Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DOING UP A kitchen or bathroom or carrying out painting or plastering isn’t enough to justify landlords getting around rent control limits, according to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB).
The agency which regulates renting in the State has published a list of guidelines amid growing claims that landlords are doing up properties as a ‘back door’ around rent limits.
The government last year introduced rental caps laws for some areas around the country. Under the legislation, certain areas are designated as Rent Pressure Zones.
In these zones landlords are not allowed to raise the rent by more than 4% a year. As well as this, a new tenant in a property can only be charged 4% more than what a previous tenant was paying.
A clause in the Residential Tenancies Acts gives leave for landlords to raise rents above these limits when there is a “substantial change in the nature of the accommodation”.
Now, the RTB wants to make clear exactly what it views to be “substantial change” and has published a set of guidelines it says are to help the understanding of both landlords and tenants.
“It is not just about improving a property but about significant changes; for example, has the property been extended,” according to the RTB’s director Rosalind Carroll.
The 20-page guideline booklet published contains a list of indicative examples which it says would be likely to constitute a substantial change.
They include:
The RTB says mandatory and usual works that would be carried out to maintain a property do not constitute substantial change to accommodation.
The guidelines have also provided a list of examples that would be unlikely to constitute a substantial change.
They include:
“It is important that landlords, tenants, and anyone working in the sector, familiarise themselves with the guidelines and where major disagreements arise, we would encourage those affected to refer such disputes to the RTB,” RTB chief Carroll said u[pon the publication of the guidelines.
Clarity is also provided on what the RTB considers “substantial refurbishment” for the purposes of using it as a ground for termination of a tenancy.
Threshold has previously said a total of 12% of the attempted evictions they have dealt with had to do with landlords looking to evict tenants so that they could refurbish the property.
In the published guidelines, the RTB notes that where a tenancy is terminated for the purposes of substantial refurbishment or renovation, if the property is complete, and available for re-let within 6 months of the termination, it must be offered for letting back to the original tenant.
Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy has been vocal in calling for clarity on these issues and has suggested that they may need to be made into law.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
condolences to his family and friends look twice think bike. Not implying who was in the wrong but I know who came out the worse as is normally the case
@ter: I remember back in the day when i was on a motorbike in Dublin. Drivers just conciously donr see bikes. There needs to be a media flood of Think Bike. My own son is now on a Motorbike and Ive it drilled into him, mind drivers pulling out at junctions. They are looking for cars not bikes. Most just wont see you even though your lit up like an xmas tree.
@Carina Clarke: I went for a spin on the back of a friends motorbike, in the distance of only four miles two cars pulled out in front of us, only my friend is so experienced on his bike and anticipated what the drivers were about to do we would have been involved in a collision.
Another tragedy :(… Condolences to family and friends. All drivers please take care with weather warnings..
“His moped collided with a car.” …How do you know this? The wording of these collisions needs to change. It’s like the most vulnerable road user is always to blame.
Just yesterday I was, as someone who cycles a bicycle, chatting with with a guy who drives a moped about the possible ice on the roads and the perilous journey home. He said, “They just don’t see us.”
@Brendan D’Arcy: Drove a motorbike for years, best advice I got was “its not that you’ll hit someone, they’ll hit you. They don’t see you”. Best advice I ever got, even with lights on and hi viz, you could look a driver in the eyes and they would still pull out in front of you.
@Barra O Brien: best advice I got while doing the bike lessons, treat every journey as if you are invisible. Every single car at every junction can’t see you
Driving motorbikes for 40+ years. Best mindset is to assume all drivers are complete idiots and will do the most unexpected thing. Anticipation is the only thing that keeps you alive on a bike no matter how much hi-vis you wear. Condolences to this poor guys family.
@Declan White: I think cyclist and motor bikers over estimate the visibility drivers have sometimes, not that there aren’t many bad drivers, but every day I see bikes sitting in blind spots and popping out of no where.
Just because you see the car, doesn’t mean the driver can see you.
@ED: I ride a bike and drive a van. I’m as likely to be unseen in my large white high-roofed Transit as I am on a bike. People don’t look! Nobody pops out of nowhere, we’re there all along, just unseen.
I live near here and have seen plenty of accidents over the years but this is sadly the first fatal one I’ve heard of. Traffic filters into that junction from 6 different roads. One slip in concentration or an inexperienced driver is all it takes. RIP.
Motorbikes are VERY dangerous……. “According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), you are 37 times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident than a car accident – and nine times more likely to become injured while riding a motorcycle than while driving a car.”
@William Grogan: “become injured”??? That summs up the mentality. Injuries are caused.
Another one who thought is a hero on the street. Too much GTA played.
@Hubert Dworniok: the driver of car is now charged and appearing in court tomorrow morning. Moped driver was not in the wrong. If the motorcyclist in the was the wrong the car driver would not be charged with offences!
have your say