Fair rent increase?

Miss_Samantha

Apoorwoman wrote: »

We are not money grabbers, just trying to be fair.

It is not money grabbing. It is fair to charge what something is worth.
Whatever makes you comfortable, though.

A lot of people complain about private landlords or 'accidental' landlords.
However here we can see that such landlords may not be business-savvy at all and thus can be a major benefit to tenants.
Just try finding a 'professional' or corporate landlord happy to destroy his bottom line.

dirty_magic

cjdavies wrote: »

If you want to rent at £1300, issue a section 21 (if not on fixed term). Then advertise at that price.

Risk involved is bad tenants compared to now.

What is the logic behind that? Surely the first port of call is to speak to the tenants and see what their views are before you try to evict them from their home. If they don't want to pay then you can start the process.

I don't think it's unfair to put the rent up to a figure that is still below market value. When we were renting I expected them to put the rent up every year, it was just a bonus that they didn't!

alchemist.1

Considering this thread, It seems that a lot of landlords dont place any value on good tenants.
Being business-savvy does not always entail screwing the tenants for as much as you can.

An extra £100.00 to cover increased costs shouldnt be a huge issue if explained properly.

Jon_B_2

alchemist.1 wrote: »

Considering this thread, It seems that a lot of landlords dont place any value on good tenants.
Being business-savvy does not always entail screwing the tenants for as much as you can.

An extra £100.00 to cover increased costs shouldnt be a huge issue if explained properly.

+1.

It actually only equates to 1.6% per year of tenancy. 11% in total increase.

theartfullodger

Apoorwoman wrote: »

Yes, unfortunate user name which stemmed from a joke on a very old thread!

But, please don't insult me, I genuinely came here to ask for opinions.

Not sure were you get those figures from though.

Where is the insult, please?

Figures? From the data you provided and "O" level sums.

Thrugelmir

Perhaps your tenant has remained in situ because the rent is low. You know nothing of their personal circumstances. Possibly they'll vacate if the rent sharply increases.

As a business you need to maximise the return while you can. As the next tenant may be far from perfect.

Ultimately it's your business to run. You must make the decision that suits you.

Marvel1

dirty_magic wrote: »

What is the logic behind that? Surely the first port of call is to speak to the tenants and see what their views are before you try to evict them from their home. If they don't want to pay then you can start the process.

I don't think it's unfair to put the rent up to a figure that is still below market value. When we were renting I expected them to put the rent up every year, it was just a bonus that they didn't!

Sorry I didn't mean for it sound so blunt, I hate it when people have to be evicted (if they are decent). I'm just thinking even though they have been lucky these past few years a £100 increase is a lot. My council tax going up by £3 a month along with others with the small increase a month is a lot for me.

Chrysalis

I have 2 comments really.

1 - miss samantha, sorry dont like you, screwing over tenants for as much money as possible. All this talk of subsidisation etc is wrong. I think its wrong that renting can cost more than a mortgage and also wrong to expect rental income to cover ALL costs, as remember a landlord gains from cheap credit secured on property as well as rising property prices. Not to mention that mortgage payments go down over time (whilst rents go up).

2 - To the OP in question, if I was your tenant I would accept providing you made a promise to stick to that rent for say another 5 years or so. The worry the tenants may have is that this might be the start of annual increases, and they wont want the rent costs to run away. Also explaining that your costs have actually gone up, I am assuming you telling the truth here.

geoffken

Not sure I know of any costs that have gone down over the last 7 years except mortgage (if they have one outstanding on the house)

Cakeguts

Chrysalis wrote: »

I have 2 comments really.

1 - miss samantha, sorry dont like you, screwing over tenants for as much money as possible. All this talk of subsidisation etc is wrong. I think its wrong that renting can cost more than a mortgage and also wrong to expect rental income to cover ALL costs, as remember a landlord gains from cheap credit secured on property as well as rising property prices. Not to mention that mortgage payments go down over time (whilst rents go up).

2 - To the OP in question, if I was your tenant I would accept providing you made a promise to stick to that rent for say another 5 years or so. The worry the tenants may have is that this might be the start of annual increases, and they wont want the rent costs to run away. Also explaining that your costs have actually gone up, I am assuming you telling the truth here.

Your statement about renting costing more than a mortgage repayment being wrong is rubbish. You are working from the basis that all landlords borrow the maximum amount on a mortgage and are effectively getting their tenants to pay for this. In your argument if someone borrows only 50% on the mortgage the tenant would only pay for this amount of mortgage not the market rent and if someone bought a house for cash the tenant would pay nothing at all? What interest would you expect the landlord to get on the money in the property that wasn't covered by the mortgage and how would you expect them to be able to pay for repairs if they didn't have a mortgage and so couldn't charge rent.

You are assuming wrongly that all landlords have mortgages. You are also assuming all landlords are quite happy to rent a property and make a loss. My argument would be why should they? The obvious solution to not covering costs is to either raise the rent or sell the property. No one wants to run a business that makes a great big loss which is what a landlord would make if they didn't cover all their costs.

Without looking at their buildings insurance policy I would be very surprised if the cost of the premiums hadn't gone up over that time and the cost of the boiler servicing etc. You don't seem to be annoyed for the tenants that their cost of food has increased over this time so maybe you should get onto the farmers and suggest that they take bigger losses?

The point about this is that if you liked eating at a particular restaurant that then got very fashionable and raised its prices to the point where you couldn't afford to eat there anymore you might think about going somewhere else rather than doing the equivalent of what you are suggesting the tenants do which is to go into the restaurant tell them that it is unfair that they charge so much for their food and suggest to them that they can charge less and not cover their costs just because everyone has to eat. If a business does not cover its costs it will stop trading. So in this case if the tenants want to stay in that house and rent it they need to cover the costs otherwise it will become cheaper for the landlord to either leave it empty or to sell it.