Increasing rent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    Got it sorted! (I think).
    the clause in my TA states only the frequency of the increase but not by how much do I can use a section 13 (form 4).

    thanks everyone 🙂

    Leave a comment:


  • jpucng62
    replied
    Hooper,

    I did read the thread and my take is that the tenant is paying the rent - just not a disputed bill. The OP did not ask about S13 - that is the way the thread went - I went back to the OP's original question!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hooper
    replied
    Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
    write to your tenant and say the rent is going up per tenancy agreement. If the tenant agrees and pays all is sorted.
    I'm all for being optimistic but advising L to rely on T agreeing to a rent increase seems a little unhelpful in the circumstances. If you take a moment to read the thread you will understand that T is already refusing to pay the present rent and has already been issued with both S8 and S21.

    The point of the s.13 is to avoid needing T's agreement a rent review. The main question being asked is whether a s.13 would be valid.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpucng62
    replied
    Goodness this has got complicated!

    From the OP it looks fairly straight forward - write to your tenant and say the rent is going up per tenancy agreement. If the tenant agrees and pays all is sorted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    Hmmmmm….. thanks everyone. I think the way forward is to write informing T about the rent increase and send a s13. Their s21 ends on 5th Dec anyway so the rent increase will start from January when they should be out anyway ( that’s a bit of a laugh I know 🤪).

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Hooper View Post
    They can't be more harsh? Grant possession but give T longer to vacate, for instance? From what I have read on here a lot depends on the judge. But I've never had to go through it myself, thankfully.
    I've only been involved at a possession hearing on the "other" side (it was my parents in law before anyone accuses me of landlord bashing!).

    The maximum that a judge can give to vacate is 42 days (instead of the standard 14).
    They can award costs the other way, but they shouldn't.

    Part of being a judge is not obviously doing anything that looks like bias.
    So they might be extra diligent in checking the notice is valid and consider any 50:50 decisions in favour of the tenant. but they shouldn't do anything that might cause them an issue in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hooper
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    Even if it looks bad, it's not an issue that can do anything except maybe colour the judges opinion of the landlord.
    It can't affect the decision.
    They can't be more harsh? Grant possession but give T longer to vacate, for instance? From what I have read on here a lot depends on the judge. But I've never had to go through it myself, thankfully.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Even if it looks bad, it's not an issue that can do anything except maybe colour the judges opinion of the landlord.
    It can't affect the decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hooper
    replied
    Sorry I was not clear. I was referring to a challenge of the validity of the S13 on the basis suggested by JPK. Even if successful, what have you lost by issuing it?

    I then wondered whether raising the rent immediately after issuing s21 and s8 might look bad in possession proceedings. But that's just a thought. I've no experience with such proceedings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    Hooper the rent is £50 pcm below market rent and I’m going to increase it by £20 pcm so it’s still below market rent. I don’t think a challenge could be supported.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hooper
    replied
    Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
    So, do you think I should send both a formal letter informing the tenants of a rent increase and a s13?
    In practical terms, I can't see that it would hurt to send it even if it were challenged and deemed to be invalid.

    I have no experience of the repossession process though and don't know the circumstances but is it possible that it would not look very good in court? A bit tit for tat or vengeful?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
    So, do you think I should send both a formal letter informing the tenants of a rent increase and a s13?
    I hope that Hooper is right, and that the s13 notice can be used and would be valid.
    A formal letter with the notice that confirms there's a rent increase in accordance with clause x of the tenancy agreement can't do any harm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    So, do you think I should send both a formal letter informing the tenants of a rent increase and a s13?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Hooper View Post
    I think the clause is probably invalid (as it cannot control rent reviews after the fixed term is over).
    I'm much less sure.
    The wording (assuming it's all of it), doesn't control anything, other than stopping the landlord having a review in the first 12 months.
    It doesn't control the increase, or define it, or even say that one will or must happen.
    It seems to simply stop the landlord increasing the rent in months 7 through 12 of the tenancy (or 1 through 6 of the periodic tenancy, if you like).

    Once 12 months have expired, it doesn't actually do anything at all, because in an SPT (again, assuming it is) the landlord can always increase the rent anyway.

    However, it does seem to me to fail the test for the use of a s13 notice, because there is "a provision, for the time being binding on the tenant, under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period."

    If the clause can't pass into the periodic tenancy, it's even more pointless because the landlord could increase the rent in (say) month 9.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hooper
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    I think the clause persists into any SPT, any date in the future is now "after the first 52 weeks of the tenancy".
    I think the clause is probably invalid (as it cannot control rent reviews after the fixed term is over).

    https://painsmith.co.uk/rent-increas...dic-tenancies/

    It has been thought that a clause in the agreement which set out a mechanism for increasing the rent, however abbreviated, would be sufficient to oust the provisions of section 13 and the clause would prevail.

    In London District Properties Management Ltd v Goolamy [2009] EWHC 1367 (Admin) this view has been overturned. The High Court ruled that the prevailing view was inaccurate. Taking a literal view of section 5(3) of the Act the Court held that in a statutory periodic tenancy the provisions of section 13 would overrule any rent increase clause.
    This only applies if it is an SPT, rather than a CPT.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Reply to Is time more important than money?
    by JK0
    Sounds like they consider diy, cleaning and gardening beneath them. Many of my tenants feel the same.

    My GF pointed out that certain tenants would have had servants in their home countries which they cannot afford here, so cleaning up their mess is left to us mugginses.
    27-01-2022, 17:28 PM
  • Is time more important than money?
    by jpucng62
    Just had tenants move out of a property after 2 years. Always paid on time, perfectly pleasant young family who have now bought their own home BUT:

    House was grimy - looks like they didn't clean properly in 2 years rather than anything overtly unpleasant
    Garden was left in a mess...
    27-01-2022, 17:20 PM
  • Reply to Flat rental bathroom query
    by NewGuyOne
    Not in London area. Thanks guys by the details and links I'm seemingly in the good books.
    Flat size is near 50m2....
    27-01-2022, 17:21 PM
  • Flat rental bathroom query
    by NewGuyOne
    Hello,

    A rented flat with a toilet (of course) and basin next to the kitchen, and a bedroom with a quite small en suite - shower/basin/rail for towel ... Is this acceptable in a flat - with no additional separate bathroom?

    Flat consists of 1 bedroom en suite, hallway, lounge,...
    16-01-2022, 20:13 PM
  • Reply to Tenant has moved partner in.
    by jpkeates
    Don't issue a new tenancy agreement if your intention is to move the tenant on.
    It would start a new tenancy and make any new break clause tricky - particularly if the tenant notices it's there and refuses to sign it.
    27-01-2022, 16:00 PM
  • Tenant has moved partner in.
    by Alison Laws
    My tenant who is 4 months into her tenancy agreement has moved her partner in without permission and Im wondering can use this to issue a new tenancy agreement with his name on it. She isn't the easiest tenant and I would also like to add an agreement break to the new tenancy because of the difficulty...
    27-01-2022, 15:30 PM
  • Reply to Flat rental bathroom query
    by Section20z
    Unless it's in A selective licensing area it will be of no interest to the council anyway.
    27-01-2022, 15:50 PM
  • Reply to Tenant has moved partner in.
    by ash72
    Don't do it, if you create another tenancy, it will prolong it, if you have (assumed) provided a 12 month AST then Serve notice when it expires.

    Arranging the cupboards, should be noted in any inspections and notify they T that they need to return the property back to how it was in the...
    27-01-2022, 15:49 PM
  • Reply to Tenant has moved partner in.
    by DoricPixie
    In reality I don’t think the tenant really needs your permission to mover her other half into the property. You might have something down in the tenancy agreement about who’s to occupy the property but the reality is that you’d need to go to court to enforce any such clause. You can suggest a...
    27-01-2022, 15:44 PM
  • Reply to Evictions on the grounds that its my only place to live .
    by ash72
    Would recommend to get a lodger rather than a T, if it's your only place to live. It may not bring the income you wanted, but if your renting a place to live in yourself, the difference wouldn't be so great. Also your mortgage/ Insurance etc would need to be notified that it's no longer your primary...
    27-01-2022, 15:30 PM
Working...
X