Rent Increase

[davidanthony]

Is there a law which restricts a landlord from applying large rent increases. I am currently paying £1050 per month, and a few days ago, I have received a notice from the agent saying the rent will be going up in December to £1250, that's a 20% increase which I would not have thought was allowable ?

[Buenchico]

See here:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/rent_increases

[EDDIE51]

One of Jeremy Corbyn's most popular proposals is the one to restrict rent increases by private landlords. But as Chris says at the moment it depends on the type of lease you have.

[Peter Pedant]

you almost certainly have a short hold assured tenancy
which would be limited - perhaps to one year
and on renewal of the lease - he can increase it

£1250 may well be a market value in certain parts of the country
( cheap for parts of London)
per cent age increase is by and large irrelevant

he seems to have complied with the law

if you think it is too high then move to a property with a lower rent.
Houses are available in mank for £500.

[fiction-factory]

As an aside, rent controls are unlikely to work even if they are introduced. I'm sure landlords could find a way round them- eg small change to the specification- and it's pretty obvious what will happen in the run up to the introduction of any laws- landlords will shove rents up while they can. The only real answer to high private rents is to build more affordable housing and more council houses

[mikey4444]

On a related subject, £1050 or £1250 a month just shows how completely over the top private rents are. I have a reasonable income, but I couldn't even hope to afford over 90% of my net income going on rent.

Sorry DA...didn't mean to hijack your thread !

[fiction-factory]

Even in London £1250 is high for a single person Mikey in a shared flat but is not unaffordable for many couples. It's true though that you could buy a decent sized house in most parts of teh country and your mortgage would be quite a bit less than £1250. But people pay it and still seem to flock to London- the landlords are in a strong position. but we also know being a landlord can be an expensive business with some tenants refusing to pay or subletting or trashing properties

[woofgang]

Its a fine balance........being a landlord is a business like any other and if you squeeze the profit then they will leave the business.

[tamborine]

£1250pm = 41.6+pday! Rentals are a business & if restricted too much llords will invest elsewhere.

Youve received good notice 'use it or lose it' as labour prescribe. You can appeal to llord for lesser increase.

[mikey4444]

FF....then its quite clear to me that we need Councils to start building affordable homes for rent again. And these homes should be ring-fenced, so that they can't be sold off for a quick profit....ie, they should remain under Council control.

This sounds a bit old-fashioned these days, but its the only solution to living in places like London.

[fiction-factory]

>FF....then its quite clear to me that we need Councils to start building affordable homes for rent again

That would be a popular move- although i see no problem with more private sector hosuing too - so long as they are built somewhere else and not in our back yard

[tamborine]

Our streets were flooded with teens out after school yday. Where will houses be built for them when they need homes.

[EDDIE51]

The original plan for sale of council houses was that the money from every house sold could only be used to build another one. Margaret Thatcher cancelled that and allowed the councils to use the money for what ever they wanted.
Then there is a rule that 50% of every new housing development must be 'affordable homes' that can be rented from social housing associations. But there is a catch, if the developer pays nice fat fee to the council the requirement to build 50% as social housing can be bypassed. Kensington council ( remember Grenfell !) has taken over £50 million in fees to allow 100% private development and built no new social housing at all!!!
We wouldn't want to describe the £50 million as a bribe now would we ?

[mikey4444]

Heaven forbid Eddie !

[Togo]

//Kensington council ( remember Grenfell !) has taken over £50 million in fees to allow 100% private development and built no new social housing at all!!! //

Then of course the builder passes on the "fee" to the buyer. Result, expensive housing and the council goes on a jolly boys outing. Meehh.

[New Judge]

“We wouldn't want to describe the £50 million as a bribe now would we ?”

No we wouldn’t because it would be incorrect.

When a developer builds a “mixed” development of private and “social” housing he must sell the social homes to the local authority (LA) at cost price only. He thus makes no profit on those homes that he has built and adds a premium to those he does sell privately to make up the shortfall. The LA (or more usually these days a Housing Association) buys the homes (at a knock down price because it includes no profit for the developer) and rents them out at well below the proper going rate. They can afford to do so because they receive subsidies from LAs (probably from the "development fees", see below) Tax and central taxation which a private landlord does not. The end result of all this munificence is that social hosing tenants are provided with homes that are heavily subsidised by purchasers of homes in such developments and by taxpayers.

Those developers who choose to pay the development fee rather than build a mixed development do so for a number of reasons, all of them pragmatic. Most usually it is because they want to retain the character of their developments for their private buyers. In many respects social housing has become housing of “last resort” and it is problematic to sell homes for a decent price when the neighbours (shall we be kind and just say) may not treat the property and the area in the same way as owner occupiers might. Nonetheless the development fee that is paid in order to be allowed to build such developments gets added to the cost of the homes so once again private buyers are subsidising LA expenditure - much of which goes on "Social Housing".

So-called “affordable” housing is one of the biggest scandals of our time. To provide homes at a considerably discounted rent is costing an absolute fortune and somebody needs to get a grip on it.

[Mamyalynne]

When I hear some of these stories I thank goodness I am on a Regulated Tenancy - subjected to a fair and clear procedure for any proposed increase (or as happened once, decrease ).

[mikey4444]

NJ....the simplest way to solve this problem, is for the Government to start building Council Houses again.

Council homes that can't be sold off at some future date. I am guessing that would mean putting in the legislation that ensured that these homes remain at fair, affordable rents.

If you look at how we, as a nation, solved the problem of affordable housing in the immediate post-war years, we can see that it is doable. All it takes is the political will, which is now sadly lacking.

[Peter Pedant]

// When I hear some of these stories I thank goodness I am on a Regulated Tenancy//

I bet your landlord doesnt hur hur hur
( tenancy granted before shorthold assured tenancies came in)

The 1977 act replaced a previous system of controlled tenancies
and when the market had just about expired - croaked that is -
the 1988 reforms were brought in

I have to say I am astounded there are any around
just out of interest MML what rent are you paying ?
the average around Manchester is £500 / m

[Mamyalynne]

You're right Peter , he's not keen - am sure he checks the Obits daily.

Less than £300 pcm, 2 bed, ground floor.

[New Judge]

"...the simplest way to solve this problem, is for the Government to start building Council Houses again."

It may be the simplest, Mikey, but it's not the most desirable. All that strategy does is transfers people's housing costs from themselves to the taxpayer. I don't relish the idea of paying to put a roof over my own head and assisting others to do the same.