Obscene rent increase

[user97213982742]

Landlord has served Form 4a increasing my rent by £205 a month from October. This is a 46% increase.

The accompanying letter states

“After careful consideration, we have made the decision to implement an increase in the rent. This reflects the continued rise in property maintenance and operating costs, aligns the rent more closely with current market values, and 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”.

I understand that maintenance costs and improvements are the landlords responsibility and shouldn’t be a reason for a rent increase. And it is the landlords responsibility to ensure property meets the forthcoming EPC standards coming into force for private rented accommodation.

My wages haven’t increased by 46% a month.

I’ve lived here for 20 years. 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?

What can I do please

Would you be happy to pay the new rent if the repairs were done? If it's in terrible condition report to the council.

The landlord should have been doing regular rent increases so it's less of a jump. They do not do their tenants any favours by allowing the rent to fall far below market rate. It makes it very difficult for them to leave as they adjust their lifestyle around it.

Unless your landlord is a social landlord, the property is their investment and they expect a return on that investment. You say the property has changed hands so it's really not that surprising the rent has been reviewed and increased if it was below the market rate . You can appeal if it's above the market rent, or if they are in breach of repairing obligations, get advice from Shelter on what you can do to get essential repairs done.

Unfortunately whether your income has gone up or down doesn't affect the open market rent value.

it's cheap for literally anywhere in the UK. As an example, I just checked the South Wales valleys, which is one of the most deprived areas in europe, let alone the UK, and the cheapest 2 bed house to rent on rightmove is £775 p/m.

So yes, it is pretty likely that if OP has been paying in the region of £400 a month (or less when it first started) for twenty years she's been massively underpaying. I was paying more than that twenty years ago for my room in a uni houseshare!

And if there are places near her for £650 that are in better condition then it's a no brainer to move to one of them rather than staying in her own, far worse, place, given she can't stop her LL increasing her rent. And if she doesn't want to move, tell us where these bargain homes are!

The 'my pay hasn't gone up the same amount' argument is nonsensical.

If you lost your job would you expect to stop paying rent completely and live for free? If you won the lottery would you be happy to pay £4k a month? There's no link between the two.

OP has not said how often LL has raised the rent.

If LL has not raised the rent or rarely done so in 20 years the Op has had the benefit of a cheap rental. However the property will have deteriorated without being maintained. LL has had a stable tenant regularly paying the rent. One single long stay tenant is far less likely to cause damage (and therefore repairs) than multiple tenancies. The LL in consequence has also saved a lot of money. some of which should have been reinvested in the property. If he had several tenancies during the same period he would have had to at least refresh the property in between tenants and probably also had void periods with loss of income. The more tenancies LL had the more likely that things would be broken and need repair. Seeking to raise the rent of an unmodernised property to market value in one leap shows poor management and business skills and does need to be challenged.

Op should write a polite letter to LL pointing out the above and showing that she is aware of her right to go to the 1st tier tribunal. However in view of the bureaucratic burden which this imposes upon both parties and the delay involved she would prefer to reach an amicable arrangement. This could involve a graduated plan for improvements to the property with incremental rent increases to match the expenditure. Gemini or Copilot can put it into a nice neat letter for her.

Point of information: the tribunal cannot raise the rent to a figure higher than the LL had proposed so the OP has absolutely nothing to lose by paying the £47 fee and applying to the tribunal.

Judging by what I read on the LL forum where I lurk most are not anxious to go to a tribunal and would prefer to negotiate.

Your have separate issues. Rent increase in line with market is reasonable. Getting things that are illegal in a rental sorted is needed not paying less because it's not compliant.

I think you’ve missed out where OP has paid minimal rent for years
now wonder it’s increasing that amount of rent isn’t viable

The only real complaint you have is the blown glazing unit - single lets aren’t obliged to have fire doors or more than one entrance, new building regulars wouldn’t allow it but they aren’t retrospective.

Businesses put up their prices but but don't tend to double their prices overnight (unless they want to lose all their customers).

Too many landlords in this country happily treat tenants like cash cows because there is a housing shortage and don't seem to understand the concept of having to put money aside for maintenance and repairs.

As for your EPC example again businesses have to adapt to new legislation all the time and make sure their premises meet the latest health and safety requirements.

Again, I am not sure why you think landlords should be immune from the costs of keeping their properties up to date. It is just part and parcel of running a business.

Of course businesses have to make a profit and that was not my point...

My point was that so many landlord don't understand that being a landlord also comes with regular costs, just like any other business. Not just an easy way to squeeze as much money as possible from tenants.

We all know there has been an ongoing issue in this country with many landlords completely failing to maintain their properties and complete repairs and complaining every time the government does something to protect tenants from the rental market being like the Wild West.

It is either naive or disingenuous to claim over wise.

''@FairKoala ·
Blame the government. The landlord is only doing what they say must be done
This government, to “protect” the tenants have deemed it necessary for a private landlord to spend money on various things in their properties''

You are exactly the type of landlords I was talking about in my previous post...

You think the government is wrong to want proper gas and electricity checks, a property free of mould and a place can be heated reasonably easily and kept warm? or that tenants should still be evicted if they dare to complaint to their landlord about poor maintenance?

Yes, private landlord have to spend money to maintain their properties. Shock, horror...

I think £50 a week is pretty much what they have increased it by. It's going from £446 to £650 a month, give or take.

Of course landlords realise they have to spend money to maintain their properties. That’s a big part of the reason why rent costs more than just the mortgage cost.

The government sold off all its own housing stock, spent the money and didn’t reinvest in new housing. They were happy for private landlords to pick up the slack. Then they vilified and taxed those landlords to the hilt, even those that provided safe, well maintained housing and never increased the rent in decades.

Our letting agents now advise increasing rents every year. I have sympathy with the shock large increase the OP is facing but government meddling is the root cause.

My rent is £2k a month! I don't think you can complain about £600 odd. Where in the UK are you?

The legislation also is heavily taxed including tax on costs rather than profit that doesn’t happen anywhere else and increased risk in letting out due to latest legislation. There’s no real right or wrong, it’s just a fact that will cost more which is paid for by renters.
It’s just basic maths, anyone who does it to make money will need to make 6% profit per year or the money can be in an ISA without all the hassle or they don’t do it. Accidental landlords, of which I was one for a number of years, will get out as soon as they can or will do anything to avoid becoming one. When I was renting out, I just wanted to break even whilst working abroad and no hassle and that’s what I did. Nice tenants and no hassle, never put the rent up in 3 years …. by the end the rent had to go up 40% to an absolutely eye watering amount for what property is and I was making a loss after tax.

I think you've likely become complacent over having had low rents for so many years, and instead of putting money by into savings for inevitable rent increases, you've just not factored it in.

Yes, it's a LLs responsibility to pay for insurance and maintenance, but these costs are factored into the rent they charge, it's not a feasible business if they do not factor in associated costs of running the property business. I found it a little odd and unreasonable that you don't seem to think associated running costs should impact the rent you pay. If it's a private rental, then it's a business, and if it isn't at least profitable, there's no point for a LL to take the financial risk of having such a business.

If there are numerous issues that you are unhappy with at the property, you and your LL is not addressing them, you can either move out and rent a property that is more suitable, or you can contact Environmental Health, if appropriate.

If the rent increase keeps your rent inline or below market rates, there's nothing you can do, other than move out. You will only be successful at Tribunal if it's above market rate and an unjustifiable increase.

Please also bare in mind that since the RRA come into force this year, LLs are getting clobbered, my letting agent now charges an extortionate amount to issue Section 13s, which are a very simple form, and used to be free to issue. Now, it's no longer financially viable for me to introduce small rent increases (used to be £10 - £25/mth, every 18mths), so now I'm either leaving the rent as is, or doing large increases of £100/mth (which I don't like to do as I feel it's too much).

Eitherway, Labour and Shelter have really fucked up the private rental sector. They want small independent LLs to sell up so that the huge banks can buy up the properties, this has been in the making for several years now and the impact of it is getting felt more each year.

This is the first year I've actually considered selling up...

Just to add, I meant to address your comments about your income not going up by the same amount. Your income is not linked to what your LL charges you. That's not how it works.

The cost of food and utilities has massively gone up over the last 6 years, but our income has substantially dropped sadly. We don't go to the supermarket and complain about their food price increases pleading that we've lost income. That's not how it works.

They are not linked, the only thing you have some control over is your income, so if the new rent is a struggle, you may have to find a new job that pays better, or increase your working hours, or get a second job. I know life doesn't always seem fair, but your current new rent should be manageable on a full-time minimum wage (I don't know your earnings).

I was paying what your new rent is now, 22 years ago, for a 2 bed flat, so I think you've just become accustomed to having no rent increases and haven't planned and saved for the inevitable rent increases.

Well that's nonsense. The landlord has a legal obligation to maintain the property, regardless of the rent they've chosen to charge.

Correct. The economic reality is that the maintenance is paid for through the rents.

In what way is it nonsebse? Yes there’s a legal requirement but if the rent does t cover the costs then the property is out on the market and the tenant is evicted. They will then have to find a private rent where the rent does cover costs and maybe ,god forbid, a little bit of profit after tax. That will cost more and will increase every year linked to inflation.

When online platforms, mail carriers, Paypal and packaging suppliers put up their prices I claim for increased expenses against profits. If I passed it onto my customers no one would buy anything. So I pass it back to the tax man as a business expense. So I am not convinces by LLs constantly whining about having to raise their rents because of increased expenses.Its easy for me to go to Tesco if Sainsbury raise their prices. But this is not so easy for renters because they are a captive audience.

Expenditure on insurance, routine maintenance, agent's fees, compliance certificates and like for like replacements are tax deductible business expenses since they are incurred solely and exclusively for business purposes. They should be passed back to the tax man and not on to the tenant. I suspect a lot of LLs are double dipping by using these increased expenses to raise rents while still deducting the expenditure from taxable income. I would be asking for a list of these increased expenses and an explanation as to why they are not being treated as tax deductibles. Im not here to pay your taxes matie.

I have had rent increases over the last 20 years - reasonable ones. Certainly nothing like 46%

The owners knew they were buying properties that are over 150 years old when they purchased the portfolio of over 50!

The government introduced the section 24 tax meaning mortgage interest is no longer a business expense. It only applies to small landlords, no other industry. That’s why costs are not being treated as tax deductibles and contributes to landlords no longer making enough income to make it viable. That’s why they are selling up. The same tax doesn’t apply to BlackRock and others, so they’re coming into the UK and buying up all the housing. Let’s see if that anonymous global corporate proves to be a better landlord than your retired couple from the next street.

One example is if personal owner of say a flat has an increase in interest rate of a mortgage of £100, they pass that onto the renter eventually. But they also get taxed on that £100 at 22% so they actually have to pass on £122. Yes that’s right, taxed on a cost.

If you now want to sell a property and ask tenant to move out and the sale falls through you are not allowed to rent it for 12 months so you have to in theory be able to covers costs for 12 months, so you put up rent to build that fund.

The main thing is risk cost, you earn about 4% in interest in low risk investments with zero risk, being a landlord is simply not worth it unless you’re making maybe double that (after massive tax) as government policies have made it more riskier. This means rents have to go up quite substantially for private rentals to be a viable investment.

The owner is not an individual. As stated numerous times previously they have bought a large portfolio from the previous owners who also owned them all.

Not much, to be honest- there are very few restrictions on landlords rent wise, it is assumed that market forces will take care of it.
Your rent is very low by national standards- the landlord isn't expected to maintain the property or meet the EPC out of his/her own pocket, I think you will find.
When I was looking into buying a property years ago many of my family and friends had very low rents and felt no need to buy a property- I said yes but what if the landlord decides to sharply up the rent- they muttered rent tribunal, but to be honest they are pretty toothless. The place we rented had no fire escapes, broken heating, the water bill had not been paid for 2 years and was going to be cut off and no mod cons- we took them to the rent tribunal which decided we should pay the full rent in spite of all this, from other posters i don't think things have changed that much.