PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Landlord wants to put the rent up

Options
124

Comments

  • G_M
    G_M Posts: 51,977 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    'Please find enclosed a Section 13 Notice in respect of the above property with a rent increase proposal to £695.00 per calendar month to commence 7th March 2014. The landlord is willing to guarantee a 5 year freeze at £695.00 from the above date'.
    alfred64 wrote: »
    So what exactly is this guarantee worth?

    I could not go back on my word, let alone if I gave a guarantee.
    That is me, however.
    In legal terms I don't believe this guarantee is worth anything.

    * it is incorprated within a S13 Notice which is a statutory notice. The terms are therefore as defined by the relevant statute (Housing Act 1988). This prohibits a further rent increase via a S13 for a period of a year, but allows it thereafter. So a new S13 Notice with a new rent could be served a year later.

    * arguably the guarantee could be said to be part of the contract, but
    - I have never come across a periodic contract with rent fixed for a term longer than the relevant periods (ie as here, monthly periods but a 5 year rent guarantee)
    - to be contractual, there would need to have been an offer, and an acceptance. In this case, the S13 Notice was not an offer, it was a notice of a rent increase which the tenant had no choice to accept or refuse

    * Even if it were a contractual, statute overules contract, so the LL could sill rely on the statute to serve a new S13 12 months later

    There is clearly a moral dimension - the LL did (unwisely) make a promise, but one would have to put that into context. If other factors have changed since the promise was made, that might justify changing the terms of the promise.
  • MyOnlyPost
    MyOnlyPost Posts: 1,562 Forumite
    Options
    rjwr wrote: »
    The real good news is, in the one house I have mortgaged, I go to sleep at night happy that i'm not contributing to this country's housing problem, :T

    House prices have been on the up for years, fuelled by excessive lending and the desire [STRIKE]of the Conservative governement of the 1980's[/STRIKE] for everybody to own a home. If anything it is being able to borrow money too easily through mortgages that has caused the housing crisis over 30+ years. Of course for the past 2-3 years all anyone in governemnt has said is, ooh landlords are pushing up house prices. Sections of the public believe this is the root cause, when the blame lies with the systemic under investment in council and social housing, the ridiculous right to buy scheme selling off council stock at hugely reduced prices (from which my parents benefitted) combined with the ever burgeoning population. The government is like a magician using a pretty assistant to distract your foucs from where it should be.

    Thought exercise: If you had to save up to buy a house rather than were able to borrow against future income, what would be the current state of house prices? How many people would own a house and how many would be renting? Even if houses were free, if there aren't enough to satisfy demand some people would still be without housing.
    It may sometimes seem like I can't spell, I can, I just can't type
  • mattyprice4004
    mattyprice4004 Posts: 7,492 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    rjwr wrote: »
    I agree its my opinion, but equally its you're opinion that it is a business, something I strongly disagree with.

    Again, my opinion, labeling renting a house out as a business is just another way that those who wish to do this can provide some form of self justification for their actions.

    The real good news is, in the one house I have mortgaged, I go to sleep at night happy that i'm not contributing to this country's housing problem, :T

    The landlord has invested money into a house to then let it out to tenants - he's doing it for the money.

    Whichever way you look at it, those who let houses to tenants are running a business. That's not an opinion, that is fact.
  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,367 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    I may be just another statistic in the dire housing crisis that this country faces, but the truth is some bad luck along the way can force destitution and homelessness
    I am sorry for your situation, and indeed, bad luck can hit anyone anytime but do you know that your LL is crawling in cash, enjoying counting every pound he makes in profit, whilst getting pleasure at the prospect of getting another £25 a month that he will spend getting a few beers at his golf club?

    Maybe he is abroad to look family members and maybe he can only just make do with the income he receives. Maybe after he paid for the repairs in the house, he didn't have any money to pay to repair his own boiler?

    We can make many assumptions, and the one that LLs are all enjoying a fantastic life exploiting tenants is a common one. The reality is often quite different.
  • The_Real_Cheddar_Bob
    The_Real_Cheddar_Bob Posts: 542 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Options
    mattyprice4004 wrote: »
    The landlord has invested money into a house to then let it out to tenants - he's doing it for the money.

    Whichever way you look at it, those who let houses to tenants are running a business. That's not an opinion, that is fact.

    same as sex trafficking thats also a business, just not a legal one.
    both exploit vulnerable people. :p;):D:o

    so after sounding like a troll, my point still stands, whichever way you want to label renting out a house and taking away a home from someone, its still exploitation.
  • mije1983
    mije1983 Posts: 3,665 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Options
    rjwr wrote: »
    whichever way you want to label renting out a house and taking away a home from someone, its still exploitation.

    So you would ban renting if you could then? What about people who have no wish to own their own home? Where would they live?
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    rjwr wrote: »
    whichever way you want to label renting out a house and taking away a home from someone, its still exploitation.
    Umm, isn't the rented property still somebody's home?
  • The_Real_Cheddar_Bob
    The_Real_Cheddar_Bob Posts: 542 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Options
    mije1983 wrote: »
    So you would ban renting if you could then? What about people who have no wish to own their own home? Where would they live?

    Show me those people and ill point them in the direction of the government.
  • The_Real_Cheddar_Bob
    The_Real_Cheddar_Bob Posts: 542 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Options
    mije1983 wrote: »
    So you would ban renting if you could then? What about people who have no wish to own their own home? Where would they live?
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Umm, isn't the rented property still somebody's home?

    nope never..... unless you have been someone who has had to rent a house you will never know. As a renter it is NEVER your home. EVER,

    landlords justify what they do by claiming they are providing homes for other people. It is exactly the opposite of what they are doing.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,094 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    mattyprice4004 wrote: »
    The landlord has invested money into a house to then let it out to tenants - he's doing it for the money.

    Whichever way you look at it, those who let houses to tenants are running a business. That's not an opinion, that is fact.

    I often see people saying renting is a business negotiation, and it always annoys me. The landlord is running a business, but that doesn't make the interaction 'just business'. The person on the other side of the transaction is (for want of a better word) a consumer - business to business is very different from business to consumer.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards