Increasing the rent - tenants angry.

marathonic

Jegersmart wrote: »

Do you know what a bank is?

Lol, just lol.

J

Yes, a bank is a place where a young person can either choose to lodge money and save for a deposit for a house so as to avoid the requirement for rented accomodation or else make use of an ATM on a Friday/Saturday night to go out on the beer with friends.

saverbuyer

marathonic wrote: »

If I'm a shop-owner and sell you milk every day, I use the profit to pay my mortgage. Being a landlord is a job just like anything else.

Rents are controlled by supply and demand... always have been and always should be (unless the government do something stupid - and it would be very characteristic of them to do so)

Well no - In Northern Ireland rents are controlled by housing benefit.

marathonic

saverbuyer wrote: »

Well no - In Northern Ireland rents are controlled by housing benefit.

There are plenty of houses for rent that don't accept those on housing benefit.

Rents are always controlled by supply and demand. It just so happens that housing benefit increases that demand at the lower end of the market.

LydiaJ

Conrad, you seem to think it is obvious that all LLs will put the rent up whenever the market rate rises. But in fact many of them don't.

Take my former LL, for example. I moved in in the summer of 2005 on a 6 month AST that became rolling six months later, and stayed until I bought a house in the spring of 2011. My LLs were thrilled to have got a long term tenant after the hassle of several in a row who only stayed 6 months each. They wanted to keep me, so they gave permission for the things I asked to be allowed to do (like putting up coat hooks in the hall), they fixed things promptly when there were problems, and they didn't put the rent up at all during the whole five and a half years I was there. They may not have got quite as much rent per month as they could have, but during that five and a half years they had no voids and none of the LA fees associated with checking out one tenant and finding the next one. When I left, they put the rent up for the new tenants, I think.

Or take my dad, for a more extreme example. He's one of the last surviving examples of a previous generation of LLs, letting a property (containing three flats) that he inherited with no mortgage long after he already owned his own home outright. Occasionally his LA persuades him that the rent is so far below market rate that he really ought to put it up, but in general he is so horrified by what has happened to HP and rents over the last 10-15 years that he prefers to keep it closer to what he considers to be a fair price to pay for a place to live. My cousin (who also owns a share) wants to get rid of one of the tenants and live in that flat herself, and my dad and aunt (who between them own most of it) are reluctantly going along with my cousin's plan, but they have insisted on giving the tenant 6 months' notice instead of 2, with the option to leave at any point during that time, because she's been a good tenant and been there a few years and they don't want to cause her any more trouble than they absolutely have to.

So there are still plenty of LLs out there who regard keeping the tenant's goodwill as good business practice, and even one or two dinosaurs who still think business means providing a good service for a fair price rather than squeezing as much as possible out of the customer.

saverbuyer

marathonic wrote: »

There are plenty of houses for rent that don't accept those on housing benefit.

Rents are always controlled by supply and demand. It just so happens that housing benefit increases that demand at the lower end of the market.

Well no because something like 70% of all private rentals here receive housing benefit.

Not just the low end but the whole of the market. That's why (in NI) I can rent a 5 bed mansion for not much more than the price of a 3 bed terrace. HB sets the floor, supply and demand has little to do with it.

marathonic

LydiaJ wrote: »

Conrad, you seem to think it is obvious that all LLs will put the rent up whenever the market rate rises. But in fact many of them don't.

Take my former LL, for example. I moved in in the summer of 2005 on a 6 month AST that became rolling six months later, and stayed until I bought a house in the spring of 2011. My LLs were thrilled to have got a long term tenant after the hassle of several in a row who only stayed 6 months each. They wanted to keep me, so they gave permission for the things I asked to be allowed to do (like putting up coat hooks in the hall), they fixed things promptly when there were problems, and they didn't put the rent up at all during the whole five and a half years I was there. They may not have got quite as much rent per month as they could have, but during that five and a half years they had no voids and none of the LA fees associated with checking out one tenant and finding the next one. When I left, they put the rent up for the new tenants, I think.

Or take my dad, for a more extreme example. He's one of the last surviving examples of a previous generation of LLs, letting a property (containing three flats) that he inherited with no mortgage long after he already owned his own home outright. Occasionally his LA persuades him that the rent is so far below market rate that he really ought to put it up, but in general he is so horrified by what has happened to HP and rents over the last 10-15 years that he prefers to keep it closer to what he considers to be a fair price to pay for a place to live. My cousin (who also owns a share) wants to get rid of one of the tenants and live in that flat herself, and my dad and aunt (who between them own most of it) are reluctantly going along with my cousin's plan, but they have insisted on giving the tenant 6 months' notice instead of 2, with the option to leave at any point during that time, because she's been a good tenant and been there a few years and they don't want to cause her any more trouble than they absolutely have to.

So there are still plenty of LLs out there who regard keeping the tenant's goodwill as good business practice, and even one or two dinosaurs who still think business means providing a good service for a fair price rather than squeezing as much as possible out of the customer.

You're comparing an accidental landlord through inheritence who is renting out to supplement their income to someone who is purchasing properties as part of a BTL business.

Not a like for like comparison I'm afraid.

The first point is, however, a valid one. If a landlord is to assume a void period of one month per year, it stands to sense that they should be willing to accept an 8% reduction in rent compared to market rates for their long term tenancts.

The 8% reduction keeps the tenants happy and more likely to stay whilst, in theory, should cost the landlord too much, if anything.

It's when the discrepency between market rent and the rent being charged by a landlord becomes greater than 10% that the landlord starts to look more like a fool than a business person.

Jegersmart

marathonic wrote: »

Yes, a bank is a place where a young person can either choose to lodge money and save for a deposit for a house so as to avoid the requirement for rented accomodation or else make use of an ATM on a Friday/Saturday night to go out on the beer with friends.

haha

J

marathonic

saverbuyer wrote: »

Well no because something like 70% of all private rentals here receive housing benefit.

Not just the low end but the whole of the market. That's why (in NI) I can rent a 5 bed mansion for not much more than the price of a 3 bed terrace. HB sets the floor, supply and demand has little to do with it.

If 100,000 houses suddenly popped up out of thin air and appeared on the rental market, compeition would be fierce to secure tenants and rents would drop. Hence, supply has a large part of it.

If Google were to build an office in Belfast and hire 100,000 people, landlords could shy away from tenants in receipt of housing benefits and focus on the professional market. Hence, demand has an equally large part to play in the situation.

Anyone who thinks that supply and demand has little to do with the price of ANY commodity, be it housing or milk, needs a lesson in basic economics.

saverbuyer

marathonic wrote: »

If 100,000 houses suddenly popped up out of thin air and appeared on the rental market, compeition would be fierce to secure tenants and rents would drop. Hence, supply has a large part of it.

If Google were to build an office in Belfast and hire 100,000 people, landlords could shy away from tenants in receipt of housing benefits and focus on the professional market. Hence, demand has an equally large part to play in the situation.

Anyone who thinks that supply and demand has little to do with the price of ANY commodity, be it housing or milk, needs a lesson in basic economics.

Both hypothetical examples above have nothing to do with what I said.

I said housing benefit sets rent levels in N.I. because the majority of private renters are in receipt of it. It sets a floor on prices because the majority of consumers are in receipt it. Why accept less in rent when the government guarantee X.

I see you are from Derry where 30% of the population are on out of work benefits. The greatest percentage in any reason. Do you think HB sets a rent floor in Derry or supply and demand.

Sampong

Conrad wrote: »

Bingo. Here less than 15 years, amazing what can be achieved. He's retired back to Lithuania.

PS - I've changed his nationality to protect his identiy - you never know......

Do you still think the opportunity is there in the property market? Many landlords built up their portfolios in the era of fast rising prices and easy access to finance. On the other side of the coin of course, landlords can now achieve income from their rentals, though the capital growth isn't so spectacular.