Landlord increasing rent to cover previous 'sharp practice' loss

CKhalvashi

dgtazzman wrote: »

I know commuting costs too, but for that money you'd get a nice 2 or 3 bedroom house within an hour's commute to London. If I were your son, I'd tell the LL to stuff it, he is a tenant, so legally should be given 2 months notice as you have described it, should be enough time to find another place...

We did this (but buying), and it was the best thing we ever did; 5 minutes from Stansted airport, 40 minutes from Park Royal (work). The difference in mortgage (rent) has paid for many a weekend away, booked at the last minute.

We've got a 1 bed for grabs in the town we live at £525 a month at the moment (note, I'm not advertising, this is for comparison only), which for £26 day return on the train (season tickets go much cheaper), is still comparable money for a bit of privacy. It's a relaxed town too, I don't miss the mad rush of central London ech day, even though we both own business within 3 miles of Westminster!

JustLikeThat wrote: »

They have no joint relationship and moved in at different times. I simply meant that the LL was trying to recoup a loss in overall rent by upping both of theirs.

I have a number of rental properties, none of which are in London however, and I wouldn't dream of doing this!

It would presumably be with at least 2 months notice, or the chance to bring any contract to an end (see my post above)

CK

JustLikeThat

Location-wise he teaches at a school in Surbiton Surrey and lives close to Clapham Junction so he has easy access to work and social activity. He doesn't drive. A house would be good but remember his rent includes council tax, utilities etc.

propertyman

No he isnt required to pay anything more, but the LL will then terminate the tenancy, hoping to rent to someone who will

But on the other hand he now has a room and a shared living room.

He would do well to look at alternative arrangements for £850pcm, he can then

• move or
• if similar arrangements are say £700 pcm advise the landlord and reach a compromise.

princeofpounds

OK, to sum it all up then:

Given he has exclusive use of a room with shared facilities, and the landlord does not live with him or share those facilities he has a assured shorthold tenancy contract on a verbal basis.

Given he has a single tenancy of a room he has no liability for shortfall of rent caused by the under-occupation of other rooms.

If it is inside the fixed term of that tenancy (which is likely to be 6 months if other evidence is not available), the LL cannot adjust the rent except by mutual agreement.

If the fixed term has ended or is close to ending, the LL could threaten to terminate the tenancy on expiry of the fixed term (Section 21) or use the procedure to raise rent (Section 13).

That will then lead into a negotiation process where he has the choice to move elsewhere voluntarily, stay and cut some kind of deal, or resist the process for as long as he feels is appropriate (initially this is very easy, but he may well want to leave before the court date).

Using the Section 21 process requires any deposit to be protected (he should check with the schemes, if one was taken).

He cannot legitimately be asked to leave in a week, and if the LL tries to force him that could constitute crimes of illegal eviction and/or harrassment.

Longer-term, the fact that the LL has a shaky grasp of mathematics and his entitlements it doesn't bode well for the relationship.