Completely agree. I am a landlord and would never go higher than can be justified by inflation for example. Not put rent up on a tenant in situ as yet. New tenants pay market rate. You need to be able to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning. Hope you find something better with a more reasonable landlord.
I don't know if this is applicable to your situation/rent but at the very least check your tenancy agreement on how they are required to propose any increases to your rent. It will be in the document.
Just to clarify, it was a 10% increase last year, and a further 17% this year on top of that? That is far above inflation figures if that is the case so seems completely unreasonable to me
Completely agree. I am a landlord and would never go higher than can be justified by inflation for example. Not put rent up on a tenant in situ as yet. New tenants pay market rate. You need to be able to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning. Hope you find something better with a more reasonable landlord.
My Landlord was very reasonable, unfortunately ill health resulted in him handing it over to a relative & things changed.
I don't know if this is applicable to your situation/rent but at the very least check your tenancy agreement on how they are required to propose any increases to your rent. It will be in the document.
Just to clarify, it was a 10% increase last year, and a further 17% this year on top of that? That is far above inflation figures if that is the case so seems completely unreasonable to me
I did check the tenancy agreement but couldn't find anything, I'll have another look & yes 10% increase last year & 17 this new tenancy agreement.
The government and local authorities have introduced a lot of legislation in recent years with the stated aim of protecting tenants. The problem is that the legislation all requires expenditure on the part of the landlord and where do you think that expenditure is going to come from? It won't be the landlord's pockets, that's for sure!
Not quite on topic but I saw an interesting analysis a while ago where it basically said if a Landlord has a good tenant its better in the long run to not increase rent or only barely nudge it up in increments.
In short the reasoning was that in potentially losing a good tenant there is a triple threat of 1) period of property being empty and so costing you cash, 2) cost of re-listing 3) risk of new tenant being a bad tenant and costing much more.
Their recommendation was to not raise or only very slightly raise when you have a good tenant, and then re-adjust to match the market rate when they do move on usually through churn. Did point out rent raises could also be used to rid yourself of a bad tenant. It did acknowledge different approaches needed for different property types. Flats in London and other cities have high churn rates so better to not raise rent on a tenant as they are likely to move on shortly anyway. Houses in suburbs have lower churn rate so will need to use the nudge technique.
Basically showed how taking this approach made landlords more money in the long run.
Not quite on topic but I saw an interesting analysis a while ago where it basically said if a Landlord has a good tenant its better in the long run to not increase rent or only barely nudge it up in increments.
In short the reasoning was that in potentially losing a good tenant there is a triple threat of 1) period of property being empty and so costing you cash, 2) cost of re-listing 3) risk of new tenant being a bad tenant and costing much more.
Their recommendation was to not raise or only very slightly raise when you have a good tenant, and then re-adjust to match the market rate when they do move on usually through churn. Did point out rent raises could also be used to rid yourself of a bad tenant. It did acknowledge different approaches needed for different property types. Flats in London and other cities have high churn rates so better to not raise rent on a tenant as they are likely to move on shortly anyway. Houses in suburbs have lower churn rate so will need to use the nudge technique.
Basically showed how taking this approach made landlords more money in the long run.
It very much depends.
if we have a tenant leave and the property requires minimum work it’s usually only empty for a week at most so makes very little difference.
i can only talk about 1 area, but when a tenant gives 30 days notice we usually have a new tenant signed within a week (so still at least 3 weeks before they can move in).
if your set rent level is sensible compared to the market you’ll have no real void periods.
Can’t add anything to the discussion but wanted to say good on you @red10 for your post further up. Need more people like you as it seems that too many landlords are sticking the knife into tenants, way over and beyond what they should be allowed. It makes me happy that some out there have still got a moral compass that works.
Not quite on topic but I saw an interesting analysis a while ago where it basically said if a Landlord has a good tenant its better in the long run to not increase rent or only barely nudge it up in increments.
In short the reasoning was that in potentially losing a good tenant there is a triple threat of 1) period of property being empty and so costing you cash, 2) cost of re-listing 3) risk of new tenant being a bad tenant and costing much more.
Their recommendation was to not raise or only very slightly raise when you have a good tenant, and then re-adjust to match the market rate when they do move on usually through churn. Did point out rent raises could also be used to rid yourself of a bad tenant. It did acknowledge different approaches needed for different property types. Flats in London and other cities have high churn rates so better to not raise rent on a tenant as they are likely to move on shortly anyway. Houses in suburbs have lower churn rate so will need to use the nudge technique.
Basically showed how taking this approach made landlords more money in the long run.
if The property isn’t mortgaged, then the increase seems high
if the landlord has a mortgage and his mortgage rate has increased by 3%, then an increase in rent is fair
I'm almost certain that there is no mortgage on the property, the landlord inherited it from either his mother or mother in law. I've lived here 30years & always had a good relationship with him & he was very fair with me with the rent. He handed over the properties for a family member to run as age is taking its toll. In a few conversations I've had with the "new" landlord they tell me that they make virtually nothing out of the house which is very hard to believe given how they've basically been given the property to run with very little outgoings.
Just to circle back on this I thought I'd give a little more context to my previous posts.
Rents (for varying reasons) have increased dramatically and at the same time demand for available rental properties has gone through the roof. In part I think that is due to a lot of landlords selling up. It's despite the rent increases not the profit generator it once was, especially with interest rates if it's financed and continual regulation and changes to taxation. Call it the imperfect storm if you like. Very few new entrants will be moving into BTL.
Sadly I can only see things from a cost perspective and availability worsening I'm afraid, the current government has made matters worse, I can only see that heading continually south. I think within 6-9 months we'll see a much worsening market for tenants with less availability.
There are good landlords out there, and I'd like to think I am one (to be transparent whilst I'm responsible for 54 properties as a Trustee of a friendly society, I don't own them just have responsibility for them).
We have to comply with certain rules of the society, one of which is rents must be minimum 85% of market rate. Now I flex that as much as possible, for instance we will only increase rents at most bi-annually. That has/hasn't helped in some respects as it does mean a bigger jump in year 2 (i.e. instead of 6% this year and 6% next they will get 12% next year making the increase feel worse). We will also peg rents at the 85% hence why we get often over 100 applications on day one of advertising.
Working in certain ways as partly described above is also good for the landlord. Despite having 54 properties we have zero arrears and no vacant times (bar an odd day, week here or there but generally that's cleaning and maintenance between lets). The only arrears in the last 10 years was one tenant who did a midnight flip owning about £600, but even they've been paying that back at £25 a month and was paid off a year ago. A lot of the tenants have been with us for many many years.
Maintenance works aren't an issue, we repair anything and everything often over and above what we should.
However that all takes a toll, despite having no borrowing our net yield is sub 4%, if regulations for EPC's change further or there are rent caps and the like, we'll probably be forced to sell. (again part of the rules are we have to invest for the best return).
@charltonbob as mentioned I'd certainly go back and negotiate, although I suspect the Landlord and agent knows the going rate, which whilst disappointing is the market you are in. If you want to move to Dartford though let me know!
As a landlord, I don't like voids. I prefer long term tenants and will accept below market rents. A void is usually about 4 weeks but you then have costs to re-let is agent, decorating etc.
However tenants have no loyalty and will say what you want to hear - saying they want to stay for 3 years and then give notice and leave after 6 months!
As a landlord, I don't like voids. I prefer long term tenants and will accept below market rents. A void is usually about 4 weeks but you then have costs to re-let is agent, decorating etc.
However tenants have no loyalty and will say what you want to hear - saying they want to stay for 3 years and then give notice and leave after 6 months
A good long term tenant is worth their weight in gold. We have had 2 places trashed costing many thousands to sort out. One trashed the place in 2 years, then continued to pay for the next 3 years (funded by ex) without living in it after moving in with a new bloke. You can imagine the state of it plus in theory we would have been uninsured for 3 years. I know landlords can have a bit of a bad rep but tenants can be far from whiter than white too. The months deposit at the start doesn't touch the sides if you get wrong-un.
Comments
in Dartford we’ve increased ours by about 12% in that time.
but rents are still increasing and I fear it’ll only get worse for tenants.
I don't know if this is applicable to your situation/rent but at the very least check your tenancy agreement on how they are required to propose any increases to your rent. It will be in the document.
Just to clarify, it was a 10% increase last year, and a further 17% this year on top of that? That is far above inflation figures if that is the case so seems completely unreasonable to me
if compared to others it’s in the right ball park then the landlords is just keeping up with the market.
if you want to stay go back and negotiate, there’ll be some wriggle room I expect.
In short the reasoning was that in potentially losing a good tenant there is a triple threat of 1) period of property being empty and so costing you cash, 2) cost of re-listing 3) risk of new tenant being a bad tenant and costing much more.
Their recommendation was to not raise or only very slightly raise when you have a good tenant, and then re-adjust to match the market rate when they do move on usually through churn. Did point out rent raises could also be used to rid yourself of a bad tenant. It did acknowledge different approaches needed for different property types. Flats in London and other cities have high churn rates so better to not raise rent on a tenant as they are likely to move on shortly anyway. Houses in suburbs have lower churn rate so will need to use the nudge technique.
Basically showed how taking this approach made landlords more money in the long run.
if The property isn’t mortgaged, then the increase seems high
if the landlord has a mortgage and his mortgage rate has increased by 3%, then an increase in rent is fair
if we have a tenant leave and the property requires minimum work it’s usually only empty for a week at most so makes very little difference.
i can only talk about 1 area, but when a tenant gives 30 days notice we usually have a new tenant signed within a week (so still at least 3 weeks before they can move in).
if your set rent level is sensible compared to the market you’ll have no real void periods.
It’s a market, a landlord can’t get more than the market rate for their property, so circumstances don’t often feature that much.
Rents (for varying reasons) have increased dramatically and at the same time demand for available rental properties has gone through the roof. In part I think that is due to a lot of landlords selling up. It's despite the rent increases not the profit generator it once was, especially with interest rates if it's financed and continual regulation and changes to taxation. Call it the imperfect storm if you like. Very few new entrants will be moving into BTL.
Sadly I can only see things from a cost perspective and availability worsening I'm afraid, the current government has made matters worse, I can only see that heading continually south. I think within 6-9 months we'll see a much worsening market for tenants with less availability.
There are good landlords out there, and I'd like to think I am one (to be transparent whilst I'm responsible for 54 properties as a Trustee of a friendly society, I don't own them just have responsibility for them).
We have to comply with certain rules of the society, one of which is rents must be minimum 85% of market rate. Now I flex that as much as possible, for instance we will only increase rents at most bi-annually. That has/hasn't helped in some respects as it does mean a bigger jump in year 2 (i.e. instead of 6% this year and 6% next they will get 12% next year making the increase feel worse). We will also peg rents at the 85% hence why we get often over 100 applications on day one of advertising.
Working in certain ways as partly described above is also good for the landlord. Despite having 54 properties we have zero arrears and no vacant times (bar an odd day, week here or there but generally that's cleaning and maintenance between lets). The only arrears in the last 10 years was one tenant who did a midnight flip owning about £600, but even they've been paying that back at £25 a month and was paid off a year ago. A lot of the tenants have been with us for many many years.
Maintenance works aren't an issue, we repair anything and everything often over and above what we should.
However that all takes a toll, despite having no borrowing our net yield is sub 4%, if regulations for EPC's change further or there are rent caps and the like, we'll probably be forced to sell. (again part of the rules are we have to invest for the best return).
@charltonbob as mentioned I'd certainly go back and negotiate, although I suspect the Landlord and agent knows the going rate, which whilst disappointing is the market you are in. If you want to move to Dartford though let me know!
However tenants have no loyalty and will say what you want to hear - saying they want to stay for 3 years and then give notice and leave after 6 months!