Zoned out of this mad debate on the airwaves yesterday, the gist I did get was these are rent a room types. So a licence rather than a normal rental.
RTB Rent Register
- Thread starter Sr. Tayto
- Start date
You could pay an estate agents with hundreds of recent new rentals on their books to provide that information. That would be trivial for them to get. They have access to the most recent information so their info on market rents is infinitely more accurate than the RTBs stale, polluted data. I can see this being advertised as a service soon enough. Or you could just let the estate agent rent your property out for you. Let them put together the supporting information before setting the correct market rent for each new letting.
The RTB tool is just plain unreliable for such a purpose.
In that screenshot you posted its also impossible that a market rent in a rising market is lower than previous rents for comparable properties in an area. Again evidence that they are away with the fairies.
My new agent, an auctioneer, is on the ball with this. Is the type very in with lobbying etc. My agent also offers the full service, so no more RTB for me. Thank goodness (but I do like to know the actual rules so this debate has been somewhat helpful)
Initially confusing, it will all settle down now and the RTB will actually reflect market rents soon enough. Another landlord I converse with on the same street as mine was also worried., I sent him off the DAFT lists, plus the RTB lists and he's happy now to go to market rent having been a bit unsure, (renovated after tenants moved out voluntarily) . Not everyone my age is good with getting data out from the likes of DAFT etc. So I was happy to oblige. Plus I told him if he needs to justify he can use my actual market rent right now because it's actually a real market rent as it's current.
Of course they could not amend a Determination Order as that is issued by the District Court. But surely they could have written to the District Court judge explaining that an error had been made and asking him to issue an amended order.
Presumably Terry Gorry got stuck because the RTB were uncooperative and would not do that.
You can bet that if the mistake had been to the tenant's detriment, the RTB would have made efforts to get the order rectified.
And the end of the screenshot says that you determine market rent using 3 properties from the Rent Register.
No mention of Daft, agents etc.
You can clearly see the RTBs view, the Rent Register is what determines market rent.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? As a landlord I followed that case.
- no a Determination Order is not issued by the District court
- Determination Orders are issued by the RTB and are legally binding *
- in this case it was contested to court, which found the Determination order was invalid as it had the wrong address on it
- again, which I said earlier, the RTB can not amend their Determination orders, is that stupid, yes, but the RTB said they have no legal mechanism to do so, that the legislation does not allow for it, you are conjecturing that the RTB were uncoperative
- Gorry found out this which is why he couldn't get the Determination Order amended
- it's similar to say an arrest warrant that has John Brien Malahide on it instead of Sean O'Brien Malahide
* pointless though if you have to enforce it, because you have to go to court for that, but we are not arguing that here today
You are exploring a lot of theoretical points here. It's interesting, but until actual dispute cases reach the RTB, we won't know what interpretations are made. I feel the key point is that if you deviate from what is clearly justifiable on the basis of the RTB Rent Register, you face a risk of a tenant disputing the rent OR the RTB running an automated process to detect potential deviations. In the abense of any prior cases to refer to as precedent, the landlord steps into the unknown. It should not be this way!
No, I am not.
My mistake. I genuinely thought that the issue was with the order issued by the Court. If the tenant doesn't leave after RTB order, the landlord must go to court. While I followed the case, I must have misremembered what had happened. I thought that the problem was at the court order level, not the RTB order level.
I genuinely wonder whether the RTB would have been more co-operative if the mistake had disadvantaged the tenant. It seems extraordinary that it can't rectify its own typos without legislation in place saying that it can.
That is the issue and until we have a case we just don't know.
But the landlord is stepping into the unknown with the laws stacked against the landlord. The landlord and only the landlord must justify the rent and if the tenant complains, it will be to the biased RTB. If it is an investigation by the RTB, presumably the landlord is at risk of criminal prosecution.
The Rent Register with its low rents and limited outcomes is there for a reason and that is to keep rents low. The RTB will use it as a policing tool.
Nonsense, clearly demonstrated by my RTB lists in 3 cities with market rents which are not low. The ones on the lists that are low are clearly RPZ types. Or dives.
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 528
It is
The definition is:
So, the rent is what a willing tenant (who doesn't already occupy the property) and a willing landlord would agree on in exchange for vacant possession. The occupancy requirement is to cover the situation where a tenant might overpay due to an emotional attachment to the property.
Sub-section a) means that the actual terms of the tenancy have to be taken into account and the register doesn't contain any info with regard to that.
It doesn't have to be in the same LEA at all. The requirement is a "comparable" area.
@Bronte
You have used a top rate rent in your new rental. You believe that if you are challenged by the tenant or the RTB you will be able to justify the rent and you will win your case. Possibly you are correct.
My view is that this is very risky. The last thing the government and the RTB can afford is Sinn Fein etc. howling at them about what their new rules have caused.
The rent register skews low. It has other issues. It was put in place and is a tool in the RTBs armoury to keep a lid on rents.
You've taken a chance which I would not take and good luck to you.
Also might be good to address that using that tool it is not in any way possible to determine market rent at a given time because of stale data, as well as values for controlled rents. It cant give current market rent. The tool is not fit for purpose.
Well I hope that event clears up some of the 'discussions' we've been having on here !
Landlord and Tenant Law in Ireland
Join our online session to get the lowdown on Landlord and Tenant Law—know your rights and avoid hassle!
www.eventbrite.ie
(no affiliation to this btw guys and actually I forgot I'm going to Scotland this weekend so I'll probably miss the talk)
Zero chance have I taken or would I. I'm in the two year rule and don't need to do any proof of market rents madness.
Are you actually really worried? What is your current rent, has the tenant left voluntarily and what rent do you want to go to. What are 10 comparable rents? I'm totally lost as to what it is that is bothering you.
Nobody seems to have focused on sub-section a) which is surprising.
Presumably it is reasonable to interpret "the other terms of the tenancy" to to include those newly required by statute.
In setting an appropriate market rent it is necessary to have regard to the owner's loss of ability to obtain vacant possession value for his or her property in all but extreme circumstances and the possibility of significant capital loss. In comparing with historical rents under the old rules - where vacant possession was realisable at will - this additional encumbrance and risk obviously requires a (very) significant increase over historical rents to obtain a current reasonable market rent.
The owner must also have regard to the promise that (absent a change in Housing Minister, or a lot of bad headlines over a few weeks) he or she should get the opportunity to reset the rent to market in 6 years time. This has to be offset against the previous situation in which temporary RPZs may or may not be removed entirely.
Looked at from the willing tenant's perspective, he or she logically must have regard to significantly increased security of tenure. This is valuable, and obviously implies a market rent higher than historic rents.
The most crucial bit in the legislation is this bit:
having regard to
Having regard to a) doesn't actually mean anything?
For b) is also very vague, the law doesn't state that you must set your rent to be at the rent on the rent register, you just have to look at the registry. Whoever drafted this hadn't a clue. Presumably the best legal brains in the country.
How would this work if there was a court case.
Size: Is 30m2 comparable to 40m2, what if the only ones on the registry are 40m2 + and you've a 30m2. Would it have to be within 1 m 2 of the registry ....
Type: that's more clear. A 2 bed is not a one bed. But what about a single bedroom v double v king (some doubles have the bed up against the wall and just about able to get into the bed. That would be a single to me and a luxury to others.
Character: like what is this? No definition. All I can think of is a 3 bed semi D versus a 5 bed detached being non comparable. It's all so very subjective.
LEA: Where did this come out of? I suspect the RTB didn't know how to do a comparison table by area, and they could only do it by using the LEA's. Comparable is then X street and the surrounding 10 streets and you might be in 2 or 3 different LEA's.
And at the end of all this, the whole exercise is actually pointless. Because market rent is what a tenant will pay.