Rights against rent increase

RHemmings

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Small sample sizes, but tribunals deciding on a rent higher than that asked by the landlord happens much less than 30% of the time in the sample that I looked at. 

propertyrental

skray said:

propertyrental said:

You have not answered the question. Why blank out the relevant dates? (XX/XX)?

propertyrental said:

Are you on a fixed term contract, or Periodic (rolling)?

.......

If you are still in the fixed term, and are considering signing a new fixed term, the rent is negotiable. Whatever you/LL agree.

If periodic, LL cannot rely on the rent clause (which is too vague) but could serve a S13 Notice. Or you could mutually agree a new rent.

• One months notice can be given from rent payment date throughout 
  tenancy. LL can give 2m from rent payment date. Landlord can request 
  rent increase every 12m.

This is one of the wierdest clauses I've ever seen! In effect there is no 'fixed term', the AST is effectively a Contractual Periodic Tenancy which either side can end at any time (subject to notice, S21 etc)

@propertyrental
"You have not answered the question. Why blank out the relevant dates? (XX/XX)? Are you on a fixed term contract, or Periodic (rolling)?"
I blanked out the dates for confidentiality. Here are the dates
Term: 12m beginning 03/Mar/2023 ("the fixed period")

Expiry Date: 02/Mar/2024

so you are still in the fixed term.

I have been living at this property for over 4.5 years. The original contract started in 2019 was Assured Shorthold Tenancy for 6m with a break clause of 3m that I negotiated. The break clause would have allowed me to move out after 3m of moving in e.g. in case I am being transferred or taking up a new job elsewhere. 

The Break Clause is now irrelevant unless the later tenancy agreement also has a Break Clause - does it?

Even if it does it's irrelevant as the fixed term ends on 2/3/24.

Thereafter I believe I was on a rolling period with 1m notice.

So you were on a rolling periodic from (date 2019 TA ended) till 3/3/23.

Only last March I was requested to pay a higher rent and had to sign a new contract for 12m. I have copied the relevant wordings from my contract. This was also an Assured Shorthold Tenancy with an Expiry Date after 12m - but there was an exit clause both both myself (1m notice) and LL(2m). 

So this superceds the previous (2019) fixed term contract

From a legal standpoint whether the new contract was Fixed or Rolling I would not be able to confirm.

Yet you say above the new contract is a fixed term from 3/3/23 to 2/3/24

I am living in a multistoried property - all other flats are of similar design. I would be surprised if a large number of people are paying the rent with their own money that I am being asked to pay. But there is no way to confirm how much others are paying. knock on their doors, say 'Hi', and ask?
I am dealing with the agent, not the LL. There has not been any confrontation in the past. Its just that the rent increase is huge.

Thanks everybody for your responses. Let me see what options I have.

You have been very confusing:

* you refer to an irrelevant fixed term tenancy agreement from 2019.

* you refer to a current fixed term tenancy agreement due to end on 2/3/24

* yet you also claim to be on a rolling perioodic.......

BobT36

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

RHemmings

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

Whatever the baseline percentage is, it should be easy to compare the asked for rent to comparables and work out whether the chance of asking for a review is likely to backfire, or not. I see in judgements that looking at comparables is an important part of the process. And that landlords and tenants unsurprisingly often produce different sets of comparables. 

GDB2222

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

I'm surprised that many AST cases get to the tribunal. If the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a fair rent between them, then it seems like the working relationship between them has broken down, and it's probably best for both of them to end the tenancy. 

In practice, it's a lot of work to prepare for the tribunal hearing, and if both parties prepare properly they ought to have a pretty good idea of what the tribunal will decide. So, why bother to waste a day in the tribunal, if you know what the outcome will be?

Some of the examples on this thread are quite extraordinary, like where there's only £50 difference between the parties, and the tribunal split it evenly. 

RHemmings

GDB2222 said:

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

I'm surprised that many AST cases get to the tribunal. If the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a fair rent between them, then it seems like the working relationship between them has broken down, and it's probably best for both of them to end the tenancy. 

In practice, it's a lot of work to prepare for the tribunal hearing, and if both parties prepare properly they ought to have a pretty good idea of what the tribunal will decide. So, why bother to waste a day in the tribunal, if you know what the outcome will be?

Some of the examples on this thread are quite extraordinary, like where there's only £50 difference between the parties, and the tribunal split it evenly. 

In the examples I read, there were quite a few where the comparables provided by the landlord and the comparables provided by the tenant were very different. And cases where the claims about the condition of the property were also very different. Hence, I'm not surprised that there are differences of opinion that make it to tribunal. For whatever psychological reason, it appears that the landlords and tenants are seeing different things. 

There are also clearly different opinions of what market rents are. There seems to have been one landlord in Brighton who rented a flat in a building for £1550. A building in which the landlord owns at least three flats. The landlord then wanted to increase the rents of the other flats in the same building to the same level, claiming 'market rent'. But, the tribunal disagreed.

theartfullodger

You also of course have the right to move to another rented property or, indeed, buy somewhere else 

GDB2222

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

I'm surprised that many AST cases get to the tribunal. If the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a fair rent between them, then it seems like the working relationship between them has broken down, and it's probably best for both of them to end the tenancy. 

In practice, it's a lot of work to prepare for the tribunal hearing, and if both parties prepare properly they ought to have a pretty good idea of what the tribunal will decide. So, why bother to waste a day in the tribunal, if you know what the outcome will be?

Some of the examples on this thread are quite extraordinary, like where there's only £50 difference between the parties, and the tribunal split it evenly. 

In the examples I read, there were quite a few where the comparables provided by the landlord and the comparables provided by the tenant were very different. And cases where the claims about the condition of the property were also very different. Hence, I'm not surprised that there are differences of opinion that make it to tribunal. For whatever psychological reason, it appears that the landlords and tenants are seeing different things. 

There are also clearly different opinions of what market rents are. There seems to have been one landlord in Brighton who rented a flat in a building for £1550. A building in which the landlord owns at least three flats. The landlord then wanted to increase the rents of the other flats in the same building to the same level, claiming 'market rent'. But, the tribunal disagreed.

Assuming that the tribunal get their sums right, the rent will be set at market level, give or take a small amount. That means that the tenant should be able to find a comparable property at a similar rent. Likewise, the landlord should be able to get a new tenant at close to the rent set by the tribunal.  

So, it’s hardly worth fighting in court about continuing the present tenancy. Particularly, as at the end of the hearing, one or both of the parties will be unhappy. 

RHemmings

GDB2222 said:

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

I'm surprised that many AST cases get to the tribunal. If the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a fair rent between them, then it seems like the working relationship between them has broken down, and it's probably best for both of them to end the tenancy. 

In practice, it's a lot of work to prepare for the tribunal hearing, and if both parties prepare properly they ought to have a pretty good idea of what the tribunal will decide. So, why bother to waste a day in the tribunal, if you know what the outcome will be?

Some of the examples on this thread are quite extraordinary, like where there's only £50 difference between the parties, and the tribunal split it evenly. 

In the examples I read, there were quite a few where the comparables provided by the landlord and the comparables provided by the tenant were very different. And cases where the claims about the condition of the property were also very different. Hence, I'm not surprised that there are differences of opinion that make it to tribunal. For whatever psychological reason, it appears that the landlords and tenants are seeing different things. 

There are also clearly different opinions of what market rents are. There seems to have been one landlord in Brighton who rented a flat in a building for £1550. A building in which the landlord owns at least three flats. The landlord then wanted to increase the rents of the other flats in the same building to the same level, claiming 'market rent'. But, the tribunal disagreed.

Assuming that the tribunal get their sums right, the rent will be set at market level, give or take a small amount. That means that the tenant should be able to find a comparable property at a similar rent. Likewise, the landlord should be able to get a new tenant at close to the rent set by the tribunal.  

So, it’s hardly worth fighting in court about continuing the present tenancy. Particularly, as at the end of the hearing, one or both of the parties will be unhappy. 

Speaking as someone who is half way through an extended house move, I think that there are very significant benefits to tenants if they can stay in their current property at a fair rent, rather than having to move house. Hence, while it won't affect me directly, I can see it being very worthwhile for a tenant to fight in court. 

There may be other advantages to staying. E.g. not having to find a new doctor. If the tenants have children then they may not have to change schools or have an inconveniently long trip to school, etc. 

GDB2222

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

I'm surprised that many AST cases get to the tribunal. If the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a fair rent between them, then it seems like the working relationship between them has broken down, and it's probably best for both of them to end the tenancy. 

In practice, it's a lot of work to prepare for the tribunal hearing, and if both parties prepare properly they ought to have a pretty good idea of what the tribunal will decide. So, why bother to waste a day in the tribunal, if you know what the outcome will be?

Some of the examples on this thread are quite extraordinary, like where there's only £50 difference between the parties, and the tribunal split it evenly. 

In the examples I read, there were quite a few where the comparables provided by the landlord and the comparables provided by the tenant were very different. And cases where the claims about the condition of the property were also very different. Hence, I'm not surprised that there are differences of opinion that make it to tribunal. For whatever psychological reason, it appears that the landlords and tenants are seeing different things. 

There are also clearly different opinions of what market rents are. There seems to have been one landlord in Brighton who rented a flat in a building for £1550. A building in which the landlord owns at least three flats. The landlord then wanted to increase the rents of the other flats in the same building to the same level, claiming 'market rent'. But, the tribunal disagreed.

Assuming that the tribunal get their sums right, the rent will be set at market level, give or take a small amount. That means that the tenant should be able to find a comparable property at a similar rent. Likewise, the landlord should be able to get a new tenant at close to the rent set by the tribunal.  

So, it’s hardly worth fighting in court about continuing the present tenancy. Particularly, as at the end of the hearing, one or both of the parties will be unhappy. 

Speaking as someone who is half way through an extended house move, I think that there are very significant benefits to tenants if they can stay in their current property at a fair rent, rather than having to move house. Hence, while it won't affect me directly, I can see it being very worthwhile for a tenant to fight in court. 

Yes, I agree that it's costly for the tenant to move. And, I agree that a change of tenant means more costs for the LL, and very probably a void period. So, it's bad for both of them if the tenancy ends.

Hence, it makes perfect sense for them to negotiate and hopefully reach a fair agreement. If they can't manage to do that, you have to wonder why not?