Ronan Lyons | Personal Website
Ronan Lyons | Personal Website

Rent supplement: time for taxpayers to use their market power

I live in rented accommodation on the North Circular Road. Our house is split into two, a one-bedroom apartment downstairs in the basement and our own home over two floors on top. Two doors up, a slightly larger house, with an extension at the back, contains seventeen bedsits. Yes, you read that right: 17! This modern urban tenement is being sustained entirely by the taxpayer, as only those on rent supplement live in the cramped accommodation that the house offers. Why is it, when the private market has moved on to higher standards of accommodation, that the taxpayer is funding the worst kind of accommodation?

Rent Supplement: the story so far

A couple of weeks ago, the latest rental figures came out. The picture was one of stabilising rents, particularly in the urban areas and in the larger homes segments, with rents actually rising in some markets. However, there is something of an asterisk attached to all of this. Whatever about segments where rents are increasing, stabilising rents may reflect as much government intervention in the market as it does stable demand. For those not familiar with rent supplement, a system of state-provided rent supplement is available to the unemployed, with maximum rents which vary by local authority area. Effectively, if you’re on this scheme, you can rent properties with monthly rents up to those indicated.

This is a huge scheme. The Department of Social Protection in Ireland funds about half the private tenants in the residential lettings market in the country: in June 2011, there were 97,000 recipients of rent supplement nationwide. As of the 2006 Census, there were just 150,000 households privately renting in the country. Even if that is an underestimate and the true figure was 200,000 and has since grown to 300,000 (which would require the ‘would-have-been first-time-buyer’ cohort to grow significantly faster than the ‘we came here to build properties and have since headed home’ cohort), the Department controls a third of the market. This is huge market power. And just like in the case of electricity, where the same Department is trying to get a better discount out of the ESB than the current meagre 1%, the Department should use it to the advantage of the taxpayer.

But this is about more than just using market power for the benefit of the taxpayer. This is about a potential price floor, which keeps the cost of accommodation higher for all tenants and thus reduces Ireland’s competitiveness. This is because there is no incentive for a tenant on rent supplement to see their rent reduced, as their likely contribution stays at €24 a month.

Are taxpayers paying for a price floor?

So, as rents generally fell by 25% over the course of 2008 and 2009, they got closer and closer to a point where working tenants could effectively be outbid by welfare tenants. Granted, rent supplement has been cut twice since 2007. The first time, in the Supplementary Budget for April 2009, it was effectively cut across the board by 8%. The second time, in June 2010, maximum supplements were cut in many cohorts but not for single persons (i.e. not for one-bedroom accommodation).

Overall, since 2007, maximum rent supplements have fallen by an average of 14% across the country. However, rents have fallen by closer to 30% for most types of accommodation. The result is that, for one-bedroom properties in particular, taxpayers may now be artificially propping up rents… and footing the bill. To see this, consider the chart below. It shows how the maximum rent supplement compares to the average rent, both at the peak of the market in late 2007 (the blue line) and now (the red line). The closer to 100% it gets, the more the taxpayer has set a floor on rents, as those who are ambivalent to higher rents (those on rent supplement) can outbid the average working tenant.

(Notes for the graph: (1) The figures include the €24 contribution provided by recipients on top of their supplement.  (2) This graph compares the market average with the local authority maximum. The Department of Social Protection tells me they expect those on rent supplement to find accommodation at the 40th percentile, i.e. at a quality a little below the market average. This means that the price floor is even more of an issue as they are competing with bigger budgets for accommodation that costs less than the average. (3) I’ve assumed that both singles and couples with no kids are in one-bedroom accommodation, and that an extra room is added for each child. Where singles are required by their local authority to live in bedsits, or where children are of the same gender meaning two adults and two kids are expected to share two-bedroom accommodation. Again, this would push the bars above higher, as the same household has a bigger budget for cheaper accommodation.)

As you can see, despite the reductions in the supplement, there has been a definite drift towards supplement acting as a price floor. The only segments where this has not occurred (in Connacht and Ulster in 3-4 bedroom homes) were among those segments most distorted to begin with, with rent supplement covering effectively the average mortgage on average.

The most noticeable increases, i.e. where the potential is greatest for a distorted market where there was none previously, have been in Leinster and Munster. Where rent supplement had traditionally been 80% of the average rent, it is now 100% or greater. This is particularly acute in the two-bedroom segment, where every single local authority has maximum supplements for a couple above the average rent paid. If I’d compared single person supplement with bedsit rents (not one-bed accommodation), the problem in that segment would look equally serious. The short version is: welfare tenants – with no incentive to haggle down their rents – are easily able to outbid working tenants.

And yet lower rents may be wishful thinking (for some)…

I would be careful about believing that reform of rent supplement will push rents significantly further down in all segments. Within Dublin, for example, there is a noticeable difference between Dublin’s southside, where maximum supplements are still just 50%-75% of average rents, and the North city and West Dublin regions, where particularly for two, three and four-bedroom homes, the figure is over 100%. Where rents are well above supplement rates and not only stable but rising at the moment, there’s little to think that reduction in supplement rates will have an impact.

Added to this, it may also be the case that working tenants and welfare tenants form separate markets, at least in some parts of the country. On, those listing their ads can state whether they will accept rent supplement. Only one in six do, meaning that there are large cohorts of landlords who are not interested given the perceived extra costs associated with Rent Supplement tenants. (There are also, presumably, many roll-over Rent Supplement landlords, who don’t need to advertise on

What to do next?

Ultimately, the problem here is that Rent Supplement tenants are currently being sent into transactions with their landlord, without any incentive to haggle the rent down. The cost, as ever, falls on the taxpayer. Reforming Rent Supplement without addressing this is just a stop-gap.

It’s my own belief that rent supplement should be incorporated into general welfare payments, or ‘social income’ and that this income should be treated as taxable. This would level the playing field between workers and welfare recipients and make it far easier for someone coming back into employment to take a job offer. It would also encourage Rent Supplement recipients to haggle on their rent, as they would see some of the savings.

Clearly, there are issues about those on Rent Supplement regarded as vulnerable, including those with addictions. However, that is not an excuse not to reform a broken system. Where there are vulnerable people in society, provisions should be made for making sure they are not damaged by lack of care for their welfare.

That property two doors up from me I mentioned at the start, the one with 17 bedsits, went on fire a few weeks ago. The woman who discovered the fire said to me out on the street “How can they allow people to live in accommodation like this?” And she lives there. One can hardly argue that the current system, which sustains properties such as that one, is working for our most vulnerable.

In the forthcoming budget, the Government has the opportunity to achieve a triple-win by reducing rent supplement. The first win is for the taxpayer: the taxpayer is currently spending about €500m a year on rent supplement for almost 100,000 tenants. Significant savings can be made as the Department uses its market power to lower rents. The second win is for the welfare tenant: by making better quality accommodation more affordable, society can at last move beyond the modern urban tenement.

The final win is for the working tenant and for Ireland’s competitiveness: while some tenants will see no reduction, particularly in family homes in the cities, many will enjoy collateral benefit from the Department using its market power. The glut of property in the country generally should mean Irish rents are cheap compared to other countries and thus the post-rent disposable income here compares favourably. This December, with the Budget, a major step in that direction can be taken.

  • John Mack ,

    When I was in high school my family lived in a nice apartment in an integrated, very low crime, working class/middle class neighborhood in the Bronx in New York (occupants were Jewish, Irish, Afro-American, Albanian ethnics plus others). Such peaceful and pleasant integrated neighborhoods were rarities in the US at that time. In some ways the neighborhood struck our Irish visitors as reminiscent of Paris (lots of greenery, attractive buildings, many beaux arts).

    Then welfare started moving people in, paying a rent 25-30% higher than everyone else. the landlords deliberately let the buildings deteriorate. After trying to make things work, the Irish and Jewish people, renters, began moving out and were gone within 9 months. The Afro-American people, mainly homeowners, went around canvassing, urging the renters to stay. But people left. The neighborhood became dangerous (it’s better today, as is much of the Bronx).

    It turns out the the “landlord” moving all the welfare people in was a welfare official, making a killing on destroying that neighborhood.

    P.S. Most of the welfare people moved in were very troubled whites. Many others were Hispanic, but they tended to fit in well with the older residents. So the problem was not racism.

    • Aoife Walsh ,

      When rent supplement was introduced in 1999 it was intended as a short term income support for people who had recently been made unemployed but over the years it has developed into a housing benefit. This was finally acknowldeged by the former Minister for Housing Willie Penrose this year when he announced that responsibility for rent supplement would be transferred from the Dept of Social Protection to the Dept of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

      Without doubt there are changes that need to be made to rent supplement, including the following:
      (i) Local Authorities should negotiate direclty with landlords, as they currently do in the case of the Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS)
      (ii) Only tax compliant and PRTB registered landlords should be eligible
      (iii) Direct payment of rent should be made directly to the landlord
      (iv) The limit in the number of working hours permitted for recipients of rent supplement should be removed.
      (v) Reduce the time a person must be on Rent Supplement for eligibility for RAS from 18 months to 6 months.
      (vi) Greater inspection of properties

      If these changes are made, savings will be made and rent supplement will become a fairer system, providing better quality accommodation for vulnerable people during a difficult period in their lives.

      • PhiloDiablo ,

        “This is because there is no incentive for a tenant on rent supplement to see their rent reduced, as their likely contribution stays at €24 a month.”
        Rent contribution by benefit claimant is €28.20 PER WEEK. Let’s not lose the run of ourselves here, Ronan.

        • Ronan Lyons ,

          Hi PhiloDiablo
          Thanks for the comment but what’s your source for that? I was using the Department’s website:
          “Your contribution to rent (Household Contribution)
          Once the amount of Rent Supplement you qualify for has been worked out, it will be reduced by €24. This is because you must pay at least €24 towards your rent. You may pay more than €24 because you are also required to contribute any additional assessable means that you have above the appropriate basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance rate towards your rent…
          The amount of Rent Supplement will be calculated and will generally ensure that your income, after paying rent, does not fall below a minimum level. This level is the basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance rate for your circumstances minus €24. You must always pay at least €24 towards your rent. However, you may pay more depending on your means – see ‘Rules’ above.”

          • PhiloDiablo ,

            My source for that is my personal experience as a single long term unemployed person in shared private rented accommodation and in receipt of rent supplement. On means tested Jobseekers Alowance I have been deemed to qualify for the full amount (€188pw), and I have been allocated €182.20 per month Rent Supplement.This is towards rent of a single room in shared accommodation of €295 per month. This leaves a balance of €28.20 PER WEEK to be paid by me from my JA. As advised by my CWO, who decides on the amount of Rent Supplement alowance, that is the ‘standard rate’ since May 2009. For an adult on JA residing in a parents or other family members home where rent receipt is not available, they will have their JA reduced by €24 PER WEEK, as a ‘contribution’ to the benefit they receive of living ‘rent free’. This ends the myth of Unemployed receiving €188 per week, as in all cases, a contribution to your living accommodation of at least €24 PER WEEK is deducted. The rue amount of JA for a person in private accommodation is actually €159.80 PER WEEK. (I have been in this god forsaken system for 29months, so any further queries please feel free to contact me on my e-mail. Look out for tomorrows Irish Times too, as hopefully Kitty Holland will be revealing some interesting info about my own situation where I am being forced out of 3rd level education back onto the Live Register for a further 10months before being allowed restart my course in Sep 2012. Lunacy.)

            • Rent Supplements: welfare for landlords ,

              […] accommodation more affordable, society can at last move beyond the modern urban tenement. Rent supplement: time for taxpayers to use their market power | Ronan Lyons Private landlords are a part of the parasitic pampered rentier class who pumped up property […]

              • Jeffrey Kelly ,

                In the interests of objectivity on behalf of a socially-engineered concept of ‘Working Tenants’ vs ‘Welfare Tenants’ also posted on Facebook Twitter ~ Et Ali

                The Art of being made Homeless via President Higgins walking backwards to Christmas? A New Blog ~ Inspired by an original article by Ronan Lyons Irish Economist to be found over @ Ronan Lyons (dot) com

                via De Vulgari Eloquentia ~ The Art of being made Homeless via President Higgins walking backwards to Christmas? by Séafra Ó Ceallaigh De Vulgari Eloquentia on Myspace. Social entertainment powered by the passions of his fans.

                • Conor ,

                  Depressingly it looks like the property brigade (part of the larger army of “rent seekers” (most notably the medical and legal professions) arguably in long effective control of this island will continue to be well protected. The figures above regarding rent reductions of 30% versus 14% by the govt; further allowance should be given to the fact that had the govt reduced the allowances/supplemts by 30% as well, the average reduction of 30% would be further decreased due to the govt’s large share of the market.

                  • Laura ,

                    You make some interesting points, but the big difference between the tenant on rent allowance and the tenant who is working, is that the rent allowance tenant has no real way to “put aside” the 1 month in advance rent which is the norm, as welfare pays rent only in arrears, and the typical 4-6 weeks desposit, which generally is also NOT covered by welfare. In this aspect, the working tenant is not at a disadvantage – unless of course they are part time workers, in which case they are almost certainly far worse off than welfare anyway.

                    That said, I’ve lived in rented accomodation for most of the last 14 years. As about 10 years of this was on relatively low salaries, with high debts (thankfully paid off), and little disposable income to talk of, it was always easier to either share or rent somewhere cheap and nasty in the hope of being able to get somewhere better in future.

                    I did find it striking that many welfare bound friends lived in much nicer accomodation but that was simply because they were defrauding welfare by working on the sly while claiming – naturally, they were considerably better off than those purely on welfare or working on modest wages. However most welfare tenants around me were in horrendous accomodation – I know exactly what you mean by tenements as my last home was exactly that – the slumlord built a mickey mouse “extension” out the back that made the place dark, freezing and damp, and enabled her to turn 4 apartments into 12 “flats.”

                    However – when I went to live, at the height of the boom – there it was nearly 120 euro cheaper than the rest of the market. And I really couldn’t afford anything better. It was no irony too, that one of my welfare scamming friends was the one who lectured me the most about my grotty home! But the welfare people at work and the (mostly) eastern european couples were clearly far worse off – there were over 20 people living in that house!! And somebody even had a cat!

                    Of course – it is worth pointing out that in many of those places the welfare tenants really had little choice – if they moved they had a ton of paperwork to deal with, most didn’t have cars, they can’t sustain the additional cost of raising deposits for somewhere better, and a lot of the time, they had real difficulty in paying for bins, tv licence, utilities, etc.

                    I recall in one place 3 flats went without any hot water for 3 weeks because nobody complained to the landlord. That place was declared substandard on a range of areas. But many liked the independence it gave them – plus living alone made it much easier to qualify for the “fringe benefits” of welfare such as the medical card, etc.

                    I do think there is an inevitable resentment from people who pay the full amount of rent – naturally its annoying to think that the guy next door pays an effective rent of 24 euro a week when you pay 145, but many tenants are forced to pay additional cash payments to the landlord, who doesn’t reduce the rent when tenant contributions are increased or benefit payable reduced. The real losers, though, are always the low earning tenants who really have no hope of ever buying – and I saw a lot of them among my neighbours, especially in Dublin in the late 1990s.

                    • Laura ,

                      I also forgot to mention that if the minimum standards were imposed on landlords BEFORE they started renting out poor quality property, it would never be an issue, regardless of who rents it.

                      • Andrew Sheppard ,

                        The recent Government cut in social welfare rent supplement is likely to reduce rents still further, one reads. Good news for consumers, not so good for landlords. However,
                        I know from friendship with one rent supplement recipient that many if not most landlords of these social welfare receipients actually charge considerably more than they sign for in these tenants’ rentbooks. In order to stop or minimise this I have a suggestion for a mandatory second rentbook: it would belong to the tenant, and in it the landlord would sign for what amount of rent he ACTUALLY received. The tenant would be required to show this rent book to his social welfare office regularly (say, every three months). The two rent books would show whether either the landlord or tenant were overclaiming. Cons: an addition to social welfare administration costs. Pros: reduction of Government spending and action, even prosecution, of fraudsters.

                        • eileen ,

                          ‘Clearly, there are issues about those on Rent Supplement regarded as vulnerable, including those with addictions. However, that is not an excuse not to reform a broken system. Where there are vulnerable people in society, provisions should be made for making sure they are not damaged by lack of care for their welfare.’

                          I am one of ‘those’ disabled perople and im being evicted from my accomodation, as the new rent limits ar way below the market rate. it has cost the state more in medical fees, medication and more than likely inpatient treatment for a severe relapse of bipolar disorder, Thanks ronan for nearly killing me!
                          Your report was quoted byt Joan Burton and there are no exceptions.

                          I hope you sleep well at night because you are indirectly responsible for the deaths and sever illness of many people . Check irish times letters over past two weeks.

                          • Ronan Lyons ,

                            Hi Eileen,
                            Thanks for your comment and your honesty. Without knowing your circumstances, it’s hard for me to reply however, it was never the intention of Rent Supplement to be anywhere near market rents and that was the issue I was referring to in my piece. I’m not sure why you quoted the piece that you did from my post as it should surely have shown you that in my opinion there is a right way and a wrong way of cutting rent supplement from its very high levels – from your story, it seems that you have been the victim of the wrong way and if that’s the case, there is no way I would support that.

                            Regarding your letter in the Irish Times, these cuts in Rent Supplement are indeed going to balance the budget and make sure that other public services, such as inpatient treatments, do not have to be cut more severely than would otherwise be the case.

                            In relation your point in the Irish Times about supply of properties, I am one of the few that has been arguing even since 2009 that are shortages of certain properties in certain locations. You have given me perhaps the most powerful example yet of that so I will be carrying that forward with me.

                            I hope your landlord has a change of heart in relation to the rent but I suspect, given what you’ve written, that they may not be for turning. I can only offer you my best wishes for the future,


                            • eileen ,

                              Funny mr lyons how the privelaged fly into denial. Your argument would be ok if there was social housing to be had or in the offing. THERE IS NOT! You have been responsible for putting me into the hospital. How did that help the tax payer?
                              According to my Dr what you and your ilk are up to is actually criminal.

                              You got no impact study based on the outcomes of your agenda on vulnerable people. Like Stephen Donnelly said ‘Push Button policy’.

                              I hope you look into the mirror of your soul and take responsibility for your actions.
                              Do you realise that rents have gone up by between 100 and 200 e in my area since the cut was implemented?

                              here is a short excerpt from best practice on management of bipolar.
                              Lifestyle management – By carefully regulating your lifestyle, you can
                              keep symptoms and mood episodes to a minimum. This involves maintaining a
                              regular sleep schedule, avoiding alcohol and drugs, following a consistent
                              exercise program, minimizing stress, and keeping your sunlight exposure
                              stable year round.

                              Support – Living with bipolar disorder can be challenging, and having a
                              solid support system in place can make all the difference in your outlook
                              and motivation. Participating in a bipolar disorder support group gives
                              you the opportunity to share your experiences and learn from others who
                              know what you’re going through. The support of friends and family is also

                              It puts me at risk of homelessness too.

                              I havent the money to move.

                              How does the destruction of vulnerable people sit with your Mr.Lyons?
                              How in your ignorence and disregard can you write the above reply?
                              You have handed me unbearable suffering and perhaps a death sentence.

                              Please in future perhaps contact Mr.Donnelly for some tips on impact studies.
                              Or your associate Mr. carey who has some idea of how people suffer.

                              • eileen ,

                                ‘Rising rents in Dublin attracting more property investors’ 27/4/2012

                                Property investors seeking high rental yields are piling into the Dublin property market where rents are increasing.

                                Although stringent mortgage lending conditions have eased somewhat in recent months, rental growth in the Irish capital is still being underpinned by an irrationally tight mortgage market, which is pushing potential purchasers into the rental market.

                                The rise in tenant demand is in turn helping to push rental values higher across parts of Dublin; an attractive proposition for rental investors looking to secure a decent property investment in Ireland.’

                                • eileen ,

                                  In case you need it spelt out rents ae risng despite the cuts because mortgages are few and people are waiting for the market to drop.
                                  People with mental illness take medication but particularly dont need stress and need a support network to stay well built up in their area. Otherwise they get ill, go to hospital, become homeless and more often than not die.

                                  landlords do not rent to people who suffer with mental illness.
                                  RAS and Scoial Housing is nonexistant.

                                  If you thibk im being abusive try living my life and walking in my soon to be homeless shoes.

                                  Every stones through word and deed that we cast ripples widely. With it comes responsibility.

                                  • Ronan Lyons ,

                                    I’m not sure in what sense you think I’m privileged and flying into denial and how that affects what I’m saying. I write this blog as a public service, free of charge and the reader can decide whether it is something that contributes to national debate or not. Some things I have written have been popular/populist (such as making criticisms of NAMA and its modus operandi), some popular with some but not with others (analysing teachers’ pay in Ireland or the amount of tax paid by the average worker), some speculative (such as my prediction 18 months ago that rents in Dublin and its surrounding area would rise due to supply constraints). My contributions on issues such as rent supplement or the relative lack of housing in certain parts of the country (north Wicklow included) seem to be in the second category but that does not make it wrong to make them.

                                    I refute as strongly as possible your assertion that my contributions constitute an “agenda on vulnerable people” – again, if you read my piece on Rent Supplement, I indicated in it that measures need to be taken to ensure that those who do need assistance get it, and get it from the State. Certainly, given your outline of your condition, extra measures should be in place for people like you. I don’t understand how you think that I think it should be different.

                                    But the need for assistance for people like you is not an excuse to transfer large sums of money from working tenants to landlords through higher-than-normal rents for people who need no such assistance. Rent Supplement was supposed to be a scheme that would ensure those without work could access cheap accommodation. Where rent supplement thresholds are too high, they should be lowered – but clearly the opposite is also the case: where they are too low (as you are suggesting is the case in Bray), they should be raised. Remember where the power lies – not with blogging economists but, in this instance, with your local Social Welfare Office, which reports back to the Department of Social Protection on rental trends in its area and recommended rent supplement thresholds.

                                    In relation to Torcana’s sales pitch, while they are right on some aspects of their analysis (yields have improved), ultimately it needs to be remembered for what it is: a sales pitch. Rents in Dublin are largely static, rents in the vast majority of the rest of the country still falling.

                                    Again, I have no wish to pick on you – it seems that you have mistaken me for something I am not. If you think there is something I as an economist can do to help, let me know and I will do my best.

                                    • eileen ,

                                      Every time they write to me they quote your report. Their hands are tied.
                                      ‘the report said’.
                                      Answer to dail questions. rpeort said.

                                      this is your power.
                                      They perhaps abuse it but it’s your power that they are abusing.

                                      You werewrong rents are rising and paul Somerville ex delta Index quoted two weeks ago where land lord friends of his were putting up rents.
                                      He said that LTRO had not worked and banks were not lending just parking their money back with the ECB for a free 4% or so profit.

                                      As i said having a bunch of mad people like me destabilised, put in hospital and roaming the streets until they are again picked up by the hospitals ad nauseaum or by the prison system indicates a false economy to me.

                                      Did you kinow legislation was passed that de facto makes homelessness against the law.

                                      When it comes to humans they are neither figures nor abstract concepts. They have family friends community children parents with feelings and can be destroyed by the unscrupulous.

                                      Maybe you are naive as you claim and i give everyone the benefit of the doubt. be very careful who twists your words ie government because as i said there’s a lot of destruction of vulnerable people being done supposedly on your reccomendation.

                                      • eileen ,

                                        here is a prime eg of how you got it so wrong. conversation property pin.
                                        ‘Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:58 pm
                                        Author: Landlord
                                        Larry wrote:
                                        Landlord wrote:
                                        Are we not talking about movements in Averages?

                                        RA previously was capped at €950.

                                        Current market rents are in excess of this figure.

                                        Thus a higher average for the area.

                                        This is an area which has already show large rent increases.

                                        Sorry, I may still be picking this up wrong.

                                        Are you saying that RA is artificially keeping average rents in this very nice area down, so once those people are moved on, prices will settle at a higher level? If so, I am again compelled to ask: why were landlords suffering all these low-paying renters and why hadn’t they moved them on sooner and replace them with the higher payers?

                                        Or, is your point that when these people move out, their former apartments will be taken off the market, thus reducing the absolute number of lower priced apartments and thus the average rent? If that is your point, then increasing average rent seems like scant consolation for landlords if they’re having to shut down other parts of their portfolios.

                                        No real rocket science here

                                        The apartment is currently rented for €950 per month. (Previous RA cap)

                                        SW requests that the rent is reduced to €875 per month.

                                        Landlord declines and re-rents property for €1,100 per month’.

                                        • eileen ,


                                          Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:12 pm
                                          Author: Landlord
                                          Barney Gumble wrote:
                                          Landlord wrote:
                                          The apartment is currently rented for €950 per month. (Previous RA cap)

                                          SW requests that the rent is reduced to €875 per month.

                                          Landlord declines and re-rents property for €1,100 per month

                                          Why are people not renting these apartments to non-RA tenants for €1,100 already?

                                          Actual rents take time to adjust.

                                          SW’s request that landlords take a rent reduction is a “call to action” to check what the current market rent is.

                                          • eileen ,

                                            more from the property pin


                                            Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:12 pm
                                            Author: Landlord
                                            Barney Gumble wrote:
                                            Landlord wrote:
                                            The apartment is currently rented for €950 per month. (Previous RA cap)

                                            SW requests that the rent is reduced to €875 per month.

                                            Landlord declines and re-rents property for €1,100 per month

                                            Why are people not renting these apartments to non-RA tenants for €1,100 already?

                                            Actual rents take time to adjust.

                                            SW’s request that landlords take a rent reduction is a “call to action” to check what the current market rent is.

                                            Leave a comment