Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Rent Increase
25 Answers
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 ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by davidanthony. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
This sounds a bit old-fashioned these days, but its the only solution to living in places like London.
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 ?
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 ?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
// 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
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
"...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.
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.
