I’m a LL and I would never increase rent aside from at a yearly point, and actually only ever increase rent on change of tenant. So a tenant who stays 5 years will have the same rent throughout from me. Why? Because the costs involved in changing tenant are huge and it’s better to stick with a known and reliable tenant who pays a few quid less each month, than have a month without rent and have to spend on upgrades needed to re-rent. It’s also because only changing rent at the very most yearly, is the right thing to do….people need certainty about their payments for a decent time ahead.
That said, I’d also never start anyone on a monthly contract, if they needed a long term let, which could be ended at any point, or take someone on on that basis when they clearly couldn’t afford a normal tenancy.
The OP sounds vulnerable. She sounds like she failed affordability with standard tenancies and in desperation turned to a short term option - probably paying above the usual rates. It sound like a contract or arrangement suitable for a long holiday or people needing a few weeks whilst waiting to complete on moving into a bought house….not suitable for someone needing a longer term let.
But perhaps OP told the LL she only needed it short term? Perhaps the LL gave her a good rate for this period, expecting to then increase the rent for future tenants? We don’t really know.
If this was a standard 6 month AST and a LL was asking for rent increase after 10 weeks, it would so clearly be wrong and illegal. Chances are, this scenario is also illegal. We don’t really know if OP had any paperwork or what type. Those things have left her vulnerable and open to exploitation unfortunately.
However, it’s also important to recognise that the vast majority of LLs don’t try to impose a rent increased after 10 weeks. To suggest they do is daft. Many will raise the rent yearly and give the required notice of it, meaning tenants can choose to move on if they prefer. Many others keep long term tenants in their starting rents for at least several years for the reasons I mentioned above. However, if a tenant stays for perhaps 10 years, at some point if a LL hasn’t been increasing rent, the rent level will be well below the market rate and at some point an increase will probably need to happen and if it hasn’t for many years, might be more hefty.
LLs do need to build in funding to be able to face extra costs for a period of time. It’s no good if they can’t weather extra mortgage payments until they reach the natural year point of being able to raise rents or give notice if the business isn’t viable and they need to sell. If things are so tight, they shouldn’t be doing it. And I agree that much if the ‘profit’ only comes when LLs sell and expecting to make significant money on rental income is rather foolish. Even as a LL without a mortgage, I expect sizeable amounts of the rental income to be spent on tax, regulatory compliance and maintenance. Just this year, a new kitchen has wiped out the rental income of over a year. It’s just a cost involved in running the business.
I do think it’s harder and harder for tenants and it’s harder too for LLs. LLs are exiting the market and seeking tomorivate individuals reducing the rental stock. They can do that and still have somewhere to live. It’s tenants who find less and less available housing available. Government needs to develop a policy that allows for enough supply and if they want some if that to be in the orivate sector, for it to work for both tenants and LLs….the 2 are always Co-dependent. However, there’s nothing to suggest government will work that out….and tenants will probably lose out more as a result.