Sub letting?

JCR

Just a wondering (as this hasn't actually happened) - but if you let out a property to one person with a negotiated rent, which was perhaps a little lower than you had wanted, but you felt it was being fair, what would be the situation if you then found out that the tenant had a working adult sharing with them - would it be fair to put the rent up at the appropriate time. I have been reading the thread about a boyfriend staying with his girlfriend and the landlady asking for back dated rent to reflect his staying there. Let me just add that I don't agree with the landlady doing that as staying for a couple of nights a week is not the same as someone moving in lock stock and barrel.

I was just interested what the position would be should this situation arise.

I hope this isn't on a thread somewhere that I have missed - if so sorry.

:rolleyes:

pcwilkins

Providing they are not subletting part of the property --- i.e. charging another person to stay there --- then they would be doing nothing wrong. Unless you had a very unfair agreement that meant they were not allowed to let other people into the property.

After all they are paying the rent which you would have set and as long as they didn't break the TA you wouldn't be able to charge them for having visitors, whether they are working adults, children, OAPs, or whoever.

Of course you would be entitled to put the rent up as you wish, providing you followed legal procedure. But whether it's "fair" to put it up is hardly a black-and-white question. My opinion is no it wouldn't be --- the rent should be set based on property size, not number of people living in it. Of course a small increase might be fair to cover the fact that more tenants probably means more wear and tear.

Peter

Debt_Free_Chick

JCR wrote: »

Just a wondering (as this hasn't actually happened) - but if you let out a property to one person with a negotiated rent, which was perhaps a little lower than you had wanted, but you felt it was being fair, what would be the situation if you then found out that the tenant had a working adult sharing with them - would it be fair to put the rent up at the appropriate time.

I think I get your drift ..... you agreed to reduce the rent as you understood that only one person would be occupying it and you took into account that only one income would be going to support the rent.

You now find out that this is, in fact, a "two-income family" and had you known this at the time, you would probably not have reduced the rent (as there would be two incomes to support the rent).

Firstly, what does the tenancy agreement say about increasing the rent?

The fact that the situation is not as you had first envisaged is not, I think, relevant to any rent increase. Irrespective of the reasons for increasing, it's the agreement that states when and what increases can be imposed.

JCR

That is right Debt_Free_Chick - the rent was negotiated to a lower than market rate as I knew the tenant would be reliable but could not afford the going rate as a single person in a 3 bed house.

pcwilkins

I don't understand why you would accept a lower-than-market-rate rent on any property, unless the alternative was to have the property standing empty.

I've never yet met a landlord who was willing to lower the rent because the tenant couldn't afford it --- perhaps you're just exceptionally generous! Do you have any houses we could rent? :-)

Peter

olly300

JCR wrote: »

That is right Debt_Free_Chick - the rent was negotiated to a lower than market rate as I knew the tenant would be reliable but could not afford the going rate as a single person in a 3 bed house.

I wouldn't do anything unless you can prove they are subletting.

Just wait until their fixed term expires and put the rent up to the market rate.

Also why have you let such a large house to a single person below market rent? A 2 bedroom house yes, but a 3 bedroom is ideal for subletting.

Debt_Free_Chick

Irrespective of the "whys", I think the expression is "we are, where we are" and it's how to move forward that's the issue.

So .... back to what is in the tenancy agreement regarding rent increases?

Gold_Shogun

pcwilkins wrote: »

I don't understand why you would accept a lower-than-market-rate rent on any property, unless the alternative was to have the property standing empty.

I've never yet met a landlord who was willing to lower the rent because the tenant couldn't afford it --- perhaps you're just exceptionally generous! Do you have any houses we could rent? :-)

Hi Peter,
Well, congratulations, you've met one now ... Pleased to meet you !! :beer:

I am willing to do (& often have done) this for Tenants that I consider are a good long-term prospect, as I personally consider that a "Good Tenant" is worth more to me in the long run than a "top-whack" rent.

For the same reasons, I rarely increase the rental amount during a Tenancy, and when I do, it's never been less than every 3 years or so between rent reviews.

... And to answer your question ... No, I rarely have any houses that are empty or available to rent as my (good) tenants tend to stay put for as long as possible !!! (I wonder why ! ).
... The only time I usually have a vacancy is either when a "good" tenant has to move due to work/personal circumstances, etc, or when I kick a "bad" tenant out on their Backsides (& the vacancy is rarely for more than a couple of weeks).

Many Landlords might well be Smegheads, but NOT ALL of them ... And the same can be equally said about Many Tenants !!! :rolleyes:

Regards
Bob