Real Estate

Rent increase at 50%

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 16th, 2017 11:41 am
Tags:
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 6, 2011
3062 posts
256 upvotes
GTA
Just an alternate point of view:

No one complained about 50% increase prior April, because no landlord in the right mind would ask and could fetch such price. The above guideline increase was the best and most efficient deterrent against tenants from hell. A balance was achieved and rent was cheap. Now the burden falls on self-use and it's also being closed, per Sept 1st rule change. There should be yet another rule change because the previous two weren't potent enough, and let's guess what happens to rent again.

Because the rule change was unilateral on property owners, and the rule offered no other countering & compensating weight. Now a new balance must be discovered.

Effectively, govt took all recourses from landlord against damages and misbehaviors, the only factor that still can adjust is price and the direction is up.

Now market is doing the adjusting while both supply and credit is tightening. So the optimal outcome is achieved, higher price, less choices and no one is left unpissed. Don't forget about first time home buyers, everything doubled in price per April rule change.

For rent to come back down, either supply has to go up dramatically within small time frame, or LTB must allow swift compensation for damages.

Personally, I don't think supply is that tight, high quality supply maybe tight but the older rentals could also be fixed up to meet current standards.

None of that will/can happen because the most profitable thing to do is now is sell even more condos, not retrofit or lease. We know from the 80's what happened after the bust. And we are just repeating what we just forgot.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
4450 posts
2089 upvotes
Edmonton
Just as an aside... The 50% increase is almost exactly a 9% increase annually for the past 5 years. Another indicator that landlord is more than just trying to catch up...

And for those suggesting negotiating... I said much earlier that if the OP’s landlord had started at a reasonable figure, we probably wouldn’t even be reading this thread. But the landlord chose to start with an insultingly high number. So it’s no wonder the OP wants to come back with a “low as possible” number, and let the landlord choke on his offer.

It reminds me of some of the threads in the Automotive section, where someone gets rear-ended (see what I did there), and the person who hits them starts off the offers with an insultingly low number like $200 for a $2000 repair bill. The natural response isn’t to go back and forth and try to work with someone who low-balls you. It’s to say “F you”, and go straight to your insurance (in this case the LTB). Let them deal with the headaches of that. And maybe next time they’re in the wrong and are looking for some slack, they’ll keep that in mind. Because this landlord IS in the wrong, according to the RTA.

C
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
26837 posts
1674 upvotes
Winnipeg
LongLiveRFD wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 11:03 pm
Just an alternate point of view:

No one complained about 50% increase prior April, because no landlord in the right mind would ask and could fetch such price. The above guideline increase was the best and most efficient deterrent against tenants from hell. A balance was achieved and rent was cheap. Now the burden falls on self-use and it's also being closed, per Sept 1st rule change. There should be yet another rule change because the previous two weren't potent enough, and let's guess what happens to rent again.

Because the rule change was unilateral on property owners, and the rule offered no other countering & compensating weight. Now a new balance must be discovered.

Effectively, govt took all recourses from landlord against damages and misbehaviors, the only factor that still can adjust is price and the direction is up.

Now market is doing the adjusting while both supply and credit is tightening. So the optimal outcome is achieved, higher price, less choices and no one is left unpissed. Don't forget about first time home buyers, everything doubled in price per April rule change.

For rent to come back down, either supply has to go up dramatically within small time frame, or LTB must allow swift compensation for damages.

Personally, I don't think supply is that tight, high quality supply maybe tight but the older rentals could also be fixed up to meet current standards.

None of that will/can happen because the most profitable thing to do is now is sell even more condos, not retrofit or lease. We know from the 80's what happened after the bust. And we are just repeating what we just forgot.
only in liberal stronghold can you get something outrageous as 50% increase
4930k/32gb/256gb ssd/8tb hdd/win10pro/msi 290
bst/free stuff/btc/ether
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2009
3623 posts
1341 upvotes
Toronto
LongLiveRFD wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 11:03 pm
For rent to come back down, either supply has to go up dramatically within small time frame, or LTB must allow swift compensation for damages..
Rent is NOT going up in average for the whole GTA as it is tied to the income. Income is not going up.
The rule just basically makes it harder for landlord to evict tenant using rent increase. OP example is exactly how the law was trying to prevent.

If OP takes his landlord to LTB, I am pretty sure landlord will be the scrape goat for breaking the law and OP will get more money than one month of rent.

Landlord are already painted as greedy ******* in the media.
Both liberal and conservative are not going to make rules for the landlord on swift compensation as it is a political suicide.
Deal Addict
Nov 22, 2009
1717 posts
208 upvotes
Toronto
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 12th, 2017 7:26 pm
No way I’d be a landlord in Ontario. That’s for crazy people.

And I never said it was a nice place. Just pointing out that there are rentals around the $1000 mark in Scarborough, so it’s an assumption that the market value is between $1500 and $2000 as some people seem to take as a truth. I’m not claiming the OP’s place has a market value of $1000, either. I’m just saying we don’t know.

C
That's why OP needs to provide more detail. Scarborough is too big and rental price difference is huge. I thought it was the kennedy/Sheppard area as someone mentioned which isn't cheap.
Member
Jun 15, 2017
263 posts
118 upvotes
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 9:36 am
That's why OP needs to provide more detail. Scarborough is too big and rental price difference is huge. I thought it was the kennedy/Sheppard area as someone mentioned which isn't cheap.
I am pretty much sure OP condo is at kennedy/401 tridel metro gate
The only condo in scarborough who charges for all utillities except cold water, this is as pef OP
Let him/her confirm its not this location
Rental value is 1600 plus for one BR
Sr. Member
User avatar
Dec 13, 2016
940 posts
727 upvotes
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 9:36 am
That's why OP needs to provide more detail. Scarborough is too big and rental price difference is huge. I thought it was the kennedy/Sheppard area as someone mentioned which isn't cheap.
The OP doesn't need to provide crap to this forum. The only thing he needs to provide is information to the board when he refuses to pay this ridiculous increase.
Deal Addict
Nov 22, 2009
1717 posts
208 upvotes
Toronto
BiegeToyota wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 10:11 am
The OP doesn't need to provide crap to this forum. The only thing he needs to provide is information to the board when he refuses to pay this ridiculous increase.
OP is the one that started the thread asking if it's "reasonable". If he ask only if the increase is legally allowed, then we wouldn't be having this dispute.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
4450 posts
2089 upvotes
Edmonton
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 10:23 am
OP is the one that started the thread asking if it's "reasonable". If he ask only if the increase is legally allowed, then we wouldn't be having this dispute.
So the short answer would be "It's not reasonable, because it's not even close to legal"? Again, the 50% increase is an average of 9% increase each year for 5 years.

C
Deal Addict
Nov 22, 2009
1717 posts
208 upvotes
Toronto
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 10:30 am
So the short answer would be "It's not reasonable, because it's not even close to legal"? Again, the 50% increase is an average of 9% increase each year for 5 years.

C
I'm just going to assume there are things the OP did not want to give out in order for others to think he's the victim. I know he posted more information before then immediately deleted the post as I was quoting his post. I like to hear from both sides before concluding who is unreasonable.
Deal Addict
Jan 16, 2009
3623 posts
1341 upvotes
Toronto
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 10:39 am
I'm just going to assume there are things the OP did not want to give out in order for others to think he's the victim. I know he posted more information before then immediately deleted the post as I was quoting his post. I like to hear from both sides before concluding who is unreasonable.
He provided enough information to us or LTB to highlight the fact that 50% rent increase is simply unjust.

Now it comes down to whether LTB or Landlord will give him better deal financially for moving and I would think LTB will be much better considering the 50% increase crap landlord is trying to pull.
Deal Addict
Nov 22, 2009
1717 posts
208 upvotes
Toronto
Ceryx wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 11:59 am
He provided enough information to us or LTB to highlight the fact that 50% rent increase is simply unjust.

Now it comes down to whether LTB or Landlord will give him better deal financially for moving and I would think LTB will be much better considering the 50% increase crap landlord is trying to pull.
There might be a lot of other crap the tenant tried to pull. You never know. Everyone knows a 50% increase is crazy, but why did the landlord suddenly want to do this after 4 years of no increase? I highly doubt the landlord forgot. I don't think the landlord is stupid enough to think a 50% increase is justifiable, and I don't think he would even think of considering it if he knows he has absolutely zero chance of winning. OP hasn't been back for a while. Something seems fishy.

You talk from a perspective as a tenant that had been abused in the past. Maybe that is why I can feel some resentment from your words. I've never been a landlord before nor have I ever been abused as a tenant, maybe that's why some of the people here likes to negotiate while others have so much hatred toward landlords.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
4450 posts
2089 upvotes
Edmonton
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 12:46 pm
There might be a lot of other crap the tenant tried to pull. You never know. Everyone knows a 50% increase is crazy, but why did the landlord suddenly want to do this after 4 years of no increase? I highly doubt the landlord forgot. I don't think the landlord is stupid enough to think a 50% increase is justifiable, and I don't think he would even think of considering it if he knows he has absolutely zero chance of winning. OP hasn't been back for a while. Something seems fishy.

You talk from a perspective as a tenant that had been abused in the past. Maybe that is why I can feel some resentment from your words. I've never been a landlord before nor have I ever been abused as a tenant, maybe that's why some of the people here likes to negotiate while others have so much hatred toward landlords.
I've had nothing but good relationships with any landlord I've had, and I've never been one. But why does there have to be "hatred" when you tell someone they can stand up for their legal rights?

For that matter, how does a tenant "pull crap"? For most tenants, their obligation to their landlord is pay their rent on a monthly basis. Between that and not abusing the property, you owe the landlord nothing. You have an agreement in place, you abide by it, and that's the good thing about being a tenant. No obligations.

C
Deal Addict
Nov 22, 2009
1717 posts
208 upvotes
Toronto
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 12:52 pm
I've had nothing but good relationships with any landlord I've had, and I've never been one. But why does there have to be "hatred" when you tell someone they can stand up for their legal rights?

For that matter, how does a tenant "pull crap"? For most tenants, their obligation to their landlord is pay their rent on a monthly basis. Between that and not abusing the property, you owe the landlord nothing. You have an agreement in place, you abide by it, and that's the good thing about being a tenant. No obligations.

C
He might be abusing the property, you never know. How do you know the landlord didn't just gave him a free pass for 4 years due to the tenant's financial situation. Why would a landlord jeopardize a 5 year good relationship in the first place? I do not believe the landlord simply forgot to increase his rates.

I honestly don't think I will be able to feel the same as you since I've only ever had one landlord and he was willing to lower rents occasionally when I lost my job. When I found a new job, I repay it back in full. I personally don't like to owe or take advantage of others goodwill and use LTB to threaten the landlord.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
4450 posts
2089 upvotes
Edmonton
blitzforce wrote:
Oct 13th, 2017 1:04 pm
He might be abusing the property, you never know. How do you know the landlord didn't just gave him a free pass for 4 years due to the tenant's financial situation. Why would a landlord jeopardize a 5 year good relationship in the first place? I do not believe the landlord simply forgot to increase his rates.

I honestly don't think I will be able to feel the same as you since I've only ever had one landlord and he was willing to lower rents occasionally when I lost my job. When I found a new job, I repay it back in full. I personally don't like to owe or take advantage of others goodwill and use LTB to threaten the landlord.
If the OP was abusing the property, their landlord has processes available to protect themselves. They can evict the tenant based on that.

I take people at their word, and the OP has been a member on here for 11 years. It's not likely he's been setting us up for a good troll. There's no benefit to the OP lying to us. And frankly, it doesn't matter. The law is the law, and in this case, it's in favor of this tenant.

I don't understand why you're attributing all this to the landlord being all full of pixie dust, unicorn farts and goodwill, and the OP being a jerk for trying to take advantage of the situation. Take any emotion out of it, and leave the assumptions at the door. And what do you have?

1) RTA states landlords can raise rent by 1.8%
2) Landlord is attempting to raise rent by 50%
3) If the landlord would like to raise by more than the prescribed amount, there is a process to follow, and the landlord will have to prove his needs
4) The landlord can bypass the process by negotiating directly with tenant and making mutually agreeable arrangements, but the tenant is under no obligation to do so.
5) The landlord can also evict for his own use, subject to notice and penalties. There's nothing the tenant can do about that, aside from monitoring after the eviction (and possibly taking him to the cleaners at the LTB if he finds proof)

C

Top