis you can put in details that are not actually factual (like the house being in a LEA it is not actually in).
It's a requirement to include your "printout from the RTB Rent Register". The printout includes all the inputs. As @patfert1 has said, the RTB Register Query is being logged and the reference number is on the print out that needs to be uploaded. It's all well set up for digital enforcement of the rules.
This printout must be uploaded to the RTB website on the day the notice is issued (otherwise notice is not valid).
These have been mandatory over 15 years now (came in 1Jan09). Protected properties are exempt. The latest legislation means SEAI now shares info with RTB so they will be automating enforcement of this also presumably.
Complaining about them is a fools errand. Things that are blatantly incorrect just don't get fixed, irrespective of what the law says. E.g. take Terry Gorry who was issued a determination order for the wrong address (video). The RTB wouldn't correct it. What is he to do in that situation? Bear in mind he is a solicitor, he retained council and was in court several times over the matter. In the end he got lucky at the tenant left of their own volition. The point is the RTB messed up, and wouldn't rectify it.
Overall I think we are in agreement anyway, I'm just trying to flag how unnecessarily difficult the whole thing has become. To set rent now, I think you basically need to put the correct details on the rent review form, and then pay an estate agent to verify you are charging market rent for backup when the tenant disputes the rent. That rent could easily be double the amount of highest rent from the official register, yet still lower than market rent! The whole thing is truly a shambles.
And stupid things as well. If you upload it the following day to the RTB it is invalid, end of story. It won't matter that the rent is actually less than true market rate.
The whole thing is set up to trap the landlord and make things as absolutely difficult as possible for him.
This sums it up well
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 528
Does the query have to happen on the day as the notice as well?
For example, if you spend Monday getting all the forms ready and in sealed envelops, and then you post everything (including sending emails) on Tuesday, is that valid?
Could you check the register for a week or 2 before the NoT is issued hoping to get a reasonable set of results.
That's a good point. It's not explicit on this it seems. Guidance here.
It suggests it must be contemporaneous, but not explicit it needs to be the same day. However, you must upload it, with the rent review, to RTB on the same day its served to tenant.
This is getting silly now:
Let me take say Limerick, let the property be in city center, where it's right beside two/three electoral areas (same applies to other cities). Put in the address of the top rents you find on daft in 3 areas close to where your rental is. I would suggest that any property withing 3 miles, or even 5 miles of city center is the city center. Print off your results, highlight the top three in each area. Job done.
On what basis can the RTB make any argument that you're not showing current RTB market rents.
Let's go with the argument argument that one's new rent is €2000. And you find only three close to this. say €1900, €1800 & €1500. What argument against you could the RTB deny you €2000 rent? More importantly on what legal basis can they make you charge less. If they did want to so suggest, which rent would they be able to pick from the 3 I've suggested?
Let's go with one electoral area in a town, where everything is RPZ and you've a spanking new one bed for letting at 1K, RTB has rents of 600/650/700, all RPZ. Same question.
Let's go with one electoral area in a town, where everything is RPZ and you've a spanking new one bed for letting at 1K, RTB has rents of 600/650/700, all RPZ. Same question.
Does the legislation actually say this? That for comparison the rentals must be in the same LEA?
If a tenant challenges the rent, they will take a case to the RTB and the RTB will decide if the rent is excessive or not. So of course the anti-landlord RTB will decide that the rent is excessive. You lose the case.
You can of course appeal to the High Court, but that will cost a huge amount of money. If you lose there you may have to pay the RTB's legal costs as well. The High Court in these type of cases I believe generally rules that the tribunal is the expert in the area and should be followed.
So, in theory the RTB is constrained by legal rules. In reality, it can largely do as it pleases.
These actions of the RTB may of course be challenged by a large landlord like IRES Reit who can afford to go to the Supreme Court.
The RTB have the little guy trapped though, which is the intention.
They cannot argue it's excessive, is that actually in the legislation? Does it have a definition. How is 2K excessive compared to 1.9K? In any case you can prove the current market rents by reference to DAFT.
Market rent is not defined. You just have to have regard to the RTB rent register. Which means diddly squat.
Where are you going with your jump to the Supreme court? This thread is bonkers. What exactly are we arguing here, that we cannot charge market rents? When quite clearly we can. I'm now at market rent. The only landlords not at market rents are those caught in the RPZ rules, but slowly those too will change, as mine did.
They can challenge the rent, they have the right to take a case to the RTB. Tenants can take any silly case they want to the RTB.
You as the landlord will then have to prove that the rent is not excessive. You must prove that. The tenants don't have to prove it is excessive. You have to prove it is fair. You set the rent, you must justify it.
The RTB tribunal decides. They are anti-landlord. You can appeal to a second RTB tribunal if you lose in the first. If you fail there (likely you will), your next port and only port of call is the High Court. That is the path set out in the legislation.
Keep in mind the tenants can also challenge you based on an error you made in the rent setting form, the documentation attached, the delivery etc. All valid grounds to have the rent set aside, even if the rate of the rent itself isn't too high.
The thread isn't bonkers. It is the rules themselves that are bonkers and completely stacked all the way against landlords.
A landlord would be very naive and trusting to expect justice or a fair hearing. The system is deliberatetly and intentionally stacked against us.
High Court, not Supreme Court.
Well their tool does not show market rent. By definition they dont show market rent as it is stale data and nothing to do with the current market at all, not to mention that controlled rent, which is mostly what is on their tool is not market rent either. So if they want you to get market rent, it cant be got using their provided tool, so you are totally justified in not using it and if they pull you up on it its quite easy to state your case that it does not in any way give market rent.
Prices on daft.ie are "asking prices". Now, we know these are in practice tenants won't have much negotiation power to reduce these asking prices, but at the point of advertising they are not actual rents. In case of a dispute, the burden of proof might be on you to show these became actual rents and there is no way to do that. I think if I wanted to raise rent beyond what I can get from the rent register, I would get an independent valuation first and foremost, and I would get support adverts from daft.ie, include all of these in the rent review with a written justification. For example, noting that the top 3 rents shown from the rent register are for tenancies apparently established in <dates...can be derived from the registration number>and therefore out-of-date and therefore superseded by the other data you provide. It's all nuts, since supply and demand establish a fair rent level, not a register of past rents.
Let's go with fact. I prefect to stick with facts and the law.
- yes the RTB messed up
- yes the RTB were incompetent
- yes it's unreal the RTB couldn't get the basics of the address correct
But this is incorrect:
The point is the RTB messed up, and wouldn't rectify it.
The RTB could not modify the Determination Order as the legislation does not allow them to do so. That is the fault of the legislators. (no doubt they've fixed that in the current absolutely mess of the new legislation - lol. )
What I cannot figure out:
- who supplied the address and is the error there
- has the RTB changed it's procedures to ensure that they do not get something as fundamental as an address wrong where it is crucial to a landlord
- was the judge correct in throwing out the case on this basis, or was he using any excuse he could find, it wasn't really a material error
- could Terry Gorry sue the RTB for losing his right to evict because of the incompetence of the RTB, I suspect he's better things to do with his time
Will be interesting to see how the rent register will work when the proposed garden units are offered on the rental market initially. If none exist on the register, will the RTB have to accept the Daft or EA advertised rent and will similar units around the country be ok for comparison.
Absolutely nuts that you have to go to all this effort to produce 'market rent' - when the reality is it is what a willing tenant will pay to rent the house.
Also, absolutely nuts that after doing all this you may still end up spending time and money in the RTB justifying your choice or defending some slip in the documentation or the procedure.
Does any other industry face rules and traps like these?
Whatever. But let's go back on your argument. 'EXCESSIVE' - I think I may have found something pertinent.
Jamie do you like the highlighted bit in yellow? None of the downloads I did for 3 cities stated they were registered in the last 3 months. But more imporantly the RTB states
- you can use the RTB site for setting rent, not you must.
- whereas the other items are clearly listed as you must
- it also says similar size, not exact size (to the poster who mentioned size earlier and getting a criminal conviction)
- similar type, one bed v two bed I guess
- similar character, that could be anything, but let's get real, most 3 bed semi d's are similar, whereas a three bed loft apartment is not 'similar'.
- crucially that list doesn't mention must be the same electoral area
Last edited: