Increasing rent on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement

[F]

Thanks for the confirmation. They got the letter and form by Special Delivery this morning but I've not had the phone call yet...

[jgharston]

A rent increase after only 12 months /could/ be interperted as breach of right to "quiet enjoyment". It certainly hints at bad forward planning. An increase in rent in order to meet /your/ increased outgoings sounds decidedly dodgy.

I review my rents every five years, and give my tenents 6 months notice of the review, and the review gives 6 months notice of the new rent level, effectively a 12 month warning, using a form letter drawn up by my solicitor which is business-related expenses and is deduced from taxable trading profit.

-- JGH

[Tony Bryer]

That's pretty generous and keeping a tenant in place at a lower rent is generally going to be more remunerative than having them move out and reletting at a slightly higher rent with void and other costs in the meantime. The downside is that if inflation increases significantly, at the end of five years you've probably got a big catch-up which may not be well received.

[Ed Sirett]

For 4% you really need to say to yourself. Putting up the rent /might/ work. More likely they will not understand and you will then be forced to explain that they are leaving - having now lost a few months more.

Frankly, possibly, changing tenants for 4% you are looking at two-four years pay back period. In all likely hood the tenancy won't last that long.

I have only ever had to ask one set of tenants to leave. I did this at a time that suited me as I had a block of time for the refurbishments.

Any one or two problems could have been weathered but all of them together was too much.

1) Paying rent by cash (having cancelled the standing order). 2) Paying up to three weeks late. 3) paying up to £5 short. 4) playing loud music at unsocial hours, annoying other occupants of the building. 5) Objecting that a solid functional (and well hidden) repair to a bed frame they broke was unsatisfactory. 6) Insisting that I organize the cleaning of the sofa cushions becasue they 'smelt'. Likewise the carpets. 7) Zero housework. 8) Cooking solely by means of the destructive distillation of cooking oil. 9) Requesting a rent holiday for Ramadan.

Turned out that there were three on the agreement, four on the electoral register, and post came for six names, and the bailiffs had to be redirected for one.

[F]

If that was the case then we're all suffering from the right to 'quiet enjoyment'. Increases in mortgage rates and the price of petrol, food and everything else are certainly spoiling the 'quiet enjoyment' of much of what most of us do. I can see no reason why a tenant should be surprised that their rent, like all other outgoings, should increase on an annual basis.

No, the rent was initially set at quite a conservative/reasonable level and the plan was always for a review every 12 months. The tenants were the first to view and signed up as quickly as they could. They were not recommended as suitable by the letting agent once their rental history was checked but, after speaking to them and receiving assurances from them, I wanted to help.

If a manufacturer of widgets finds his outgoings increased he's going to increase his prices similarly. Unless he wants to be an ex manufacturer.

I'm 'selling' something to 'buy' something. My 'purchase' costs have gone up so I see no need to insulate my tenants from the real world by not increasing my 'selling' price. I've put on a 4% increase; RPI is up

4.3%. Rentals in general have gone up significantly more than 4% in this area.

I cannot see why the rental element of the tenants' outgoings should be the only element which should not increase in line with (it's actually slightly less than) inflation. To be blunt, it's not my job to provide them with subsidised housing.

Which results in a large five year catch up for the tenant and a significant loss of income for the landlord over that period. Unless the rent was set at an artificially high level in the first place.

[F]

I'm not sure there's not a misunderstanding here: I *don't* want them out...

[Owain]

That's chutzpa!

Owain

[Ed Sirett]

^^^^^^^ Wrong faith group there.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember jgharston saying something like:

Utter c*ck. A yearly rent increase is perfectly normal in a lot of places, to keep it in line with inflation.

[Owain]

I know :-)

Owain

[ST]

WTF? Serve a Section 21 (4)(a) - this is mandatory posession. If you serve a S28 if there are rent arrears or other reasons (Ground 17 - lying on a tenancy application form for example) it may not be mandatory and they are in fact easy to beat by bringing arrears to below two months owed. If your Section 21 the judge (in theory) has to grant posssession. [1]

You never need to state a reason to the court for Section 21 notice.

If the tenancy is not periodic (eg during the fixed term) the notice has to be Section 21 (1)(b). Get the dates right as it is easy to screw it up.

[1] In theory. There is a case going through at the moment where the tenant became disabled and lost their job. LL served section 21 and it has been argued that the S21 is not valid as it discriminates (eg the only reason the tenant was being asked to leave was not paying the rent, which only happened because they became disabled). This could have an impact on notices to quit, even thought you do not need to give a reason for a S21 notice.

[Rod]

I'm told that it's easy to comply with both halal and kosher rules at the same time. :-)

[ST]

Feck. - that should be S8, not S28 (not sure how I hit "2" as it isn't even close on the keyboard)

[Ed Sirett]

Indeed so, but don't tell either lot that.