Am I foolish to reduce monthly rent?

KnightSmile

The fact you called the tenant 'quite cheeky' for raising this with the landlord suggests you really don't get it.

jjlandlord

KnightSmile wrote: »

The fact you called the tenant 'quite cheeky' for raising this with the landlord suggests you really don't get it.

Really?

"Hey Mr Landlord, why don't you ditch your agent and then we can split his fee".

If that is not cheeky I don't know what is.

Any other insights?

KnightSmile

Yes really.

jjlandlord

Well, then QED on #31.

(Your other threads are supplementary evidence, I'd say)

Thrugelmir

Boyley wrote: »

Arguably rents shoud be increased year on year

On what basis? Many a business work extremely hard to retain it's best customers. As the potential cost of replacement is extremely high.

KnightSmile

Ditto (#32)

jjlandlord

Hopefully the troll will go back under its bridge...

Thrugelmir wrote: »

On what basis? Many a business work extremely hard to retain it's best customers. As the potential cost of replacement is extremely high.

True.

For rents I'd say it really depends on the local market, and the fact that it is also expensive for a tenant to move.

I'd think that even if rent is slightly above market, the tenant may not bother moving because of inertia and cost of move.
If rent is below market even slightly, the tenant will never move because of the rent (and thus it would seem pointless to agree any further reduction unless, as mentioned, tenant offers something of value in return).

Obviously this means that if market crashes landlord may have no choice but to agree to reduce rent to keep the tenant.

Dave101t

without using management means you will pay more on your self assessment tax return, maybe 144ish pounds a year if monthly rent is around 600. factor this in too...

Boyley

jjlandlord wrote: »

Really?

"Hey Mr Landlord, why don't you ditch your agent and then we can split his fee".

If that is not cheeky I don't know what is.

Any other insights?

Not quite what happened though is it?? Another silly assumption. I planned to ditch the agent anyhow as I only used them to find/vet the tenant.

A conversation between two gentleman as to the terms of a second years contract is NOT cheeky. You can make any business deal sound discourteous if you so wish.

Your tack has potential to discredit you.

Boyley

jjlandlord wrote: »

Hopefully the troll will go back under its bridge...



True.

For rents I'd say it really depends on the local market, and the fact that it is also expensive for a tenant to move.

I'd think that even if rent is slightly above market, the tenant may not bother moving because of inertia and cost of move.
If rent is below market even slightly, the tenant will never move because of the rent (and thus it would seem pointless to agree any further reduction unless, as mentioned, tenant offers something of value in return).

Obviously this means that if market crashes landlord may have no choice but to agree to reduce rent to keep the tenant.

Market is just whatever the tenant is willing to pay to secure their tennancy. If there is a lot of interest they may pay slightly above market.

Reducing the monthly rent on this particular property by £15 pcm still leaves me very well positioned in the market compared to what is available locally. AND more importantly it gives the tenant a little back and gets us off on the right foot to continue our business relationship with each other directly. I have already stated the value I think the tenant offers in return.

Anything but whimsical I might add.