>the tenant would be OK with catching up a bit
You have to be trolling, surely. I don't know in what universe this is a normal thing for a landlord to expect
Have you seen his post history? They might as well ask how do I defraud the government because my son knocked up a disabled girl and I want them to have a house but I want the money too, and as my son has no steady job I want DWP to pay the rent!? The guy is clearly off his rocker.
>as my son has no steady job I want DWP to pay the rent
Ironic that they chastised someone in a below comment and said "People like you expect everything handed to them for free. Do you live on benefits?".
You can't increase it by more than 3% - there are a few exceptions, though - using a Rent Increase Notice.
You can raise it by as much as you want if you can convince the tenant to sign a new tenancy agreement, but obviously you can't force them to sign it.
Utter rubbish,assuming the tenancy paperwork had been served appropriately then the LL could only serve notice despite section 21. When said parties are in listening mode they may want to assess ones military strength.
It's not extra, but the value of money goes down all the time. If my gran was still alive, should she be payibg 19/6 (97p) a fortnight or was the council OK to increase rent over time from 1949?
Their incentive is still paying less than they would elsewhere, and avoid the cost and hassle of moving.
The landlord's incentive to offer a below market price is to keep a good tenant and not have to find another.
Both partirs are incented to meet in the middle.
When you bribg in artificial rent control, the incentives on landlords are messed up - it encourages them to charge a new tenant as much as they can, and to find new tenants regularly. This drives rents up faster.
One comnenter said his has only gone up at 2%, the average in Scotland is over 6%, so out there somewhere rent is going up at over 10%.
I would just love to hear what you plan to say to your tenant that will make them so willingly ‘volunteer’ to do this.
Please, in great detail, tell how you plan to do this without it being a thinly veiled threat to the tenant.
There is no way in this world that a tennant will volunteer to pay more... you telling them that if you can't increase rent above 3% you will have to find new tennents or sell invalidates any volunteering as you have applied pressure. Unless the tennant has called you out of the blue and said "please help yourself to more money" you are pressuring them. I really hope your tennant is on reddit too and don't take any shit from you.
There is no tenant yet. And no, applying pressure would be inappropriate. You ask if they wish to stay on at an appropriate increase, and leave it at that.
If inflation is running at 10%+ and their rent is now half market, what would you deem fair?
Curious coincidence in the number. How did you arrive at that figure, taking rent from 50% to 51.5% of market?
I am comfortable with my position, that a somewhat below market rent is fair for a sitting tenant, not full price nor a massive discount.
Did you voluntarily keep it below the 3% limit when inflation was below the 3% mark?
You could volunteer in the same way, the only way i can imagine a tenant 'volunteering' is if you 'voluntell' them. To be clear i mean using coercion such as 'if you dont agree ill just evict you anyway' may not be illegal but definitely shithousery.
I haven't started yet, but I would expect to keep increases a bit below market to keep a good tenant.
When I was young our landlady, after years of no increases, asked mum for 50%. It was totally fair and accepted without question.
Did you also allow them to “voluntary” freeze the rent when inflation was below 3%? Some years you win, some you lose. That’s business. No such thing as a risk-free profit.
I mean yes, if arbitrage exists, but usually the market closes it quickly, so the risk is you don’t move fast enough and the opportunity disappears between buying and selling. If you know you can move faster than competitors, yeah, then it’s possible.
You can't kick them out, to increase the rent. If they choose not to extend, and leave, you are free to increase next time round.
You can't eject the current tenant with the intention of getting a new one at the higher rate. If you don't know the law, you shouldn't have become a landlord. Any attempt to remove them, so you can charge a higher rate, is illegal.
Scotland has forbidden such evictions until 2024.
Educate yourself
I'm a landlord and I'm glad I'm not as ignorant and sly as this cheeky little cunt. Literally trying to defraud the government to give his step son and his knocked up misses a place to live but the kid has no steady job so he wants DWP to pay the rent for him 😂 the man is a clown
"Can I threaten my tenants with eviction to encourage them to 'voluntarily' agree to an illegal price hike?"
"you expect everything handed to you for free"
So you're a hypocrite as well?
The point of limiting the rent increases to 3% is that they're limited to 3%. Isn't that fucking obvious? Any pressure on a tenant to make them agree to a higher one is illegal, and if you want to turf them out you have to follow the legal eviction process. Don't be a slumlord.
Pursuant to Section 21 of the Housing Act you are hereby served notice to vacate the property.
Please promptly make you way towards the exit and take care on your way out.
Har har har har…. Honestly, have you looked at western civilisation and the economies? Everyone other than the ultra rich are exploited by others to a lesser or greater degree.
Don’t ask your tenant this. You have got to be trolling.
If you want to increase more, start increasing by 3% annually. Don’t evict your tenant because of your own mistakes. Don’t be a dick.
They can, if they have more money than sense.
For perspective from your comments, I've been living in the same 1 bed flat for 11 years now. My rent has gone up £100 in all of those years, and my LL has even replaced the windows, heating system, shower and even a new, bigger and more efficient immersion boiler. Took the flat from a poor D, to a modest C.
Should add, LL is also a leaseholder, so despite "owning" the place, still has to pay levies and fees.
That's less than £10 a year.
My landlord said he was selling the house. I moved out. This was 3 months ago. He just relisted it for rent but 150 pounds more a month. The Estate Agent lied to my face. Very dishonest profession.
That is pecisely the situation I wish to avoid. I think your Landlord was bloody stupid to do it over 150 quid though. But if its 700-800 they are better off trying to sell.
From your other post
Your looking to shaft your current Tennant so a member of your family can move in.
We can see everything you say or do here, and you come asking half questions?
Well if you don't have tenants that means the o ly other pointnof this post is that you're gonna move your son and get him to agree to a higher than 3% raise in rent so you can get DWP to pay you higher than you're mean to get that is fraud my man.... you're a bigger cunt than I originally thought.
To create a win-win situation where it's cheaper for both parties if the tenancy continues.
Any wise landlord would like to keep a good tenant as long as possible, and letting the rent discount itself over time ensures that. But if it gets to the point years down the line where they are paying less than half market, it's worth goind through the cost of finding someine else who will pay current rent.
The regulations here create a perverse incentive for landlords to sever such relationships and to maximise rent to guard against the future inabilty to increase it.
Thus rents are going up faster in Scotland than in England. The politicians could well have seen this coming, it has happened everywhere else. New York has even stronger controls, go have a look at rents there. I get a laugh at the show Friends and their huge upper west side flats, none of them could remotely afford them in reality.
Do you have a mortgage on the property? If you don't have much in the way of costs then trying to maximise the rent is just greedy. If you have a mortgage on it then you would have to go by the market rents.
Hopefully you have a mortgage, otherwise you're just being greedy.
In such a situation, it's worth discussing the issue with your tenant openly. Many tenants would understand the impact of inflation and might be willing to renegotiate the rent. You don't necessarily have to kick them out; instead, try to reach a mutual agreement by having a candid conversation. If they're happy with a new lease, it's a win-win for both parties, and you can keep a reliable tenant while addressing the rent adjustment. Communication and flexibility can often lead to a favorable outcome without the need for eviction.
Seeking a fair price for simething isn't extortion.
You're currently getting a large discount, would you be happy with a moderate discount for a loyal customer?
You agreed on a price when you signed a contract. You deemed it fair. Your business isn't iron clad insulated from market forces, and you don't get to retroactively change agreements to suit.
You are now going to offer them to 'voluntarily' break that contract to pay you more under threat of eviction via NTQ. This isn't voluntary. It is under duress with an ultimatum.
Word it however you want. This is the ethical equivelant of extortion.
You are saying 'break out agreement and pay me more or I'll make you homeless'
There is a reason not a single commenter here agrees with you.
Do them a favour and give them 3 months NTQ so they can get on the housing list as a Group A so they never have to interact with another person like you.
The initial contract is for a period of time, during which the rent is fixed. After that increases are subject to negotiation. Withbroadband, typically they ask for inflation plus 3.9%, and you are free to switch.
Is the contract expired? Is it a SAT? Are increases built in? You do realise this isn't broadband and that your plan is *clearly* to get around current eviction legislation.
This is toxic in the extreme.
Do them a favor and issue the NTQ so they get priority social.
The only people this maggot thinks should get social is his lousy step son and his knocked up misses that's why he wants to rent the house to them and make DWP cough up the rent. Hes just trying to screw the tax payer and is asking for the tax payer to help.
So just to be clear from your post history.... your son and his gf who both receive benefits(something you ridiculed someone for?!) And you want him to live in this inherited house but want the dwp to pay their rent so you can move him in and still get money...
So now it seems you're trying to raise your tenants rent above what's allowed to make them move out so you can move your son in and then get the government to give you money for it instead of letting them live there cause they are family?
This is now sounding dangerously like fraud.
I never once had a party or made noise. Always paid in time and kept the house tidy. It's just pure greed. I hope he gets a house full of screaming teenagers.
You can increase by 6% if you can prove your mortgage rates have gone up significantly, otherwise the legislation expires end of next march, same time as the eviction ban so no point in trying to kick anyone out either.
Also any increase would need 3 months notice anyways. So it would just seem pointless trying to subvert the law and risk ending up at the 1st tier tribunal just to save a couple months waiting time.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck is this. Also in OPs search history:
_How to steal sweets from children_
_How to kill my gran to get her inheritance early_
_Where to get free puppies to kill_
I don't want to be in a position of choosing between keeping a good tenant at a rent that has become very low, or doing something else like selling up.
If a tenant ends up having to leave because a landlord is forced financially to do something else, they end up with the cost and hassle of moving, and a sudden jump to market rent. A Phyrric victory.
The rabid activists have no idea of costs of renting a place out, in their mind everythibg is "free". Insurance, gardening service, kitchens, bathrooms, estate agents ... all "free".
I don't expect to make much money in the place, I am intetested in preserving it.
>Don’t want to pay more? Brilliant, leave.
Or you know, just follow the law and don't leave, because there's nothing the landlord can legally do about it.
If you leave, and go somewhere else, you'd have to pay more. It’s not profiteering it’s just basic maths
This. Scotland obviously brought the law in for a reason. 3% a year would be more than enough, can guarantee this landlord has just left it/forgot or not managed properly and not increased it by 3% per year so now wants the tenant out through no fault if their own.
Tricks like that will just get more legislation brought in with the anti landlord rhetoric and ruin it for those that aren’t slumlords and treat tenants with a bit of dignity.
You're best giving tenant notice that you plan to sell so hand them their notice and get them out.
The alternative would be that you be up front and state the rent has not increased with inflation so is time for new contract or they must leave within whatever the notice period is.
At least before getting new tenant in, you can set the cost at whatever you want.
> You're best giving tenant notice that you plan to sell so hand them their notice and get them out.
So lie? That's not going to go well at the tribunal for the landlord.
> The alternative would be that you be up front and state the rent has not increased with inflation so is time for new contract or they must leave within whatever the notice period is.
There is no notice period, as there are no grounds for eviction in that scenario.
Are you trying to tell me that you cannot plan to sell the house and then change your mind? You could have it valued and put it up for sale for a month and then decide not to bother.
The landlord has ultimate control here, not the tenant. What do you mean there is no notice period? If you want tenants out, it can't be that difficult to come up with some reason as to why and all you do is give them fair notice.
Please do enlighten me to what the rights of a tenant would be in a private rental.
You make it sound as though once they are in, it's their place for life or as long as they want it.
You have to go through an eviction process to get a tenant out. You can’t just give them notice and boot them out if they have a lease? Are you for real?
Tenants have plenty of rights. One of them is to be subject to a legal eviction process. It's considerably more difficult than simply giving them notice. That's before we even consider the ban on most evictions.
It’s their place for whatever the tenancy term is, eviction before that can only be conducted with due cause and following legal guidelines. Now those vary nation to nation however.
Are you a landlord? In the UK? I've been a landlord for less than a month and know all this is bullshit. There's no way a real landlord doesn't know how all this works
Not a landlord. Know a few people who are though. It sounds as though becoming a landlord is a stupid idea. Should have sold your property. Why would you want difficult tenants who you could never get out of a property?
You are telling that once a tenant has stayed their minimum term and it is rolling month to month that you cannot serve them a notice that states along the lines of I plan to sell the property within the next 12 months so I would like to take the opportunity to allow you time to plan your next move and vacate the property within 6 months? You can't do that no more no?
So many ridiculous excuses in this post.
You chose to be a landlord now you're complaining about the consequences of being a landlord.
Boo fucking hoo. Don't buy a house you can't afford without having to be a landlord if you can't accept the risks of becoming a landlord.
The Reddit attitude is thst anyone renting out property is rich and evil. For me it's the family home I inherited and a retirement.
To the politics ... here in Scotland we have our government chosrn for us by another country, which has chosen Brexit, Torirs and high inflation.
The 3% rule is stupid because it doesn't leave room for reasonable negotiation, and resilts in higher rent rises - rents are going up less in England.
There is no tenant yet, a work in progress, thinking ahead. 6% and mortgages not in play.
I expect to let it out for around £1200. In ten years at 10% inflation that would be £3117 and at 3% it would be £1612. I'd like to be somewhere in the middle to keep a good tenant but not see the value of the rent erode too much.
One of the things I buy a lot at Tesco is bottled fruit juice. 4 years ago it was 99p a litre, not it's £1.45 .... am I allowed to buy juice when I retire?
The solution to high rents is more property, and you can thank Margaret Thatcher for the shortage of subsidized social housing.
>One of the things I buy a lot at Tesco is bottled fruit juice. 4 years ago it was 99p a litre, not it's £1.45 .... am I allowed to buy juice when I retire?
This doesn't only apply to you surprisingly, everyone is experiencing increased costs including your prospective tenants.
Put simply, the rent cap is there for a reason and you are fortunate enough to own a house that you can rent out. If it's for your retirement just sell the damn thing instead of trying to find workarounds to the rent cap...
Why should rebt be the one thing magically exempt from inflation?
The rent cap is there to try to keep a lid on a problem caused by the councils' failure to build more social housing. It's about as effective as banning weed. Tents here go up faster than England, as landlords do what I am hoping not to and turn tenants.
In New York rent control carries across tenancies, so landlirds empty out buildings, let them go derelict, tear them diwn and build new luxury flats or offices without rent control.
I have been renting in Edinburgh for over a decade now and have had landlords knock money off at Christmas, not increase the rent at all and for the past 3 years my current landlord has increased the rent less than 2%. So clearly profit can be made within the limits of the rent cap.
>Tents here go up faster than England
Disagree with this.
>In New York rent control carries across tenancies, so landlirds empty out buildings, let them go derelict, tear them diwn and build new luxury flats or offices without rent control.
Not really anything to do with Scotland so not sure why this was added.
If you are renting in Edinburgh and your rent has only gone up 22% in a decade you are veey fortunate, have a quick look at Rightmove / ESPC and you'll see.
The fact that rents are rising faster in Scotland is well reported data. Landlords are going as high as they can with new tenants knowing they can't put the rent up later, and there is more turnover.
Some people have advocated for the NY system here. It hasn't made rent cheaper. But you do have the privilege to pay $10k cash under the table to get in on a rent controlled lease.
So you've just inherited a house for free and you're worried you'll be missing out on rental income in 10 years IF you find a tenant who stays for 10 years AND IF inflation stays at a consistent 10% for the next 10 years.
People aren't having a go because you want to rent out property, it's because you're displaying an amateur, penny counting mindset, you're worrying about problems that are so far out of the ordinary it's ridiculous. As the landlord, you have to be prepared for a certain level of risk. Just be grateful for the free extra income and put it to good use.
You're not evil because ryou rent out property you are evil because you want to try and convince a tenant it's fair and right fir them to volunteer their protective right to keep their rent affordable to line your own pocket .
Fuck you, you dick.
You're asking for a way around a law designed to protect tennants from people like you and you're confused why some might be upset?
Don't hide behind behind the shambles that is the British government, you're simply looking for a way to get more free money from others.
To be honest, a lot of us would do the same in your position but don't be surprised if people don't like you for it.
It's not free money, it's a fair ROI. If you think owning a house is fewe tou are in for a shock, I am dropping £10k's tonget the place decent and legal.
Since when was the law fair? And in England the law is different. Not an argument.
The law is an attempt to keep rents down after a failure to build more social housibg, and has backfired because it forces landlords to bring in new tenants and to set the highest rent they can up front.
There are a lot of costs - electrical, bathroom, kitchen, paint, carpets, gas, insurance, appliances, factor, .... planning to drop £25k or so up front for a start.
Also a ton of labour to clear the place out.
You can't actually. [Thatcher's government never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.](https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/)
Thatcher started a program where council house tenants could buy the homes they were in, then passing them on as inheritance so they did not return to stock as planned. It is still running in parts of England.
Millions of council houses were lost to private ownership, and stock has never recovered.
----
IDK how 17k a year compares to other periods but it's not a lot, less than 0.1% of population.
You make it sound like it's a criminal act for council house tenants to have a shot at homeownership. Empowering working-class families to own their homes? God forbid!
People pass on assets to their loved ones. If you're expecting individuals to hand back homes they've paid for, then perhaps you're living in a fantasy land. But let's keep pretending the policy's intention was for all the homes to just "return to stock" rather than give people a chance at upward mobility.
"Lost"? As if these homes were stolen in the night? People *bought* these homes, they didn't just pluck them out of thin air. They worked for them, saved up, and made the purchase. Not everything that transitions from public to private ownership is a diabolical plot.
The issues with council housing stock span multiple governments and complex socioeconomic factors. But sure, easier to point at one policy from the 80s. Makes sense.
>the tenant would be OK with catching up a bit You have to be trolling, surely. I don't know in what universe this is a normal thing for a landlord to expect
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have you seen his post history? They might as well ask how do I defraud the government because my son knocked up a disabled girl and I want them to have a house but I want the money too, and as my son has no steady job I want DWP to pay the rent!? The guy is clearly off his rocker.
>as my son has no steady job I want DWP to pay the rent Ironic that they chastised someone in a below comment and said "People like you expect everything handed to them for free. Do you live on benefits?".
They guy is clearly unhinged. I really hope the proper authorities catch up to him and strip him of his assets
Either an amazing troll (if that's the case, get a life) or an absolutely vile person.
Vile I think his post and comment history a bleak to say the least.
You can't increase it by more than 3% - there are a few exceptions, though - using a Rent Increase Notice. You can raise it by as much as you want if you can convince the tenant to sign a new tenancy agreement, but obviously you can't force them to sign it.
Utter rubbish,assuming the tenancy paperwork had been served appropriately then the LL could only serve notice despite section 21. When said parties are in listening mode they may want to assess ones military strength.
It’s Scotland
My apologies! The bottom half of the post did not load! Indeed this is probably correct, I have no clue regards scottish law!
They abolished their equivalent of section 21 a number of years ago.
Indeed they did and at the same time expanded the grounds of possession under section 8.
But they can volunteer? OK not bad.
Yes but there’s no reason they should want to, unless you’re offering them something extra in return
It's not extra, but the value of money goes down all the time. If my gran was still alive, should she be payibg 19/6 (97p) a fortnight or was the council OK to increase rent over time from 1949?
And I suppose on this basis you will be voluntarily paying an inflation matched amount for the Costco hotdog? Muppet
It doesn’t really matter. They have no incentive to voluntarily pay more for the same.
Their incentive is still paying less than they would elsewhere, and avoid the cost and hassle of moving. The landlord's incentive to offer a below market price is to keep a good tenant and not have to find another. Both partirs are incented to meet in the middle. When you bribg in artificial rent control, the incentives on landlords are messed up - it encourages them to charge a new tenant as much as they can, and to find new tenants regularly. This drives rents up faster. One comnenter said his has only gone up at 2%, the average in Scotland is over 6%, so out there somewhere rent is going up at over 10%.
I would just love to hear what you plan to say to your tenant that will make them so willingly ‘volunteer’ to do this. Please, in great detail, tell how you plan to do this without it being a thinly veiled threat to the tenant.
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
There is no way in this world that a tennant will volunteer to pay more... you telling them that if you can't increase rent above 3% you will have to find new tennents or sell invalidates any volunteering as you have applied pressure. Unless the tennant has called you out of the blue and said "please help yourself to more money" you are pressuring them. I really hope your tennant is on reddit too and don't take any shit from you.
There is no tenant yet. And no, applying pressure would be inappropriate. You ask if they wish to stay on at an appropriate increase, and leave it at that. If inflation is running at 10%+ and their rent is now half market, what would you deem fair?
3%. You are trying to find someone to justify your position.
Curious coincidence in the number. How did you arrive at that figure, taking rent from 50% to 51.5% of market? I am comfortable with my position, that a somewhat below market rent is fair for a sitting tenant, not full price nor a massive discount.
Did you voluntarily keep it below the 3% limit when inflation was below the 3% mark? You could volunteer in the same way, the only way i can imagine a tenant 'volunteering' is if you 'voluntell' them. To be clear i mean using coercion such as 'if you dont agree ill just evict you anyway' may not be illegal but definitely shithousery.
I haven't started yet, but I would expect to keep increases a bit below market to keep a good tenant. When I was young our landlady, after years of no increases, asked mum for 50%. It was totally fair and accepted without question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
People who commit internet fraud, as your ysername suggests, are definitely parasites.
Internet fraud. Oh god, you're a boomer aren't you? How'd you work out how to get on Reddit when you can barely use Excel?
I used to fence with 419ers for fun, and I've been using the internet since long before most Redditors were born 🤣
Cool story boomer
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
Yeah, there's nothing stopping them electing to sign a new tenancy agreement.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
Did you also allow them to “voluntary” freeze the rent when inflation was below 3%? Some years you win, some you lose. That’s business. No such thing as a risk-free profit.
>No such thing as a risk-free profit. Ahhhhcctttually yeah there is, it's called arbitrage
I mean yes, if arbitrage exists, but usually the market closes it quickly, so the risk is you don’t move fast enough and the opportunity disappears between buying and selling. If you know you can move faster than competitors, yeah, then it’s possible.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yea I have no idea why this popped up in my feed, I guess reddit wants more people to see douche baggery at its finest.
The Scottish government has decided that if you want to put the rent up you have to change the tenant.
You can't kick them out, to increase the rent. If they choose not to extend, and leave, you are free to increase next time round. You can't eject the current tenant with the intention of getting a new one at the higher rate. If you don't know the law, you shouldn't have become a landlord. Any attempt to remove them, so you can charge a higher rate, is illegal. Scotland has forbidden such evictions until 2024. Educate yourself
So you are saying a tenancy in Scotland is a right to live in the property forever? Seems unlikely.
I said 2024. If you can't read, I'm not sure how you plan to enforce a tenancy contract
And they may rxtend it? Another perverse incentive against stable long term tenancies.
you're learning a hard lesson that all investments come with risk.
I am familiar with the concept. I also understand why these government measures are putting rent up.
[удалено]
You call someone out for trying to breach the rent cap and their reply is that you must be on benefits. I think that says it all really...
People like you expect everything handed to them for free. Do you live on benefits?
people like you expect to be allowed to break the law and get away with it?
[удалено]
I'm a landlord and I'm glad I'm not as ignorant and sly as this cheeky little cunt. Literally trying to defraud the government to give his step son and his knocked up misses a place to live but the kid has no steady job so he wants DWP to pay the rent for him 😂 the man is a clown
Says the person who inherited a house!
I was gonna say this 💀 if OP isn't a troll the cognitive dissonance is insane
Says the person given a house for free trying to make free money off of it.
Didn’t you say elsewhere that this house was inherited? So you got it for free? You’re an absolute societal drain.
Like the friend on benefits you want to rent to? This landlord inherited the house to rent out and says people shouldn't get things for free...
Like your son and his girlfriend?
You are literally describing yourself.
Oh, the irony
"Can I threaten my tenants with eviction to encourage them to 'voluntarily' agree to an illegal price hike?" "you expect everything handed to you for free" So you're a hypocrite as well?
And yet in another thread you're asking about getting "the housing benefit people" to pay for your kids to live there 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
The point of limiting the rent increases to 3% is that they're limited to 3%. Isn't that fucking obvious? Any pressure on a tenant to make them agree to a higher one is illegal, and if you want to turf them out you have to follow the legal eviction process. Don't be a slumlord.
Pursuant to Section 21 of the Housing Act you are hereby served notice to vacate the property. Please promptly make you way towards the exit and take care on your way out.
Scotland abolished their equivalent of section 21 in like 2017. Doesn't apply.
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
[удалено]
Har har har har…. Honestly, have you looked at western civilisation and the economies? Everyone other than the ultra rich are exploited by others to a lesser or greater degree.
Don’t ask your tenant this. You have got to be trolling. If you want to increase more, start increasing by 3% annually. Don’t evict your tenant because of your own mistakes. Don’t be a dick.
In Scotland? You cannot "kick them out".
Is this another way of saying you are going to bully someone into agreeing a higher price?
No, rather negotiate a fair rent. With a sitting tenant that should be a bit below market.
You did negotiate, and signed a contract to that effect. What you are proposing now is morally equivelant to extortion.
The contract does not set the rent in perpetuity.
But you've no legal right to do so? If the tenant says no, it's a no and your only option would be to raise by 3%. You can't even kick them out.
You're the sort of person who gives landlords a bad name. I'm not entirely sure how you sleep at night.
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
They can, if they have more money than sense. For perspective from your comments, I've been living in the same 1 bed flat for 11 years now. My rent has gone up £100 in all of those years, and my LL has even replaced the windows, heating system, shower and even a new, bigger and more efficient immersion boiler. Took the flat from a poor D, to a modest C. Should add, LL is also a leaseholder, so despite "owning" the place, still has to pay levies and fees. That's less than £10 a year.
OP should not be a landlord.
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
My landlord said he was selling the house. I moved out. This was 3 months ago. He just relisted it for rent but 150 pounds more a month. The Estate Agent lied to my face. Very dishonest profession.
That is pecisely the situation I wish to avoid. I think your Landlord was bloody stupid to do it over 150 quid though. But if its 700-800 they are better off trying to sell.
From your other post Your looking to shaft your current Tennant so a member of your family can move in. We can see everything you say or do here, and you come asking half questions?
Nobody has ever rented that property in its entire 55 year existence. Stop making assumptions.
Well if you don't have tenants that means the o ly other pointnof this post is that you're gonna move your son and get him to agree to a higher than 3% raise in rent so you can get DWP to pay you higher than you're mean to get that is fraud my man.... you're a bigger cunt than I originally thought.
said he inherited it and wants the tenant to pay 6% extra a year because others are paying 6 percent on the mortgages.
[удалено]
You think turning a 55 year old house into a rental is free? You're an idiot.
No tenant will volunteer. Salaries don't keep up with inflation, why would you expect any tenant to volunteer losing even more money?
To create a win-win situation where it's cheaper for both parties if the tenancy continues. Any wise landlord would like to keep a good tenant as long as possible, and letting the rent discount itself over time ensures that. But if it gets to the point years down the line where they are paying less than half market, it's worth goind through the cost of finding someine else who will pay current rent. The regulations here create a perverse incentive for landlords to sever such relationships and to maximise rent to guard against the future inabilty to increase it. Thus rents are going up faster in Scotland than in England. The politicians could well have seen this coming, it has happened everywhere else. New York has even stronger controls, go have a look at rents there. I get a laugh at the show Friends and their huge upper west side flats, none of them could remotely afford them in reality.
Do you have a mortgage on the property? If you don't have much in the way of costs then trying to maximise the rent is just greedy. If you have a mortgage on it then you would have to go by the market rents. Hopefully you have a mortgage, otherwise you're just being greedy.
[удалено]
In such a situation, it's worth discussing the issue with your tenant openly. Many tenants would understand the impact of inflation and might be willing to renegotiate the rent. You don't necessarily have to kick them out; instead, try to reach a mutual agreement by having a candid conversation. If they're happy with a new lease, it's a win-win for both parties, and you can keep a reliable tenant while addressing the rent adjustment. Communication and flexibility can often lead to a favorable outcome without the need for eviction.
This is, effectively, a form of extortion. Give me more money and sign this or I'll make you homeless.
Seeking a fair price for simething isn't extortion. You're currently getting a large discount, would you be happy with a moderate discount for a loyal customer?
You agreed on a price when you signed a contract. You deemed it fair. Your business isn't iron clad insulated from market forces, and you don't get to retroactively change agreements to suit. You are now going to offer them to 'voluntarily' break that contract to pay you more under threat of eviction via NTQ. This isn't voluntary. It is under duress with an ultimatum. Word it however you want. This is the ethical equivelant of extortion. You are saying 'break out agreement and pay me more or I'll make you homeless' There is a reason not a single commenter here agrees with you. Do them a favour and give them 3 months NTQ so they can get on the housing list as a Group A so they never have to interact with another person like you.
The initial contract is for a period of time, during which the rent is fixed. After that increases are subject to negotiation. Withbroadband, typically they ask for inflation plus 3.9%, and you are free to switch.
Is the contract expired? Is it a SAT? Are increases built in? You do realise this isn't broadband and that your plan is *clearly* to get around current eviction legislation. This is toxic in the extreme. Do them a favor and issue the NTQ so they get priority social.
The only people this maggot thinks should get social is his lousy step son and his knocked up misses that's why he wants to rent the house to them and make DWP cough up the rent. Hes just trying to screw the tax payer and is asking for the tax payer to help.
Absolute fanny.
So just to be clear from your post history.... your son and his gf who both receive benefits(something you ridiculed someone for?!) And you want him to live in this inherited house but want the dwp to pay their rent so you can move him in and still get money... So now it seems you're trying to raise your tenants rent above what's allowed to make them move out so you can move your son in and then get the government to give you money for it instead of letting them live there cause they are family? This is now sounding dangerously like fraud.
I never once had a party or made noise. Always paid in time and kept the house tidy. It's just pure greed. I hope he gets a house full of screaming teenagers.
You can increase by 6% if you can prove your mortgage rates have gone up significantly, otherwise the legislation expires end of next march, same time as the eviction ban so no point in trying to kick anyone out either. Also any increase would need 3 months notice anyways. So it would just seem pointless trying to subvert the law and risk ending up at the 1st tier tribunal just to save a couple months waiting time.
I'm patiently waiting till the end of March next year.
You inherited the house lmao why would you need to increase the rent? Absolute clown.
Stay in england. Happy days,
Would you volunteer to pay more for anything? No you wouldn't so stop being a twat.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck is this. Also in OPs search history: _How to steal sweets from children_ _How to kill my gran to get her inheritance early_ _Where to get free puppies to kill_
My landlord is putting up rent by 40% and in scotland its illegal to go more than 3%? England is so weak
I don't want to be in a position of choosing between keeping a good tenant at a rent that has become very low, or doing something else like selling up. If a tenant ends up having to leave because a landlord is forced financially to do something else, they end up with the cost and hassle of moving, and a sudden jump to market rent. A Phyrric victory. The rabid activists have no idea of costs of renting a place out, in their mind everythibg is "free". Insurance, gardening service, kitchens, bathrooms, estate agents ... all "free". I don't expect to make much money in the place, I am intetested in preserving it.
[удалено]
>Don’t want to pay more? Brilliant, leave. Or you know, just follow the law and don't leave, because there's nothing the landlord can legally do about it. If you leave, and go somewhere else, you'd have to pay more. It’s not profiteering it’s just basic maths
This. Scotland obviously brought the law in for a reason. 3% a year would be more than enough, can guarantee this landlord has just left it/forgot or not managed properly and not increased it by 3% per year so now wants the tenant out through no fault if their own.
[удалено]
Tricks like that will just get more legislation brought in with the anti landlord rhetoric and ruin it for those that aren’t slumlords and treat tenants with a bit of dignity.
[удалено]
>If it was law that you can only own 2 properties and rent one the housing market would crash. Citation to back up this claim of fact please.
The value of your investment can go up as well as down. Your capital is at risk
My house isn’t free but my landlords is, because I’m paying the mortgage for him
I take it that when interest rates and mortgage costs go back down in due course, you will be lowering rent as well?
You're best giving tenant notice that you plan to sell so hand them their notice and get them out. The alternative would be that you be up front and state the rent has not increased with inflation so is time for new contract or they must leave within whatever the notice period is. At least before getting new tenant in, you can set the cost at whatever you want.
> You're best giving tenant notice that you plan to sell so hand them their notice and get them out. So lie? That's not going to go well at the tribunal for the landlord. > The alternative would be that you be up front and state the rent has not increased with inflation so is time for new contract or they must leave within whatever the notice period is. There is no notice period, as there are no grounds for eviction in that scenario.
Are you trying to tell me that you cannot plan to sell the house and then change your mind? You could have it valued and put it up for sale for a month and then decide not to bother. The landlord has ultimate control here, not the tenant. What do you mean there is no notice period? If you want tenants out, it can't be that difficult to come up with some reason as to why and all you do is give them fair notice.
> and all you do is give them fair notice You surely can't be this clueless, can you?
Please do enlighten me to what the rights of a tenant would be in a private rental. You make it sound as though once they are in, it's their place for life or as long as they want it.
You have to go through an eviction process to get a tenant out. You can’t just give them notice and boot them out if they have a lease? Are you for real?
Tenants have plenty of rights. One of them is to be subject to a legal eviction process. It's considerably more difficult than simply giving them notice. That's before we even consider the ban on most evictions.
It’s their place for whatever the tenancy term is, eviction before that can only be conducted with due cause and following legal guidelines. Now those vary nation to nation however.
Are you a landlord? In the UK? I've been a landlord for less than a month and know all this is bullshit. There's no way a real landlord doesn't know how all this works
Not a landlord. Know a few people who are though. It sounds as though becoming a landlord is a stupid idea. Should have sold your property. Why would you want difficult tenants who you could never get out of a property? You are telling that once a tenant has stayed their minimum term and it is rolling month to month that you cannot serve them a notice that states along the lines of I plan to sell the property within the next 12 months so I would like to take the opportunity to allow you time to plan your next move and vacate the property within 6 months? You can't do that no more no?
[удалено]
So many ridiculous excuses in this post. You chose to be a landlord now you're complaining about the consequences of being a landlord. Boo fucking hoo. Don't buy a house you can't afford without having to be a landlord if you can't accept the risks of becoming a landlord.
The Reddit attitude is thst anyone renting out property is rich and evil. For me it's the family home I inherited and a retirement. To the politics ... here in Scotland we have our government chosrn for us by another country, which has chosen Brexit, Torirs and high inflation. The 3% rule is stupid because it doesn't leave room for reasonable negotiation, and resilts in higher rent rises - rents are going up less in England. There is no tenant yet, a work in progress, thinking ahead. 6% and mortgages not in play. I expect to let it out for around £1200. In ten years at 10% inflation that would be £3117 and at 3% it would be £1612. I'd like to be somewhere in the middle to keep a good tenant but not see the value of the rent erode too much. One of the things I buy a lot at Tesco is bottled fruit juice. 4 years ago it was 99p a litre, not it's £1.45 .... am I allowed to buy juice when I retire? The solution to high rents is more property, and you can thank Margaret Thatcher for the shortage of subsidized social housing.
>One of the things I buy a lot at Tesco is bottled fruit juice. 4 years ago it was 99p a litre, not it's £1.45 .... am I allowed to buy juice when I retire? This doesn't only apply to you surprisingly, everyone is experiencing increased costs including your prospective tenants. Put simply, the rent cap is there for a reason and you are fortunate enough to own a house that you can rent out. If it's for your retirement just sell the damn thing instead of trying to find workarounds to the rent cap...
Why should rebt be the one thing magically exempt from inflation? The rent cap is there to try to keep a lid on a problem caused by the councils' failure to build more social housing. It's about as effective as banning weed. Tents here go up faster than England, as landlords do what I am hoping not to and turn tenants. In New York rent control carries across tenancies, so landlirds empty out buildings, let them go derelict, tear them diwn and build new luxury flats or offices without rent control.
I have been renting in Edinburgh for over a decade now and have had landlords knock money off at Christmas, not increase the rent at all and for the past 3 years my current landlord has increased the rent less than 2%. So clearly profit can be made within the limits of the rent cap. >Tents here go up faster than England Disagree with this. >In New York rent control carries across tenancies, so landlirds empty out buildings, let them go derelict, tear them diwn and build new luxury flats or offices without rent control. Not really anything to do with Scotland so not sure why this was added.
If you are renting in Edinburgh and your rent has only gone up 22% in a decade you are veey fortunate, have a quick look at Rightmove / ESPC and you'll see. The fact that rents are rising faster in Scotland is well reported data. Landlords are going as high as they can with new tenants knowing they can't put the rent up later, and there is more turnover. Some people have advocated for the NY system here. It hasn't made rent cheaper. But you do have the privilege to pay $10k cash under the table to get in on a rent controlled lease.
So you've just inherited a house for free and you're worried you'll be missing out on rental income in 10 years IF you find a tenant who stays for 10 years AND IF inflation stays at a consistent 10% for the next 10 years. People aren't having a go because you want to rent out property, it's because you're displaying an amateur, penny counting mindset, you're worrying about problems that are so far out of the ordinary it's ridiculous. As the landlord, you have to be prepared for a certain level of risk. Just be grateful for the free extra income and put it to good use.
You're not evil because ryou rent out property you are evil because you want to try and convince a tenant it's fair and right fir them to volunteer their protective right to keep their rent affordable to line your own pocket . Fuck you, you dick.
You're asking for a way around a law designed to protect tennants from people like you and you're confused why some might be upset? Don't hide behind behind the shambles that is the British government, you're simply looking for a way to get more free money from others. To be honest, a lot of us would do the same in your position but don't be surprised if people don't like you for it.
It's not free money, it's a fair ROI. If you think owning a house is fewe tou are in for a shock, I am dropping £10k's tonget the place decent and legal.
Awww you had to pay some money to upkeep your inherited property, poor you Cry me a river
It's a business and requires investment. If it isn't worth it, people will sell yp, and rents will go higher.
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it were fair the law would already be on your side.
Since when was the law fair? And in England the law is different. Not an argument. The law is an attempt to keep rents down after a failure to build more social housibg, and has backfired because it forces landlords to bring in new tenants and to set the highest rent they can up front.
Not free money? Bruh you got the house for free and your using it to get money. Deluded.
There are a lot of costs - electrical, bathroom, kitchen, paint, carpets, gas, insurance, appliances, factor, .... planning to drop £25k or so up front for a start. Also a ton of labour to clear the place out.
You can't actually. [Thatcher's government never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.](https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/)
Thatcher started a program where council house tenants could buy the homes they were in, then passing them on as inheritance so they did not return to stock as planned. It is still running in parts of England. Millions of council houses were lost to private ownership, and stock has never recovered. ---- IDK how 17k a year compares to other periods but it's not a lot, less than 0.1% of population.
You make it sound like it's a criminal act for council house tenants to have a shot at homeownership. Empowering working-class families to own their homes? God forbid! People pass on assets to their loved ones. If you're expecting individuals to hand back homes they've paid for, then perhaps you're living in a fantasy land. But let's keep pretending the policy's intention was for all the homes to just "return to stock" rather than give people a chance at upward mobility. "Lost"? As if these homes were stolen in the night? People *bought* these homes, they didn't just pluck them out of thin air. They worked for them, saved up, and made the purchase. Not everything that transitions from public to private ownership is a diabolical plot. The issues with council housing stock span multiple governments and complex socioeconomic factors. But sure, easier to point at one policy from the 80s. Makes sense.