But you'll definitely be named, shamed and fined at the very least.
You'll also have to refund your tenants the overcharged rent and you'll be locked in to a permanently lower rent.
But you'll definitely be named, shamed and fined at the very least.I really don't think this will be the case at least not based on rent setting alone.
Have you tried the register? It doesn't actually compare the accommodation around the eircode per se. Size is one of the main driver. A smaller apartment in the same area can come with a higher average rent because the data is based on another town more densely built but also historically more expensive. I input the same eircode but different sizes.Is it? I reality its all about location, location, location. In a city ever a few hundred meters can make a difference if its near a luau stop or a commercial area.
But what difference does that make now? You have to follow the register. I'm noticing with one of my own places the rent could be significantly higher with G BER rating than it's existing B3. Given the rent will be a benchmark for 6 years (and probably longer), the incentive is for me to remove the double glazing and replace with single glazed, unsealed aluminium windows (amongst other ber reducing measures). It's beyond silly.Is it? I reality its all about location, location, location. In a city ever a few hundred meters can make a difference if its near a luau stop or a commercial area.
Exactly. Same consideration here if I was to relet. Hopefully the units with 0 zero bed spaces are a mistake. Otherwise, I'd also be removing the beds.And I am wondering if I should brick off part of my apartment to make it 10 square metres smaller and get 500 more a month
The real problem is that per the Register 'market rent' equals RPZ rent and because of the RPZs rents are all over the placeIt's beyond silly.
The Register is way too easy for the RTB to manipulate and very difficult to prove that it's being done.I'm 90% sure they changed my results from yesterday, I can confirm later when I'm in work. They have dropped a high price property from my results.
As I wrote inBut looking at the Register, that would be a huge red flag for the RTB as €1,500 seems to be about the rough average.
I agree entirely, these are not market rents. You are correct there.I feel a landlord would be justified in ignoring all the rent figures returned by the rent register for tenancies more than 12 months old (which can be deduced from the registration id), since any property under RPZ for a number of years will not meet the RTB's own definition of market rent:
This Register is to trap the little guy.
They will be A rateds though, so possibly notOn the plus side, that means that some market rents make into into the register, they can then be used as reference for everyone else.
You are right, that is exactly what the government is trying to do. So much for losing the right to vacant possession in return for the right to rent at market rates.this feels like a Govt effort to drive down rents if the 'market rent' is effectively whatever RTB decide it is and/or if current rents incl those that have been in RPZ for years and those in affordable rental schemes are included in the data.
Cost rentals are in the Register I'm pretty sure as they are in the landlord and tenancy quarterly figures. AHB social housing may be included as well, who is to know.
Cost rentals are starting to look expensive and over priced based on the rents I'm seeing on the Register!
Market rent is the amount a tenant would reasonably pay a landlord for a similar home in a comparable area at the time
the tenancy begins.