Real Estate

Rent increase at 50%

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 16th, 2017 11:41 am
Tags:
Newbie
Jul 8, 2017
89 posts
65 upvotes
NA
LongLiveRFD wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:17 pm
Lol, why don't you arb it? source tenants willing to pay $1600 then long it for $1150, ear spread of $450.

Oh and make sure they don't google the address.
https://rentitornot.com/apartment/10969 ... to-Ontario
The buildings around that area seems to have bed bugs reported, I guess you pay for what you get.

http://bedbugregistry.com/location/ON/M ... %20Ave%20E#
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
Guys

The subject condo is located at kennedy/401, Tridel's metrogate project.
Only condos in scarborough, where they charge all utilities except cold water...
Most of al other condos charge hydro extra
Most of all old condos include all basic utilities like hydro heat water

Rental value at metro gate is $1600 for a small one BR
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14096 posts
1502 upvotes
Toronto
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 6:34 pm
Might want to at least negotiate which is a win-win instead of the 2% increase, nothing more as suggested by you which will do no good for neither the landlord or the tenant.
There's no need to negotiate, on either the OP's part or the landlord's. The OP is paying the agreed upon rate and the 2% increase allowed by law this year. If the landlord doesn't like that and thinks he's better off with no income for a year and then with a new tenant afterwards there's nothing stopping him from proceeding. It's irrelevant if the OP negotiates since there's no need to do it on his part, and if the landlord is actually going to go through the process of finding a new tenant no negotiation will change his mind. It's a simple business decision, either he does or he doesn't. The ball is 100% in his court with no external factors involved. The OP is faced with the choice of doing nothing and winning, or waiving his legal rights and losing by paying a rate higher than what the law allows.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:44 pm
There's no need to negotiate, on either the OP's part or the landlord's. The OP is paying the agreed upon rate and the 2% increase allowed by law this year. If the landlord doesn't like that and thinks he's better off with no income for a year and then with a new tenant afterwards there's nothing stopping him from proceeding. It's irrelevant if the OP negotiates since there's no need to do it on his part, and if the landlord is actually going to go through the process of finding a new tenant no negotiation will change his mind. It's a simple business decision, either he does or he doesn't. The ball is 100% in his court with no external factors involved. The OP is faced with the choice of doing nothing and winning, or waiving his legal rights and losing by paying a rate higher than what the law allows.
With the history of tenant and landlord relation sjncr 5 years, of no increase.
I am most positive he would agree for 1400 negotiation, if i am landlord i would accept.

If he wants to evict, he would have served notice, but he wants to keep same for below market value so he asked for $1500

So its upto tenant either to negotiate or take it to PTB and ready for eviction and pay $1600 plus on open market.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14096 posts
1502 upvotes
Toronto
Lavaris wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:49 pm
With the history of tenant and landlord relation sjncr 5 years, of no increase.
I am most positive he would agree for 1400 negotiation, if i am landlord i would accept.

If he wants to evict, he would have served notice, but he wants to keep same for below market value so he asked for $1500

So its upto tenant either to negotiate or take it to PTB and ready for eviction and pay $1600 plus on open market.
You and blitzforce seem really fixated on this negotiation thing for some reason. You don't seem to understand that there is no reason for the tenant to do it. Tell me, do you think you can negotiate your car lease if rates rise while you have a lease under a fixed rate? Do you try and negotiate your internet bill too?

The options here are as follows:
A) Tenant does nothing, he keeps paying the agreed-upon rates and the landlord keeps cashing the cheques
B) The landlord evicts the tenant and moves in for a year, loses the rental income, and then finds a new tenant afterwards.

That's it. For some reason you two seem to think option C exists though.
C) Tenant waives his legal rights and negotiates to pay more money for no reason, landlord evicts him anyways since he's still not receiving market rates.

It's really amazing to observe the entitlement mindset that comes when people who shouldn't be running a business try to run a leasing business.
Last edited by Piro21 on Oct 12th, 2017 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 6, 2011
3065 posts
257 upvotes
GTA
Lavaris wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:49 pm
With the history of tenant and landlord relation sjncr 5 years, of no increase.
I am most positive he would agree for 1400 negotiation, if i am landlord i would accept.

If he wants to evict, he would have served notice, but he wants to keep same for below market value so he asked for $1500

So its upto tenant either to negotiate or take it to PTB and ready for eviction and pay $1600 plus on open market.
Or the inverse: Op asks landlord for say 3mo worth of rent to buy you out i.e. mutual agreement to end tenancy. He gets a clean break from LTB good vs bad faith determination. You get a cut of his additional revenue and for taking care of his property. Landlord's net gain: $6000=$500x12, 1/2=$3000/$6000. Op takes $3K to put into his first and last month rent with new landlord, no cash out of pocket.

If there's a price to make both party neutral, both parties should at least put some effort in discovering it before initiating disputes.
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:56 pm
You and blitzforce seem really fixated on this negotiation thing for some reason. You don't seem to understand that there is no reason for the tenant to do it. Tell me, do you think you can negotiate your car lease if rates rise while you have a lease under a fixed rate? Do you try and negotiate your internet bill too?

The options here are as follows:
A) Tenant does nothing, he keeps paying the agreed-upon rates and the landlord keeps cashing the cheques
B) The landlord evicts the tenant and moves in for a year, loses the rental income, and then finds a new tenant afterwards.

That's it. For some reason you two seem to think option C exists though.
C) Tenant waives his legal rights and negotiates to pay more money for no reason, landlord evicts him anyways since he's still not receiving market rates.

It really the entitlement mindset that comes when people who shouldn't be running a business try to run a leasing business.
Smiling Face With Smiling EyesSmiling Face With Smiling EyesSmiling Face With Smiling EyesSmiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes

negotiation is part of business or personal life between friends or between wife and husband... exisits everywhere...

I dont think landlord would be ignorant of rules and exceptions....
He must be knowing what he/she is doing...
If landlord fails at LTB, he will serve notice and tenant has to take pain to move and pay $1600 in same neighbourhood (not the lowest from your kijiji search)
If landlord succeeds, he will get $1500

Middle way is, be kind and negotiate
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
LongLiveRFD wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:00 pm
Or the inverse: Op asks landlord for say 3mo worth of rent to buy you out i.e. mutual agreement to end tenancy. He gets a clean break from LTB good vs bad faith determination. You get a cut of his additional revenue and for taking care of his property. Landlord's net gain: $6000=$500x12, 1/2=$3000/$6000. Op takes $3K to put into his first and last month rent with new landlord, no cash out of pocket.

If there's a price to make both party neutral, both parties should at least put some effort in discovering it before initiating disputes.
Even if landlord ready for one year no rent, he would only loose $12000, but earns back quickly lost rent with 1700 rent later

So as u or i say, negotiation is better.

Not the adamant way of only True/False or 1/0 binary answers
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14096 posts
1502 upvotes
Toronto
Lavaris wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:03 pm
Smiling Face With Smiling EyesSmiling Face With Smiling EyesSmiling Face With Smiling EyesSmiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes

negotiation is part of business or personal life between friends or between wife and husband... exisits everywhere...

I dont think landlord would be ignorant of rules and exceptions....
He must be knowing what he/she is doing...
If landlord fails at LTB, he will serve notice and tenant has to take pain to move and pay $1600 in same neighbourhood (not the lowest from your kijiji search)
If landlord succeeds, he will get $1500

Middle way is, be kind and negotiate
Why? There's still no incentive for the tenant to do it. Every point you bring up focuses only on the landlord's decision to **** or get off the pot. There's nothing the tenant can do if he decides to take one course of action over the other, so what incentive is there to even consider the option that costs more money for absolutely no reason?

As I said, entitlement at work. There is no grey area here. It's black and white. Either the landlord keeps the tenant who's happily paying his legally regulated rent or he doesn't. It's his choice and his choice alone, and the tenant has no input and no incentive to waive his rights and just hand the landlord free money because the landlord is bad at business and doesn't like making choices.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:08 pm
Why? There's still no incentive for the tenant to do it. Every point you bring up focuses only on the landlord's decision to **** or get off the pot. There's nothing the tenant can do if he decides to take one course of action over the other, so what incentive is there to even consider the option that costs more money for absolutely no reason?

As I said, entitlement at work. There is no grey area here. It's black and white. Either the landlord keeps the tenant who's happily paying his legally regulated rent or he doesn't. It's his choice and his choice alone, and the tenant has no input and no incentive to waive his rights and just hand the landlord free money because the landlord is bad at business and doesn't like making choices.
Incentive?

He would get it for little lower than asking price and still it is $200 less than current market value and moving expenses/hassle, thats called maintaining statusCo during certain phase of life.
Plus relation with landlord will be intact, because je is not approaching LTB path.
Still paying below market value.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 6, 2011
3065 posts
257 upvotes
GTA
Piro21 wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:56 pm
B) The landlord evicts the tenant and moves in for a year, loses the rental income, and then finds a new tenant afterwards.
Where did LTB say that?

Even ruled 100% in tenant's favor, landlord still earns same $1K income, and it's only an if, not for sure the tenant will complain and win. And it's only up to 1yr.

Landlords have not much to lose either.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14096 posts
1502 upvotes
Toronto
Lavaris wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:12 pm
Incentive?

He would get it for little lower than asking price and still it is $200 less than current market value and moving expenses/hassle, thats called maintaining statusCo during certain phase of life.
Plus relation with landlord will be intact, because je is not approaching LTB path.
Still paying below market value.
He's getting it for a rate he agreed on right now. Nothing is going to change that except the landlord evicting him, which he has no control over. In that scenario, what incentive does he have to negotiate? A landlord that would force him to make that kind of choice would still kick him out on a whim, so it's no choice at all. His only options are as follows:
A) Stay put and allow the landlord to do whatever the landlord decides to do. If the landlord feels like evicting him he will and nothing will stop it.
B) Voluntarily give more money than he should to the landlord and allow the landlord to do whatever the landlord decides to do. If the landlord feels like evicting him he will and nothing will stop it.

Repeating myself is getting fairly boring. Both of you understand the issue and are just complaining online like it's going to change anything. The law is the law and the choices available are all that's there. The LTB is wise to every sort of trick and pressure tactic landlords use, so it's not like this kind of thing won't be caught if the tenant complains.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14096 posts
1502 upvotes
Toronto
LongLiveRFD wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:14 pm
Where did LTB say that?

Even ruled 100% in tenant's favor, landlord still earns same $1K income, and it's only an if, not for sure the tenant will complain and win. And it's only up to 1yr.

Landlords have not much to lose either.
If the landlord evicts the tenant using the reason that he's going to be living in the property he rents, the tenant won't be living there and paying rent while the landlord is there. No rental income.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:15 pm
He's getting it for a rate he agreed on right now. Nothing is going to change that except the landlord evicting him, which he has no control over. In that scenario, what incentive does he have to negotiate? A landlord that would force him to make that kind of choice would still kick him out on a whim, so it's no choice at all. His only options are as follows:
A) Stay put and allow the landlord to do whatever the landlord decides to do. If the landlord feels like evicting him he will.
B) Voluntarily give more money than he should to the landlord and allow the landlord to do whatever the landlord decides to do. If the landlord feels like evicting him he will.
Lol

Getting to know different perspectives...

May OP not take your advice and jeopardise the situation.

Landlord still didnot serve him notice, he asked what he wants straight forward.
Now its tenant turn to offer other price or pay or approach LTB.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 6, 2011
3065 posts
257 upvotes
GTA
Piro21 wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 8:18 pm
If the landlord evicts the tenant using the reason that he's going to be living in the property he rents, the tenant won't be living there and paying rent while the landlord is there. No rental income.
Nope. Check again. If this assumption of yours failed, your whole point would fail.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)