Obscene rent increase

Agreed, all-caps included!

How do you know they don't have mortgages/loans on the properties?
As plenty of previous posters have said, it sounds like you've have very cheap, under market rent for decades (probably a previous LL who was either very kind/naive and not making much profit) and now you're being asked to pay the going rate.

I understand this might be frustrating for you but just think how much money you've saved over the decades from benefiting from low rent payments.

Mortgages have also gone up massively so homeowners are feeling the pinch too, not just renters.

Going around in circle.

Most businesses don't double their prices overnight unless they want to lose their customer base.

As far as I am concerned a landlord who does not even have a mortgage on a rental property but thinks it is OK to hit a long term tenant with a 40% or more rent increase is absolute scum.

You are welcome to disagree but nothing will change my mind on this.

Even if you were earning minimum wage your rent is not even a third of your wages, I think that puts you in a very fortunate position compared to the majority of renters.

@user97213982742 I don’t understand what you were looking for with this post. Your opening post asked “what can I do”. You’ve ignored everyone who has offered you sensible advice and instead repeated comments about refusing to state the approximate location, how many windows are double glazed and whether or not the landlord has a mortgage. None of these are helping you move forward. Why even bother posting?

The point is though it sounds as if the previous owner of the property was charging the bare minimum and not spending any money on the property probably because he wasn’t making much/any profit!
the new owners are obviously going to have to spend the money and won’t be doing so out of the goodness of their heart! It’s farcical!
it’s like the new proposed landlord tax whereby a landlord pays an extortionate amount of tax instead of the tenant paying council tax. Is a landlord going to swallow those extra expenses and reduce the minimal profit most are making? Nope they’re going to increase their rents to maintain their profits. The vast majority of landlords are just about matching what you can get in a lock away savings account so why would they bother for anything less with all the red tape and legislation not to mention risk and aggravation of potentially awful tenants.

The landlord changed as the properties were bought (op shared this earlier). New landlord has realised that the property is being let at less than market rate and so has increased to market rate.

The rent is 650 a month, that is peanuts. The OP lives in a town with other available rental properties, many of which are well appointed, and so could move but has chosen not to.

We do not know that there is no mortgage or finance on the property, the OP claims there isn’t but they would not be in a position to know how the purchase of a large number of rental properties was financed. I would suspect that it is likely financed because people do not risk several million of their own liquid cash to buy property portfolios and instead use finance agreements and let the income pay the finance.

This is not a Landlord raising rent from 1200 to 1750 (46% increase) it is a new landlord purchasing the property and increasing the rent by £200 because the current rental income is not even close to market rate (evidenced by rightmove for the Redcar area). Just because the old owner was undercharging doesn’t mean the new one should.

I was a landlord who sold up when this gvt was elected. Can easily get the same amount of income now from investment without the endless hassle. The only reason to keep a rental now is for potential capital growth, but with changes to CGT even that is just not worth it. So a lovely rental with fair rent and conscientious landlord was lost to the rental market as a direct result of gvt policy.

It wasn't this government it was the last government who brought in the new rules. Whoever was in power now it would be the same.

Landlords don't have any charitable obligation. They've invested a certain amount of money in an asset, and expect a reasonable return on the capital they have tied up in the property - after taxes and costs, including the costs due to increased regulations. If they don't get that return, they'll sell on the property (as your previous landlord did) and invest the capital elsewhere.

The stockmarket has returned 8.4% to 11.2% per year over the last 20 years. Banks currently give 5% for a 5 year fix: completely risk free and zero effort.

What's 5% of the cost of the flat you live in? Then add on all costs and repairs. Add on a reasonable amount for the risk of unpaid rent (more since Labour's changes - takes at least a year to evict a tenant who isn't paying. I'd probably estimate 10%). Add on pay for the effort it takes him to manage it.

That's the least your landlord could possibly accept as rent, without making an actual loss himself.

That's why the Right always point out that all the extra obligations on landlords must and will eventually be paid by the tenants.

The extra regulations and the way so much risk is pushed onto landlords (eg difficulty and cost to evict tenants, EPC ratings way above owner occupiers, the new threat of freezing rents) have all chased small landlords out (who did often accept low returns, because they were emotionally attached to their properties and just trying to keep them) and replaced them with large corporate landlords. As was predicted.

Large corporate landlords are good in some ways, since they absolutely will make sure they follow all the rules to the letter. But they'll also be brutally focused on returns. And obviously it is tenants who pay for that in higher rents.

The NE has lots of shithole areas where rent would be that price. Not everyone lives down south

Early on in the thread you were given the advice to raise this with the tribunal.

Did you see that OP?

Here is the link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-an-open-market-rent-determination

You will keep paying the old rent while it goes through the process.

Yeah you can easily get that at 650, but not at the 450 Op is paying now

And the property only has one door. No fire doors, only 1 double glazed window that has blown, and does not meet fire escape route standards If there was a fire downstairs I have no other means of exit?

well this is probably what your LL is referring to when he says rent increase will go part towards will help support planned maintenance and improvement works to ensure the property is kept up as best as possible with future regulatory changes to the private rent sector. He has to pay for this somehow. Seems fair to use the asset he is making improvements to to get the funds he needs.

Assets =/= income.

They will also know the law…so they’re putting your rent up appropriately 👍

It’s likely you have no idea how the business is financed. If it is a large landlord, it’s financials are
probably far more
complicated than a simple buy to let mortgage scenario. And you don’t need to know, ‘cause it’s none of your business. I once had a client with a buy to let portfolio worth in the region of 3m (23 years ago) Not a traditional BtoL mortgage to be seen, but different capital funding arrangements that were crippling.

Just move. That’s my advice about what you can do. It seems you’ll get a much better property for a similar
amount. I’m not sure why you are hesitant? If you have been saving so much each month, comparable to other properties in your area, you will hopefully have enough put by to help with transition finances as you move.

Also, if the rent has been only £450 ish, I’m guessing the property value is <100k. Given your favourable rent for 20 years, are you in a position to offer to buy?

Alternatively, you could invest your 17mil in rental assets or raise 17mil capital/loan/finance to do so.

if you chose to do this, make sure you don’t make any profit from your investment, time, effort and expertise.

You should explain that to them, I’m sure they’d be happy to reinstate your peppercorn rent if you put it like that.

Just looked in Rightmove and within 10 miles of me there are loads of properties on for £495

2 bedroom houses?

Often listed on Rightmove as ‘Three bedroom house’ etc. Click on listing and you’ll see that it often means a room in a shared three bed house.

What area are you searching and I’ll take a look.

I'm in S wales in area MN considers rough as fuck and best avoided. Two bed flats in parts of city near areas I'd be wary of start at 850 and go up.

The OP says she is not up north - so that leaves midlands, south and wales - and area I grew in midlands there no two bed flats for that price - where DH grew used to be but IL say no more - they are astounded at rent prices now.

So if you can get a two bed flat for £495 - that very cheap part of the country.

OP can move to the better flats in her area for same rent or she can dispute the rent increase and see where that gets her - but while she hasn't said her area it sounds likely she been paying under market rent for years and not getting needed upgrades - so something was always likely to change. I can see why she is annoyed but her options remain the same.

Did you remove house shares, students, retirement?

And did you set it to a minimum of 2 bedrooms.

did you check to see how many of these were the same flat listed multiple times with different letting agents?

Also 495 is 10% more than the OP is currently paying 🤷‍♀️