Landlord has put rent up - can I protest

ruggedtoast

MobileSaver wrote: »

Many here can see that you are the one that doesn't have a clue.

What on earth does the increase or decrease in the value of a LL's house have to do with how much rent he charges? Do the landlord's mortgage payments magically go down because his house is worth less? :rotfl:

Have you heard of inflation? The LL is running a business and many of his costs will have increased since 2008, he has every right to pass these on to the tenant; only a jealous, bigoted idiot would get so worked up about one rent increase after four years... oh!

Rent is already included in the CPI figures, genius.

Landlords raise rental prices, CPI goes up. Landlords raise rent further.

Your opinions are clearly as wide and deep as your total ignorance.

ruggedtoast

breadlinebetty wrote: »

People such as Ruggedtoast and his sock puppets expect rents to still be at 1940 levels!!:rotfl:

Pretty rich coming from you.

Each multiple personality you spawn lowers the general IQ of the internet by a minute, but perceptible amount.

MobileSaver

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Since 2008 house prices have dropped, wages have stagnated, but still parasites raise rental fees

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Your opinions are clearly as wide and deep as your total ignorance.

I bow to your superior intellect. :rotfl:

So for an ignoramus like me please could you take pity and answer the questions which strangely you seem to have ignored...

What does the increase or decrease in the value of a landlord's house have to do with how much rent he charges a tenant? Does the landlord's mortgage decrease because his house is worth less?

ruggedtoast

MobileSaver wrote: »

I bow to your superior intellect. :rotfl:

So for an ignoramus like me please could you take pity and answer the questions which strangely you seem to have ignored...

What does the increase or decrease in the value of a landlord's house have to do with how much rent he charges a tenant? Does the landlord's mortgage decrease because his house is worth less?

I couldn't give a flying fig about the landlords and their stupid mortgages, their rental yields, or the proliferation of Daily Mail readers and cheap blended malt drinkers at a buy-to-let spivs convention.

A plague on all of them. I hope the proposals for rent controls come into force and send them all packing.

MobileSaver

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying fig about the landlords and their stupid mortgages,

In other words even you have realised you were spouting utter drivel with no substance whatsoever. :T

ruggedtoast

MobileSaver wrote: »

In other words even you have realised you were spouting utter drivel with no substance whatsoever. :T

I could go into all sorts of detail with you over the moral turpitude of expecting someone to buy you a house over a 25 year period, none of which I suspect you would care about.

If you think the current housing situation as it affects tenants in terms of costs, security of tenure, and value for money, is anything short of exploitation, then you need to spend a lot less time trying to articulate debates with animated smileys, and a lot more time taking a good look at yourself.

dukesy_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I could go into all sorts of detail with you over the moral turpitude of expecting someone to buy you a house over a 25 year period, none of which I suspect you would care about.

I think he has some issues......

GDB2222

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you think the current housing situation as it affects tenants in terms of costs, security of tenure, and value for money, is anything short of exploitation......

This was tried 60 years ago. Tenants of private landlords were given security of tenure, and rents were controlled. In the short term, of course, this was great for tenants and terrible for landlords. Typically, properties subject to these tenancies are worth half their vacant possession value.

However, the long term effect was that the supply of private rented accommodation almost completely dried up. Where private tenancies were available, rents became sky-high because of the risk to landlords. It left room for corrupt landlords like Hoogstraten to use illegal measures to evict vulnerable tenants and increase the value of their property.

It has taken 25 years since ASTs were introduced for rents to drop in real terms to current levels. Do you really want to retry a failed experiment?

ruggedtoast

GDB2222 wrote: »

This was tried 60 years ago. Tenants of private landlords were given security of tenure, and rents were controlled. In the short term, of course, this was great for tenants and terrible for landlords. Typically, properties subject to these tenancies are worth half their vacant possession value.

However, the long term effect was that the supply of private rented accommodation almost completely dried up. Where private tenancies were available, rents became sky-high because of the risk to landlords. It left room for corrupt landlords like Hoogstraten to use illegal measures to evict vulnerable tenants and increase the value of their property.

It has taken 25 years since ASTs were introduced for rents to drop in real terms to current levels. Do you really want to retry a failed experiment?

The current situation does nothing other than enrich bankers as tenants are rinsed to pay other people's buy to let mortgages. 'Other people', who are now in the comparative minority of those 'haves' lucky enough to be able to get a mortgage, or even buy outright.

Quite opposite to your assertion on rents being lower than they were, they are at record levels and actual working families who actually produce and do actual things, rather than making zeroes appear on a banks computer screen, or fixing a leaking tap in their property portolio once every 3 years, are struggling to stay afloat:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2202157/Rents-hit-record-levels-making-cheaper-pay-mortgage-rent-UK-towns.html

The private sector has proved that it is not fit to house people without a healthy state alternative or much stricter regulation, as has been proved in the rest of Europe.

We need more state housing to lower housing costs. As more of this comes on line prices will fall, stock will rise and the private small timers will be forced out of the market or into line.

Can't come soon enough imo.

GDB2222

You misquoted me. I said that private sector rents are lower in real terms - much, much lower.

BTW, I entirely agree with you that we need more state housing. There seems to be insatiable demand for housing of all types in this country.