rent increase

judy_

Hi

I have had a letter from my letting agents informing me that my rent will be going up by £75 a month. If I do not agree to this, they will issue a section 13.

What are the implications of a section 13?..

The letting agents said in the letter that my landlord is unable to sustain the rent at the current rate....times must be hard as my landlord is a premiership footballer (they do not know I know this)

I replied to the letting agents that as they plan to increase my rent, will they now undertake all the outstanding repairs that I got the private lettings guy from the council to take a look at the condition of the house. The council highlighted 21 urgent jobs to be done 2 years ago, to date only 4/5 of the jobs have been fulfilled.

The main point that needed urgent repair, was that the loft conversion was illegal as it did not conform to building regulations therefore the house could only be classed as a 2 bedroom house, but due to the layout of the staircase to the loft, it has decreased the size of the 2 first floor bedrooms, making a small single room and a very small double bedroom. So I implied to the letting agents that I should only be paying rent for a 2 bed house.

I think a section 13 would be followed by a section 21 from what I have googled....but...my deposit has not been registered with any of the 3 agencies, so I understand a section 21 cannot be served?

So basically, what will happen if i do not increase the rent as asked?

Thankyou in advance.

Judy

G_M

What contract do you have? If a Fixed Term, then the rent cannot be increased until it expires.

If it has already expired and you now have a periodic (monthly) tenancy, then the rent can be increased either
a) by you signing a new fixed term at an increased rent or
b) by you agreeing to a proposed increase and remaining on a periodic tenancy or
c) by the LL issuing a S13 Notice.

If a S13 Notice is served you must have a months notice of the increase. You can choose to refer the rent to the Rent Assessment Committee (see Shelter) They may agree the increase or not.

You also become vulnerable to a S21 notice to quit (2 months). However you are right that if your deposit has not been protected a S21 would be invalid (assuming you are in Eng/Wales and your tenancy started after April 2007)

The LL (or agent) may of course be bluffing. If you decline the increase (or refer to the RAC if a S13 follows) the LL may actually prefer to keep you at the existing rent rather than lose you as a tenant.

Evicting you results in a void (one or more months with zero rent - a much larger sum than the amount of the increase is likely to be) PLUS all the costs of finding a new tenant.

Check local rents - is yourproperty really worth the higher rent? Could you find somewhere else cheaper? Will the LL really be able to find a new replacement tenant at the higher rent?

Try negotiating? Show the LL/agent ads for local properties at the same rent as you currently pay.

judy_

G_M

I am on a periodic
I have lived here 10 years, but I am now on my 3rd letting agent, so although i moved in here before 2007 I have had 2 different letting agents since then, so surely they should of protected my deposit due to the changeover of letting agents.
The only contract i have is from 2001, BUT the letting agents do not have a contract due to changeovers.
I understand I am covered by that contract from 2001 but only I have that copy. No one else has it.

Judy

G_M

A lettig agent is simply..... an agent. Acting on behalf of the landlord. Your contract is with the LL and no matter how many agents come and go (or indeed if the LL decided to manage the property himself without an agent) you have had a single contract since 2001.

So the deposit does not need to be protected.

So a S21 would be valid.

Unless you can bluff the agent that they should have protected it when they took over from the previous agent! (Many agents are themselves very ignorant of LL/tenant law!)

judy_

I have checked rightmove rents and the house opposite me is 2 beds and is for rent at my current rate... The houses in this area are few and far between and my letting agents is 2 towns away which has higher rents.

I am happy(ish) to pay the increase as I don't really want to move for another 2 to 3 years when my son will probably leave home and I can move to a 1 bed flat...I just don't want the hassle of moving now..then again in 3 years time.

Guess i should just take it on the chin and pay up

Judy

judy_

I am also on a differnet landlord

My original landlord sold in Oct 2007 to Mr Footballer

So different landlord and different agents

G_M

Sorry - same applies. When Mr Footballer bought the property, he took over the existing tenancy with all the rights/responsibilities that went with it.

But again, either he and/or the agents may not realise this. So if you are given a S21 you could try responding that your deposit is not protected. In court you'd fail but they may not realise that. Of course, they might simply protect the deposit and issue a new S21.

Best solution is always an agreed one rather than a confrontational one - but that does not mean just accept it.

Try writing to the LL direct, with your example of the other property, and say you are willing to agree to, say, half the increase, but that otherwise you'd have to use the RAC or move.

It may be this is being decided by the agent (who doesn't care about a void - he earns more money from finding the LL a new tenant!). The LL may prefer the easy option of keeping a good tenant, who pays on time. A new tenant is expensive AND an unknown quantity.

judy_

Thanks G_M for your time

Think I will just pay up and just move when i see another house I fancy living in. The landlord will have at least 2 months void due to all the work required on me moving out before he can rent it out again.

N79

G_M wrote: »

Sorry - same applies. When Mr Footballer bought the property, he took over the existing tenancy with all the rights/responsibilities that went with it.

You could have a go at arguing the contrary and have a reasonable legal argument. After all, the housing act says:

"Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme."

so you could argue that since the old LL paid the new LL the deposit in Oct 2007, it should be protected (as it was received post Apr 2007). The housing act does not specify that the protection trigger occurs only when a T pays a deposit to a LL - so this argument is perfectly reasonable. Who knows which way it would go in court though (and this is yet another example of the poor wording of S213 and S214)!

PasturesNew

If you're prepared to accept the increase, why not go back with an offer of £30, they might come back with a £50 offer. You never know - and if you did it'd pay for Xmas.

Personally, £75's a fortune... it's outrageous and you should point out others are advertising at your price and you bet you could knock them down £75 if you viewed.

G_M

judy_ wrote: »

Thanks G_M for your time

Think I will just pay up and just move when i see another house I fancy living in. The landlord will have at least 2 months void due to all the work required on me moving out before he can rent it out again.

Given that you've posted here for advice, so are clearly unhappy with the proposed increase, I fail to understand why you are now just rolling over and accepting it!

Talk / write to the LL !