Funny how i don’t remember any minimum rent laws back in 2009-2012 ..I was a landlord then (4 apts) and no matter what price I put on Daft it was the prospective tenants who “told me” what they were prepared to pay…sold them all when I got into positive equity as Irish people and the Government seem to hate landlords (maybe it back to the English taking our land)..but I had apts destroyed so many times, with the attitude “sure you must be rich with 4 apts”..the PRTB site actually say they find in favour of the tennant in 75% of cases !!.. and the Tax is never ending ..sooo glad I sold up and got out.

@Cian O Donoghue: Because the landlord SAID he was selling, Completely different thing.

@Ken Collins: yeah I got my house valued recently I was asking the valuer who was buying houses was it buy to let and she said no. That actually very few people are buying to let anymore the law is totally stacked in tenants favour so not worth your while.

@Ken Collins: and then there are the landlords that demand a ‘cash in hand payment’ on top of the lease amount, paid in full, a year in advance. My current landlord is charging me €100 per month above the figure on the lease. So when I moved in had to pay a months rent €1700 a months deposit €1700 and €1200 cash payment for the ‘top up’. A year later he chased me for the €1200 top up payment when I had been there a year.

@Rob Cahill: not really. To the best of my knowledge the property has to go on the market within 3 months. Otherwise the tenant has a case to bring to the Prtb. Doesn’t even give the landlord a lot of time to get the property ready for sale

@Ken Collins: Part 2: Then this year, because he can only increase the rent by 4% he’s upped the ‘top up’ to €1500. I can’t ask for anything to be fixed or replaced or I’ll be turfed out. I’ve had to buy a microwave, vacuum cleaner, tumble dryer since I moved in and I’ve had to pay to have the dishwasher and cook top to be fixed. And now it looks like he’s going to turf me out under the ‘I need the house for a family member’ even though I have never missed a rent payment in 2 years. Just bloody great being a renter in Ireland!

@Ken Collins: “Supply and demand… Simple” It’s not that simple though is it? A home is not exactly a packet of peanuts is it, where when their price goes up you just go without them. It’s virtually impossible to be a contributing member of society without a home.

@Ken Collins: well said. Landlords need to get together to take a constitutional challenge to all these stupid laws and regulations which are infringing on private property rights.

@Elizabeth Gregory: this sounds insane. Out of interest are you going to report to the prtb if he does try to kick you out?

@Ramsey Ramsey: @Ramsey Ramsey but then I’ll have no reference when I apply for my next place. I’m renting directly from the landlord so there’s no real estate agent. Basically he/she can do what they like. I have an adult disabled son so there are virtually no landlords that will rent to me because I’m on SW. When I saw the house 2 years ago, I had to fight to get it and basically offer more than anyone else. And when I moved in the house was filthy from the previous tenants. They left rotten food in the fridge and filthy sheets and pillows on the beds. The oven hadn’t been cleaned in years. There were dirty dishes in the sink and broken furniture. I just had to suck it up.

@Ken Collins: If it was simply “supply and demand” things would indeed be simple. But it’s not.
183,000 vacant properties around the country, no social housing being built, NAMA sitting on more property, vulture funds/”investors” block buying new builds, in many cases for cash, landlords with “loopholes” to use to force tenants out to put up rent. And you think it’s simple.

@Elizabeth Gregory: Terrible situation but the law is on your side completely. Stop paying him any cash now. Report him to the PRTB and the HSE about him charging you cash on top. If you have proof of cash payments it would be better. Spend the cash on security cameras to record anything he does. I am a landlord and this carry on is sickening

@Elizabeth Gregory: I don’t know how you are managing that on SW… Anyways, hopefully you have receipts of all payments given out, Including all of the appliances you bought etc… I’d be taking them with me too when I was going. Don’t give him any more top ups. If it’s not on the contract then don’t pay it, that’s like going in to the shop and picking up a bottle of milk and going you know what i’ll just give you 20euro for that. He know’s he is making an eejit of you. Start documenting everything (EVERYTHING!) from now and make him the eejit.

:)

@Elizabeth Gregory: hope you can report him /her to PTRB and / or Revenue!!

@Ken Collins: If legislation is so “pro tennant” that it’s not even affordable to be a landlord, how is it then, that you need to pay 800 a month just for a half decent room in shared accomodation in Dublin (resulting rents of at 2400 a month for a 3 bedroom appartment) or have to pay 150 a week as a student in Galway for a bed in a twin bedroom in an appartment with 4 such rooms, resulting in a rent of 4800 a month for a 4 bedroom house (as seen today in Galway). My heart is bleeding for the poor landlords of this country. Must be so hard to make a living. The 4% cap is still well above the inflation rate and more than you would get with any savings account. Jacking up prices as much as possible and excusing oneself with it being just a matter of the market, while so many are homeless, is like selling water for a fortune during a drought to people with no access to it. Shrugging critics off with a grin and a “sorry but it’s just the market, you know”.

@Steve Austin: or maybe its because land lords draw it upon themselves with some of the dodgy stunts they pull.

@Paul: my daughter works and my brother/siblings help out. If it wasn’t for them we’d be on the streets. But if I stop paying the top up we’ll be thrown out! The landlord will make the excuse it’s needed for a family member. I’m in a catch 22. The slightest wiff of non cooperation and we’ll be given 30 days notice.

@Elizabeth Gregory: You just don’t move out and dispute his claims with PRTB. He can’t kick you out and if make a claim his family need it he still has to pay back all the cash you paid. They also won’t believe his family suddenly need it at the same point you referred the case to PRTB. Keep giving him the RA cheques though. Why should your daughter have to work for him to avoid his responsibilities or tax. You are in a very strong position.

@Tina Pusse: None of what you said changes the facts of being a landlord. Firstly every €1 increase they get 48c. Then a tenant can just stop paying the rent and it can take a year to get them out without ever getting it back.
If you want cheap rent you better make it affordable for a landlord without financial ruin as a constant threat. So the fact you don’t care about landlords stability really means you don’t care for tenants either.

@Tina Pusse: Tina I completely get where you’re coming from and it’s such a common attitude but sadly completely wrong. The rents are very high but for the majority of landlords over 50% of the rental income received goes in tax, 60% goes to pay off the mortgage and 10% to pay service charge and repairs. So for most landlords it is actually costing them money every year to look after a property and not worth the hassle. The more that leave the sector the more the supply diminishes. If you don’t believe look at some of the independent reports the govt commissioned on the sector.

@Rob Cahill: Or the tenants were just using the RTB to buy time….

@Kal Ipers: Look, I don’t want “cheap” rents, but “fair rents”. Letting rooms in one’s own house, for example, is already tax free for up to 12 000 Euro annually, and for other properties, to my knowledge, rents are not in general taxed at 42%. First of all you have a 75% deduction of your mortgage interest first (which means, in fact, that the state subsidises your mortgage, this will even increase to 100% until 2020). Then your first 3175 of rental income are free and then there is another threshold where you pay only 20%. Hence the 42% only apply to rent that are already high, and they don’t apply for the full rent but just for the portion of it that is above the threshold. This is all quite generous tax wise. A tenant, for example who lives in Dublin during the week for a fortune to work there but then has another mortgage or rent to pay for at his family home in the town where his spouse works (and more and more people have to live like that now, or alternatively commute 4 hours a day), cannot claim that second rent anywhere as income related expenses, they just have to suck it up. Incomes have not really increased in the last 5 years yet rents of new tenancies have more than doubled in some areas… it’s not the fault of a new tenant that you had a bad experience with another one 3 years ago, and you’d like to “offset” it. If you are scared of non paying tenants you can give them 6 months contracts to manage the risk and increase the rent by very small amounts just to prevent Part 4 tenancies from happening. It’s doesn’t have t be done by sudden excessive rent increases.

@Sean: The first 3175 rental income are tax free as far as I know. So somebody letting a one bedroom appartment for 650 a month can do that for half a year, without paying any tax on it. Then there is another 20% for smaller rental income and also relief on mortgage interest. Of course rental income is not identical with rent, but why should it be? It is still a decent one in areas were rents are so high that people complain about it and regulation is introduced. You won’t hear tenants complain in Dundalk or Ballinasloe, they only tend to complain where they are so incredibly high, that they prevent people on average incomes to live in dignity.

@Tina Pusse: of the 2400 you speak off 1200 is more than likely the mortage and 40% is tax the 10% is there for the landlord

@Tina Pusse: You assume LL has no other income in your calculations. 100% mortgage interest claim back is if you have a HAP tenant only. You forgot PRSI. You cannot give a rolling 6 month tenancy. Tenants have Part 4 protections after 6 months continuous occupation. You cannot increase the rent on an existing tenancy more than once in 12 months.

@Tina Pusse: Landlords are likely the only business that can make a loss but still have to pay tax. During the recent recession, many landlords found they had to pay hefty tax bills on rental income even though the rental income didn’t come close to covering the mortgage repayments. A loss on rental income can be carried forward to the next tax year but it cannot be offset against tax on other income e.g. PAYE. Mortgage interest is clearly a business expense and should be treated as such as it is for commercial landlords. Reducing that to 75% was the straw that broke the camels back for many and marked the difference between struggling and exiting the sector. It is reverting to 100% but it is too late for many. Unfairly, institutional landlords pay close to zero tax but charge top dollar.

@Is Mise jay: Well, the tenant then pays your mortgage plus something on top – hence (s)he pays your house and its maintenance and at the end of that process you can either sell it debt free or from now on really make good money with letting it out. Letting is not supposed to be very profitable WHILE you still have a mortgage on it. The money is made mainly afterwards.

@Sean: Well, here I agree, private landlords shouldn’t be disadvantaged by tax compared with institutional ones. However, even someone who bought at the wrong time in Dublin, Cork or Galway and had to get through a time when rent was lower than what they had to invest in their property per month, should by now be well out of that hole. But a frequent unfair calculation I see is that the momentary investments costs are only offset against the rent, without considering that while rent covers those, even if there is not a Euro left at the end of a month, the proportion to which that house really belongs to you and not to your bank has increased with every month. Hence its selling value is much bigger than it was before the tenenancy.

@Tina Pusse: What you are saying is true. Part of the mortgage is set against the capital so that even if the landlord does not make a profit his equity in the property grows by the month. There are two problems with that though. One is that the value of the property may fall. An apartment purchased in 2007 for 325K is still only worth 240K so an increased equity stake in something that is worth significantly less can make the venture futile. (I know this because I have one such apartment that I tried unsuccessfully to sell for 240K last year.) The second point is that if a landlord has to wait for the mortgage to clear before making any profit that does not make property investment attractive compared to other investments and disincentivises entrants and incumbents to the sector.

@Paraic McDonagh: aw poor landlords can’t descriminate against people receiving rent allowance, how sad.

@Fred Jensen: In Germany they have rent controls, and what happened?

Get outta here ya Fianna Gael spoofer!

@Fred Jensen: Uh, I’m not sure you’re aware of this but the government is paying 1.5bn a year to private landlords to house social welfare recipients. I’m pretty sure that counts as a market intervention.

@Fred Jensen: Eh, there were no rent controls or private landlords in the Soviet Union. All accommodation was state-provided and everyone was entitled to such. Sure, money was handed over under the table alright, but that was to get a bigger and better apartment, rather than one of the communal apartments. You’re comparing apples and turnips here: different time, different society, different economics, different politics, different availability, different levels of freedom and choice, etc. If you refused your accommodation suspicion immediately fell on you and were suddenly under the watchful eyes of the KGB. Try compare to something more relevant.

Yet again we have another rent-seeking tenant’s advocacy group making extravagant claims without presenting any evidence. It would be nice for once to have an evidence based discussion on this issue.

@Tina Pusse: That’s a hugely naive and contrived scenario. The reality is more like: Your restaurant business just about survived the recession. You had no choice but to keep it open to keep up repayments on the business loan or face bankruptcy. Just when you finally thought that you were about to get your head above water and maybe actually even make a profit, the government has introduced new legislation that has forced restaurants to provide a more upmarket menu. You must join the restaurateurs register at a fee and tax rates have increased. Added to your problems, the 8 people at table 7 are back again tonight and are demanding food, even though they have visited every weekend since last Christmas but haven’t paid once. The law states that you still have to serve them.

@Paraic McDonagh: Its worse. Diners have damaged the restaurant. Cost of repairs far outweigh the bill. The restaurant register board says that you’ll have to chase them through the courts at your own expense, where you might get the money back at 5 a week over 10 years. Ah, the diners at table 6 who have been visiting for the last 10 years have lost their job and need state help to pay the bill. Thing is, they won’t unless you pay to bring the previously acceptable restaurant up to 2017 standards. But, unfortunately you cant claim this cost back against tax. So you need to front the money without being able to claim it back as it’s an ‘improvement’ and not a repair and if you don’t want it, you will be taken to court and will lose on discrimination grounds.

Who’d be a resteranteur, eh?

@Cian O Donoghue: Exactly.

@Paraic McDonagh: Rent caps are only in place in areas were rents have exploded beyond belief, this is not a matter of keeping your head abovw water!! A house in my neighbourhood, for example went up from 950 a month in 2012 to now 2100 a month – more than 100% in 5 years. Now they complain about the rent cap, but a 4% of 2100 is still a very significant rent increase. Also new schemes were introduced that allows letting rooms in your house for “up to” 12000 a year tax free. Which other income nowadays is tax free?

@Cian O Donoghue: If it’s so cumbersome just sell it. Funnily somebody will buy it at a very high price, just to let it again, so it can’t be that bad after all. In countries with a stable property market without big bubbles, everybody knows that property is a long term investment that normally only starts to bring in a good return once the mortgage is paid off. And what you say about damage goes the ther way round too. If your lack of investment in maintenance damages the tenants property (through a burst pipe or a leaky roof), that damage it’s usually not covered in the house insurance and they have to go through the courts just as well.

@Tina Pusse: They are selling. That’s the whole point!! Less supply, greater demand. Higher prices. In other countries, landlord and tenancy legislation is more equitable. No tenant can go 18 months without paying rent. Why you think it’s landlords buying? All the reports are that the highest percentage of purchases are first time buyers. Trader ups next with second properties a distant third. These second properties also include holiday homes. You’re just throwing weak whatabouteries in now. Tenants are advised to have their own contents insurance. That’s well known. The two examples you give are erroneous as they can happen at anytime and rarely have anything to do with maintenance. They will also not be entertained in court unless you can prove negligence.

@Cian O Donoghue: But a first time buyer buying a house does not increase demand on the rental market, since the rental property he lived in before now becomes available. It’s the AirBnB’s and new fmaily homes turned into Boutique Hotels (as well as no proper regulation around vacant houses) that stress the rental market so much. I know many people who had to leave their tenancy because the couldn’t or didn’t pay the latest rent increase. They all were out within 3 months (through which they had still paid their old rent). Never heard about that 18 months rule. I am not denying that there are tenant nomades or vandalism or antisocial behaviour or crime, like in every other sector or human interaction. But the reaction to that cannot be to treat everybody like a potential criminal from the offset.
Just have a look at for how long home owners who didn’t pay their mortgages were protected from eviction. They didn’t own their houses either (anymore) and were still protected for a much longer time. Tenants in the same situation are more vulnerable in the same income situation.

@Tina Pusse: Demand is increasing due to a growing population, a net migration figure and an extension of average tenancy duration (ironically caused by rent caps) Typical average durations were approximately 3 years and is now closer to 6. A reduction in available rental stock is exasberating the issue. Changes to tenancy laws have actually made the market worse, not better. It’s not a rule, it’s how long cases generally take from first missed rent to actual eviction. I don’t see what your point about home owners and evictions has to do with the rental market?

@Tina Pusse: surely legislation should act to protect good landlords and good tenants. If a tenant can’t or won’t pay the mortgage still has to be paid. Many landlords who have been through this experience leave the sector shortly afterwards.

@Cian O Donoghue: The connection is that the state obviously legislates to manage/avoid situations in which people become suddenly homeless. And while tenants get “some” protection, they don’t get nearly as much as home owners, even if those, technically, aren’t owners anymore. You are right, in other countries it doesn’t take that long. In Germany, for example it’s a maximum of 3 months, your rent can be in arrears before your landlord can give you notice of eviction, and another 3 months to actually organise the eviction. On the other hand, typical tenancies there are very often lifetime arrangements (16 years on average, I think, which is very much distorted by the short term tenancies at the beginning of careers in bigger cities) during which rent can be increased only moderately and even if houses are sold they are usually sold with the tenancies intact. Often tenancies are even transfered from parents to children. If someone wants to sell a house vacant, they basically have to pay the tenants /give them incentives for moving out, proposing alternative accomodation for them etc. After one year, a contract becomes automatically permanent and the tenant can only be removed if he doesn’t pay rent or shows antisocial behaviour or if the landlord wants to move in himself. This give both, tenant and landlord a lot of security, but it clearly limits the possibilities of high return investments. It’s simply a “good” investment.

@Tina Pusse: But tenants get more protections than landlords. Which makes no sense. Landlords carry all the risk. Again, I’m not a LL in fact I’m a tenant but blaming landlords is a deflection from the real cause. Inept government and it’s ham fisted intervention.

@Steve Austin: He didn’t say everyone has the right to have a house, he said having a roof over one’s head should be a right, not a privilege.

@George Vladisavljevic: the state should provide houses, the private market should provide for those who want better then the state provide.

@Fluich Go Craicean: who is going to pay for the state houses? And before you say the state who is ACTUALLY going to pay for the houses. If i want a private house better than others do i just pay the balance on top of the free house price? So who pays the remainder again. Theories are great, practicalities are real.

@George Vladisavljevic: my point stands ,no one has the right to have a roof, apt,house given to them.. that’s called communism …entitled generation.

@George Vladisavljevic: I don’t think there is any problem providing roofs over peoples heads in this country as there are more than enough roofs. The problem is with the people who require the roof who also believe they have a right to demand the location of that roof.

@George Vladisavljevic: No hope of that the FG led government has consistently refused to ratify article 31 of the EU Social Charter. Article 31 refers to the right to housing.

@Dave Doyle: That article doesn’t say folks are entitled to a living place next to Mam & Dad.

@KerryBlueMike: Is that supposed to be an intelligent reply?

@George Vladisavljevic: you might feel that they are renting it or for more than the mortgage but you forget that they are taxed at 48% perhaps we are forgetting that the huge rent increases mean more tax revenue for the govt

@Cian O Donoghue: *IV

@Vic’s Burd: Its gone to minimum six year lease now.

@Paraic McDonagh: How? Just like a decent human being. Here’s how it goes. You tell your tenants, that you would soon like to renovate. Ask them what there plans were and if they were considering moving out soon anyway (in that case you would wait a few months with the renovation) or would rather remain long term. In that case you ask them to look for a temporary solution (Air BnB etc) for the time of the renovation and be nice enough not to do it during holiday season, when it’s inaffordable. It’s not impossible to be a decent human being, you may get reliable long term tenants who respect your property in return.

@Tina Pusse: No one is advocating throwing anyone out on the street. My point was in relation to calling it a loophole. The reality is (as usual) tenants have more rights than the landlord. If a landlord gives notice because of planned renovation, it is temporary and the tenant has the right to move straight back in as soon as the work is complete. If the landlord fails to advise the tenant of this right, they may find themselves in deep water legally. So it’s definitely not what I would call a loophole.

@KerryBlueMike: Not for existing tenancies. Just new ones, or a further part 4.