Rent increase - is it legal?

dobbie82

I rented a property for nearly 3 years, started 450pcm, the following year offered renewal at 470 a month then the following offered 490 a month. It was still a slower rise than other rentals locally!

My wage had gone up £40 a month so £20 a month more for rent wasnt too bad but a difference of £60 a month in one move must be hard for you to accept.

franklee

Gingernutmeg wrote: »

Nope, we provided the peg However, according to the inventory I do have to replace 'two plastic ice cream tubs with dead plants in' that were on the balcony when we moved in lol.

What flavour ice cream? I hope it's one you like assuming you are planning to eat the ice cream to get the right container And are you planning to get the same type of plant or would any dead one do?

My previous landlord, bless him, provided a snazzy and expensive looking loo brush. Now who wants to use someone else's loo brush? It was banished to the loft and carefully reinstated on leaving day :eek: There was also a spare loo in the garage that the inventory clerk missed. I was half expecting him to say it was mine and I had to remove it on leaving but he missed it again on checkout... It matched the one installed so it was the landlord's.

franklee

rosysparkle wrote: »

It's not lettings agents that have a minimum income, it's the referencing agencies which require that to get a pass on affordability. People with a lower income can (and do) still rent through an agent.

Franklee, you are misinterpreting the post which you keep quoting, and I think that doing so may mislead people. I did not say, and have never suggested, that a tenant needs 30x monthly rent to be "eligible" to rent. I supplied the calculation that reference agencies use to assess affordability. Affordability is only one small part of referencing and a refer on one criterion does not necessarily mean a fail reference.

I've quoted the whole post and given a link back to the thread, so how is it that I may be misleading people?

I've already I said I get round any "affordability test" by offering cash up front and of course the tenant can get a guarantor but many tenants don't have much in the way of savings and are adults who wouldn't dream of asking their parents to be guarantors.

But that it still leaves the point that the tenant without an income of 30 times rent has failed the "affordability test". It is still an argument to illustrate a rent increase isn't sustainable. What is the point of setting a rent that the target tenant can't afford

So perhaps you could clear this up, if the tenant fails the affordability test, doesn't have a guarantor or savings but all other points of his references are good can he rent the property or not? If he can what exactly was the "affordability test" for? If he cannot then the test does limit the tenants that can rent the property and does act as a limit on sustainable rent increases as it keeps rents in line with tenants income.

Also is this "affordability test" tied in to any rent guarantee insurance? In which case I'd expect it to be strict.

thesaint

rosysparkle wrote: »

<snip>

Franklee, you are misinterpreting the post which you keep quoting, and I think that doing so may mislead people. <snip>

He would never do such a thing.

franklee

No really I want to know if the tenant fails the affordability test, doesn't have a guarantor or savings but all other points of his references are good can he rent the property or not? If he can what exactly was the "affordability test" for?

Surely tenant affordability does affect rent increases or else rents would rocket In any case I'd use it to argue against a rent increase :rotfl: Seems like I've raised a good point here one that the agent and landlord don't like :rotfl:

Besides if the landlord was using rent protection insurance and that turned out to be invalid because the tenant didn't pass all the referencing I'd be doing the landlord a favour in pointing that out :rotfl: That's the thing about insurance, they happily take the money but wriggle out of paying out if you don't meet the conditions in the small print. Maybe I should say I've had a pay cut and see if the rent goes down

Gold_Shogun

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

No. I let the property in a certain condition and expect it back in a similar condition (less fair wear and tear).

I've never met a LL that redecorates around his/her tenants.

I tend to agree.

What I personally like to do for tenants after 3-4 years occupation is to offer them an allowance or "Free period" to allow them to redecorate to their own tastes, subject to a clause that the house is redecorated (upon vacating) back to a "middle of the road" level IF I personally consider their taste too outlandish or non-standard.

saraharrow

I understand your comments about redecorating around tenants, but what if your a magnolia person and your house is painted Illuminous yellow, lime green etc? thats not middle of the road or neutral as far as I can tell. And he wants me to return it back to these awful colours when I leave!

franklee

rosysparkle wrote: »

I did not say, and have never suggested, that a tenant needs 30x monthly rent to be "eligible" to rent. I supplied the calculation that reference agencies use to assess affordability. Affordability is only one small part of referencing and a refer on one criterion does not necessarily mean a fail reference.

Affordability should be a large part surely? Even if the tenant has a guarantor you don't really want the hassle of chasing them, it would be best to have the rent paid regularly on time in the first place.

There's an article in the telegraph that gives the disposable income for an average "Asda" family:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2007/07/15/cnasda115.xml

Now the gross annual income in the example is 28K and they're paying only 570pcm on their, by today's standards small, mortgage and yet have only 80pcm disposable income. So they are pretty broke paying out just 24% of their gross household income on housing.

If this family were renting today clearly they could not afford to spend anything like 40% of their gross household income on rent. That would be 933pcm on rent. It would put them 283pcm a month in the red!

I really do not think there is much room for rent rises especially as people are less prepared to stretch themselves to pay rent than they are to buy a house. I suspect we will see landlords backing down over rent increases or a lot of tenants moving to cheaper and smaller accommodation.

polly7_2

I'm a landlord and the increases in interest rates have upped mortgages by a considerable amount, nevertheless, it is better to weigh up the options. I have tenants who have been in one of my houses since 1999. They are still paying the original rent and a similar property would be at least £100pcm more. Why do I let them have it that cheap? Because they are the most perfect tenants you could wish for. They have redecorated and carpeted througout (tastefully), replaced windows for upvc (at their cost), installed heating (at their cost). This is their home and they want to stay. As long as I have tenants like that I will not increase their rental. This is an exception and if the original question is to be answered from a landlords point of view, I would definitely say, negotiate. He won't want to lose a tenant that has given no problems, it will cost him at least 1 months rent for an agency to find another tenant, besides all the time he is without a tenant and losing rent, and he will have to bring the property up to standard before finding another tenant. You are in a very good position, negotiate, he maintains the exterior, you will repaint the interior (it is your home) and meet the rental half way. (once you have checked the going rate of similar properties in your area.

Zippstar

Hallo,
I was in a similar situation last year and my landlord wanted to backdate the increase. Your landlord must comply with the law if s/he wishes to increase your rent. You can get advice from your local council. What are the terms of your lease? If you are on a rolling agreement, that is to say that you are staying in the property under terms of an agreement which has expired, your landlord must issue a new agreement. You have the right to accept or refuse. You can contest it but it is worth knowing that the decision may go in your landlord's favour or, if it does not, your landlord may serve you notice to quit; it's a difficult one. My landlord has decorated but only because we had a flood. He cares not for the property and unfortunately there are too many like him out there. Regardless of interest rates or inflation, your landlord can raise the rent to whatever, for whatever reason. I think that it boils down to this; how much do you want to stay where you are and would it be cheaper to stay put? It's up to you.

Z