LL trying to raise rent again

RelievedSheff

Oneplanetonelife said:

LightFlare said:

Oneplanetonelife said:

Interesting some are saying to prioritise council tax over rent?

debt charities say rent is priority 

one may result in a prison term - the other wont.

council tax is one of the few debts that is very difficult to write off (if not impossible)

Coat of living crisis today actually a lot of council tax is getting written off. If there is no hope of the poor people being able to pay areas then they stop chasing them

I'm not sure where you are getting that information but it simply isn't true.

Perhaps focus on the facts of your case as a priority.

Those are that your current housing is too expensive and beyond your means, you are living beyond any sort of budget and you have increasing priority debts.

Something has to change.

Skiddaw1

As @RelievedSheff says.

Council Tax is a priority debt and you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you truly believe your local authority will shrug their shoulders and write off your arrears.

You really do need some proper debt/budgeting advice and pronto. Contact National Debtline as a priority.

jimbog

Oneplanetonelife said:

LightFlare said:

Oneplanetonelife said:

Interesting some are saying to prioritise council tax over rent?

debt charities say rent is priority 

one may result in a prison term - the other wont.

council tax is one of the few debts that is very difficult to write off (if not impossible)

Coat of living crisis today actually a lot of council tax is getting written off. If there is no hope of the poor people being able to pay areas then they stop chasing them

You've been misinformed on that score and wouldn't rely on it as an option

LightFlare

Council Tax debt is one of the very few that may end up with a prison sentence.

Sadly, the OP isnt or doesn’t want to listen

its obvious you need some help and some advice has been given here

up to you whether you listen and act, but I strongly advise you to and not go for full ostrich mode instead

Flugelhorn

FlorayG said:

I think people are being a bit unfair commenting on money the OP had to spend in 2019. A lot can change in 5 years.

agree and some people sadly never hang on to any money that they have, it gets spent as quickly as they get it. suspect a lot of people would like to be able to go back to a "better time" when they had a bit more and then saved a bit rather than have that long gone holiday or the fancier car etc 

silvercar

Oneplanetonelife said:

theartfullodger said:

Nothing stopping you proposing a rent reduction.  Do it!

Yes we have asked to keep it as it is for another year.

im not bluffing we will move out then they have void periods and risk trying to get another good tenant 

How will you move out, if you have nowhere to go?

The landlord’s definition of a “another good tenant” won’t be the same as yours. If you have rent arrears, how are you a good tenant?

saajan_12

Oneplanetonelife said:

theartfullodger said:

Nothing stopping you proposing a rent reduction.  Do it!

Yes we have asked to keep it as it is for another year.

im not bluffing we will move out then they have void periods and risk trying to get another good tenant 

I'm not sure that's the threat you think it is.. if the new proposed rent is in line with the market, then someone who can't afford that and can barely afford an undermarket rent (given you're already not covering bills) is not exactly a good tenant. 

Yes they'd have some void, but it sounds like that'll happen sooner or later anyway and it'll be offset by a higher rent. 

From both perspectives, it seems this is currently unaffordable and the sooner people cut their losses the better. That'll stop the bleed of the high rent so you can move sooner to somewhere more affordable, whether that means smaller or further. 

BikingBud

saajan_12 said:

RHemmings said:

FlorayG said:

Putting it aside 'in case' is pretty much 'paying it' in real terms especially as the tribunal will find in favour of the LL if the rent is still reasonable. What I meant was, the increased rent will still be payable back to the date the LL set. Once the new RR Law is in effect, this will change, the increased rent will only have to be paid from the date of the decision which means that pretty much EVERY tenant is going to go to tribunal on receipt of a S13. The idiot government haven't thought this through at all ( and that, OP, is why your LL is putting up the rent NOW)

Putting it aside has a lot of advantages over paying it. As if the tribunal decides a rent increase less than the asked for increase, the tenant doesn't have to then recover the money from the landlord. 

For the other discussion in the paragraph: I pass because I'm trying to avoid debating house prices and the economy. 

I don't think there's an actual suggestion it would be better to pay if they didn't have to pending a decision. Just that a lot of the disadvantages of paying the new rent remain for someone who can't afford the new rent. The biggest disadvantage is that money isn't available for other bills, so if that means that credit reports are affected or food is a struggle etc then that's a problem. OP would have to move out to somewhere more affordable. 

But if the proposed increase is in line with the rates locally there is nowhere cheaper!

Emmia

BikingBud said:

saajan_12 said:

RHemmings said:

FlorayG said:

Putting it aside 'in case' is pretty much 'paying it' in real terms especially as the tribunal will find in favour of the LL if the rent is still reasonable. What I meant was, the increased rent will still be payable back to the date the LL set. Once the new RR Law is in effect, this will change, the increased rent will only have to be paid from the date of the decision which means that pretty much EVERY tenant is going to go to tribunal on receipt of a S13. The idiot government haven't thought this through at all ( and that, OP, is why your LL is putting up the rent NOW)

Putting it aside has a lot of advantages over paying it. As if the tribunal decides a rent increase less than the asked for increase, the tenant doesn't have to then recover the money from the landlord. 

For the other discussion in the paragraph: I pass because I'm trying to avoid debating house prices and the economy. 

I don't think there's an actual suggestion it would be better to pay if they didn't have to pending a decision. Just that a lot of the disadvantages of paying the new rent remain for someone who can't afford the new rent. The biggest disadvantage is that money isn't available for other bills, so if that means that credit reports are affected or food is a struggle etc then that's a problem. OP would have to move out to somewhere more affordable. 

But if the proposed increase is in line with the rates locally there is nowhere cheaper!

Then they'll need to move further away - not ideal but a reality unfortunately.

BikingBud

Emmia said:

BikingBud said:

saajan_12 said:

RHemmings said:

FlorayG said:

Putting it aside 'in case' is pretty much 'paying it' in real terms especially as the tribunal will find in favour of the LL if the rent is still reasonable. What I meant was, the increased rent will still be payable back to the date the LL set. Once the new RR Law is in effect, this will change, the increased rent will only have to be paid from the date of the decision which means that pretty much EVERY tenant is going to go to tribunal on receipt of a S13. The idiot government haven't thought this through at all ( and that, OP, is why your LL is putting up the rent NOW)

Putting it aside has a lot of advantages over paying it. As if the tribunal decides a rent increase less than the asked for increase, the tenant doesn't have to then recover the money from the landlord. 

For the other discussion in the paragraph: I pass because I'm trying to avoid debating house prices and the economy. 

I don't think there's an actual suggestion it would be better to pay if they didn't have to pending a decision. Just that a lot of the disadvantages of paying the new rent remain for someone who can't afford the new rent. The biggest disadvantage is that money isn't available for other bills, so if that means that credit reports are affected or food is a struggle etc then that's a problem. OP would have to move out to somewhere more affordable. 

But if the proposed increase is in line with the rates locally there is nowhere cheaper!

Then they'll need to move further away - not ideal but a reality unfortunately.

Yep 2400 per month is £28800 after tax and before other expenses

And we then find we cannot get the workers with the right skills, nurses, bus drivers, teachers, office workers in certain areas of the country.

Tell me again why house price inflation is such a good thing?