Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
rentforlife

Landlord Increasing Price By 15%

Recommended Posts

Landlord has decided that the rent is to increase by 15% this year & isnt prepared to negotiate (agreed on a 5% increase last year vs a 10% request)

I am extremely disappointed - I get on well with the neighbours but also I have taken very good care of the landlords property & added significant value such as removing the jungel from the front garden & laying turf (they werent prepared to do anything!)

But I guess this is the problem over short term renting vs homeowning or housing association.

I feel that I have been a model tenant & at the moment Im taking it personally! I know its only business, but it is very sad...I now have to tell my son that we will no longer be living at "home" & Im not looking forward to it.

I do have a question though around allowing landlord & agent access to property to show potential new tenants around. I basically dont want to allow this to happen - as far as Im concerned they can show people round once Ive moved out & if it means the landlord loses out financially then that is their lookout...I dont see why my home life should be disrupted with tenant viewings.

Where do I stand - can I refuse allowing them to show anyone round?

Appreciate any responses - thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irrelevent what the contract says. You can unilaterally refuse permission for the LL to show prospective tenants around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I stand - can I refuse allowing them to show anyone round?

Appreciate any responses - thanks

Insist on any viewings to take place when you can get all your friends and family around - inc as many cars as possible outside (you are just having a few people around for a meal etc). Encourage the children to act up, cry (get the kids to repeat "are these the people who are throwing us on the street daddy?" etc. Get a couple of adults to have a row. Put the telly, radio, washing machine etc on. Have lots of alcohol around. Don't have any room unoccupied - a security precaution for you and it will make it harder for the agent and viewers to have a conversation. Someone could be talking a long bath so they can't see the bathroom. Leave copies of 'Soldier of Fortune' and survivalist magazines on tables.

I'm sure you get the idea...

Edited by pyracantha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irrelevent what the contract says. You can unilaterally refuse permission for the LL to show prospective tenants around

wow

is that tennancy law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow

is that tennancy law?

Yep. Statutory rights. Under AST law a tenant is legally entitled to a "right of quiet enjoyment" which supercedes any terms in a contract. Could make life very difficult for the landlord should (s)he so choose.

Landlord is being a greedy *u*t. 15% is taking the piss. Up to 2 months loss of rent because (s)he can't show potential new tenants until the current tenant moves out would be a well deserved wake up call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so move out and make clear that you'll be taking your turf with you ;)

I'd go a step further. Once you get a section 21 and are obliged to move out, immediately undo all and any improvements you have made to the property. In terms of your deposit, so long as you leave the property the way it was when you moved in the landlord has no claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irrelevent what the contract says. You can unilaterally refuse permission for the LL to show prospective tenants around

Thats not quite true

Yep. Statutory rights. Under AST law a tenant is legally entitled to a "right of quiet enjoyment" which supercedes any terms in a contract. Could make life very difficult for the landlord should (s)he so choose.

Landlord is being a greedy *u*t. 15% is taking the piss. Up to 2 months loss of rent because (s)he can't show potential new tenants until the current tenant moves out would be a well deserved wake up call.

The contract could say that viewings to be allowed at mutually convienient time and you then insist that the landlord suggest a time but its never convienient because you are having to arrange a move or whatever. The LL could ofcourse attempt to make a claim for loss through your being difficult but in all likelihood would lose.

I'd go a step further. Once you get a section 21 and are obliged to move out, immediately undo all and any improvements you have made to the property. In terms of your deposit, so long as you leave the property the way it was when you moved in the landlord has no claim.

Yep me too, fark em. Lets say 2 months rent lost to voids, they then get thier 15% more for 10 months, thats them 4% worse off over a year. Maybe worth the OP pointing out that they may have some time to find a replacement tenent (without saying I'll refuse viewings) and then they wont know what they'll be getting-will the rent be paid on time, will they stay or leave another void in 6 months, perhaps trash the house, use it for illegal/immoral purposes etc. At least they know what they have with the current tenent and don't they want to find some mutually aggreable settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the victim of a greedy twunt. A serious water leak during the void would be rather nice.

Much as I despise this breed of parasite, he probably decided to bleed you white after subjection to a plethora of articles about rising rents in the VI media.

These influential voices are the enemies of fair play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not quite true

The contract could say that viewings to be allowed at mutually convienient time and you then insist that the landlord suggest a time but its never convienient because you are having to arrange a move or whatever. The LL could ofcourse attempt to make a claim for loss through your being difficult but in all likelihood would lose.

Yep me too, fark em. Lets say 2 months rent lost to voids, they then get thier 15% more for 10 months, thats them 4% worse off over a year. Maybe worth the OP pointing out that they may have some time to find a replacement tenent (without saying I'll refuse viewings) and then they wont know what they'll be getting-will the rent be paid on time, will they stay or leave another void in 6 months, perhaps trash the house, use it for illegal/immoral purposes etc. At least they know what they have with the current tenent and don't they want to find some mutually aggreable settlement.

Not disagreeing with you as such, but i am disagreeing with you ;)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the legal occupier (the tenant) is legally allowed to restrict access to anybody they want other than persons appointed in a legal capacity, i.e the landlord to fulfill their duties (inspections for damage etc.. NOT VIEWINGS) or police etc, [edit to add] Quiet enjoyment also comes into play here but its far easier to say "im the legal occupier, you arent coming in as i dont want you here" and theres basically sod all the landlord (or more likely the agent doing the viewing) can do about it

In the case you have i would definately restrict viewings, simply tell the landlord "viewings will not be allowed" its as simple as that.

Edited by Rozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not disagreeing with you as such, but i am disagreeing with you ;)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the legal occupier (the tenant) is legally allowed to restrict access to anybody they want other than persons appointed in a legal capacity, i.e the landlord to fulfill their duties (inspections for damage etc.. NOT VIEWINGS) or police etc, [edit to add] Quiet enjoyment also comes into play here but its far easier to say "im the legal occupier, you arent coming in as i dont want you here" and theres basically sod all the landlord (or more likely the agent doing the viewing) can do about it

In the case you have i would definately restrict viewings, simply tell the landlord "viewings will not be allowed" its as simple as that.

I'll say this slowly to see if you get it :P

The two issues are seperate and distinct, there is no disaggreement that the tenent is in possession and is the only person other than a judge who can say who does and does not enter his home. However, if there exists an agreement that the tenant will allow viewings at mutually... and refuses the LL can then seek compensatory damages in the courts. The LL would likely lose if the term was in the body of the contract as it would constitute an unfair term, if on the otherhand it was a seperate negotiated clause then the LL has a far stronger case.

As an example, the contract has a term specifying that smoking (a very legal activity that a normal homeowner could engage in) may not take place in the property. At the end of the term the property has stains from tobaco smoke and the LL seeks damages for loss as a result. He'd win!!! You can rightly ignore the term but there may be consequences for doing so even though your ignoring it falls entirely within your statutory rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LL would likely lose if the term was in the body of the contract as it would constitute an unfair term, if on the otherhand it was a seperate negotiated clause then the LL has a far stronger case.

Um ...

What's the difference between "in the body of the contract" and "a seperate negotiated clause"? Surely everything in a normal tenancy agreement is precisely a clause in the (body of the) contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say this slowly to see if you get it :P

The two issues are seperate and distinct, there is no disaggreement that the tenent is in possession and is the only person other than a judge who can say who does and does not enter his home. However, if there exists an agreement that the tenant will allow viewings at mutually... and refuses the LL can then seek compensatory damages in the courts. The LL would likely lose if the term was in the body of the contract as it would constitute an unfair term, if on the otherhand it was a seperate negotiated clause then the LL has a far stronger case.

As an example, the contract has a term specifying that smoking (a very legal activity that a normal homeowner could engage in) may not take place in the property. At the end of the term the property has stains from tobaco smoke and the LL seeks damages for loss as a result. He'd win!!! You can rightly ignore the term but there may be consequences for doing so even though your ignoring it falls entirely within your statutory rights.

And ill answer your patronising post in the manner it demands. :P

You cannot sign a contract that changes a legal occupiers right to restrict who accesses a property.. PERIOD! You can however sign a contract which means a judge can grant the landlord access to visits as they "may" decide to uphold the clause

If the landlord has such a clause, they could go to court and get a judge to try to enforce access, this would be time consuming and expensive and by the time it concludes the tenant will have left the property anyway.

The landlord is unlikely to get damages as in order for damages to be awarded a loss must be proven, which is nigh on impossible in this case. Addtionally the tenant can also fall back on the right to quiet enjoyment and mutually agreed times. So the landlord must prove

a ) that a tenant would have taken the property as soon as the current tenant left if viewings had been conducted

b ) that the current tenant was restricting access unlawfully

c ) that the clause in the contract overrode all rights the legal occupier has

I'd say good luck with that, whats more likely to happen in the real world is, the tenant says "no viewings", the landlord and EA get in a huff about it, and at the end of the tenancy the tenant moves out and then they can do viewings.

Edited by Rozza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

appreciate all of yor responses so far

Its sad that governments have effectively put the responsibility of housing britain's population into the hands of the BTL market (and all the risks of amateur LLs). Also reading up on the changes to rules back in 1988 has seriously screwed over tenants.

I emailed Grant Shapps about a month ago regarding his land grab policy (or whatever you want to call it) basically saying that Im priced out of buying a house & I dont need another crazy "house purchase scheme", which simply delays the ineviatable price crashes & also that I am stuck in a private rental market, which I am completely at the whim of greedy landlords. Due to lack of affordable housing, I would NEVER qualify (unless of course I decided to go on the dole - something which I have never ever claimed for, have 6 kids & expect the state to support me for the rest of my life). I also told him that what we need is to stop the sell off of affordable housing because it simply delays the ineviatable & the government really need to turnaround by investing heavily into social housing that is available to all parts of society - not just those who are deemed "keyworkers".

After working for almost 25 years & paying my taxes, supporting this country, doing the right and responsible thing by not having a liar loan, or expecting the state to support me, I get royally screwed. Anyway, he sent me a very nice reply thanking me & that he would read my email fully & respond to me in detail from his department email address rather than his MP email address...sadly no response to date!

Anyway, as I have the 24hrs in my agreement re viewings, Im going to adopt the "sorry thats not conveniant to me" line as stated by zebedee - the deposit is safely in a deposit scheme, so more than confident that they would not find in favour of any claim from the LL about loss of earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ill answer your patronising post in the manner it demands. :P

You cannot sign a contract that changes a legal occupiers right to restrict who accesses a property.. PERIOD! You can however sign a contract which means a judge can grant the landlord access to visits as they "may" decide to uphold the clause

If the landlord has such a clause, they could go to court and get a judge to try to enforce access, this would be time consuming and expensive and by the time it concludes the tenant will have left the property anyway.

The landlord is unlikely to get damages as in order for damages to be awarded a loss must be proven, which is nigh on impossible in this case. Addtionally the tenant can also fall back on the right to quiet enjoyment and mutually agreed times. So the landlord must prove

a ) that a tenant would have taken the property as soon as the current tenant left if viewings had been conducted

b ) that the current tenant was restricting access unlawfully

c ) that the clause in the contract overrode all rights the legal occupier has

I'd say good luck with that, whats more likely to happen in the real world is, the tenant says "no viewings", the landlord and EA get in a huff about it, and at the end of the tenancy the tenant moves out and then they can do viewings.

That sounds a very well thought out strategy - I dont see the agent as being much of an issue & will likely give little support to her apart from "you are just gong to have to accept that you screwed a good tenant over & this is the result"...personally I think they would be glad to see the back of her to another agency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ill answer your patronising post in the manner it demands. :P

You cannot sign a contract that changes a legal occupiers right to restrict who accesses a property.. PERIOD! You can however sign a contract which means a judge can grant the landlord access to visits as they "may" decide to uphold the clause

If the landlord has such a clause, they could go to court and get a judge to try to enforce access, this would be time consuming and expensive and by the time it concludes the tenant will have left the property anyway.

The landlord is unlikely to get damages as in order for damages to be awarded a loss must be proven, which is nigh on impossible in this case. Addtionally the tenant can also fall back on the right to quiet enjoyment and mutually agreed times. So the landlord must prove

a ) that a tenant would have taken the property as soon as the current tenant left if viewings had been conducted

b ) that the current tenant was restricting access unlawfully

c ) that the clause in the contract overrode all rights the legal occupier has

I'd say good luck with that, whats more likely to happen in the real world is, the tenant says "no viewings", the landlord and EA get in a huff about it, and at the end of the tenancy the tenant moves out and then they can do viewings.

I do hope you don't feel it was patronising, merely intended in humour.

True you cannot sign away your statutory rights, I haven't said you can, I've said that its not entirely true to say that the landlrd has no comeback if you violate a negotiated term, proving the loss is irrelevent to that arguement that comes after we establish if a term has been violated.

"I'd say good luck with that, whats more likely to happen in the real world is, the tenant says "no viewings", the landlord and EA get in a huff about it, and at the end of the tenancy the tenant moves out and then they can do viewings."

I completely agree but that does not detract from the hypothetical b@stard landlord wanting his pound of flesh pursuing the matter having the option to do so which makes the statement you can unilaterally refuse access incorrect-my original point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um ...

What's the difference between "in the body of the contract" and "a seperate negotiated clause"? Surely everything in a normal tenancy agreement is precisely a clause in the (body of the) contract?

A term in the predrawn up contract can be unfair under consumer contracts legislation, if you individually negotiate the term it cannot, it may be still be unenforcable though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope you don't feel it was patronising, merely intended in humour.

True you cannot sign away your statutory rights, I haven't said you can, I've said that its not entirely true to say that the landlrd has no comeback if you violate a negotiated term, proving the loss is irrelevent to that arguement that comes after we establish if a term has been violated.

"I'd say good luck with that, whats more likely to happen in the real world is, the tenant says "no viewings", the landlord and EA get in a huff about it, and at the end of the tenancy the tenant moves out and then they can do viewings."

I completely agree but that does not detract from the hypothetical b@stard landlord wanting his pound of flesh pursuing the matter having the option to do so which makes the statement you can unilaterally refuse access incorrect-my original point.

S'cool, hence my reply, not offended

I can see we sort of agree, ill answer simply with this, this discussion came up about 18 months ago or so on here, i happen to work with quite a lot of legal people (including specialists in contract law and property) and so at that time i had the situation checked over (as it was pertinant to me as i rent), the conclusion came back that you CAN unilaterally refuse access, you do of course run the risk of the landlord attempting to pursue but that chances of them either bothering or winning are so small as to be worth ignoring.

Feel free to go over my old posts (if you are interested), it was all laid out (no idea of the exact dates)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically if a tenant refuses to allow access for viewings even though they have signed an agreement that states that they must allow viewings, then its best for the landlord and agent to just accept that.

Obviously the tenant is just being a pain for one reason or another and the landlord/agent will make sure they make life hard for the tenant too.

At the end of day it is all just being childish although I can understand the issues with the OP. 15% is a joke and should be treated like one. Although I would firstly try to negotiate with the landlord in a civil manner.

If the rent that you are paying now is reasonable, then the rise is out of order. If it is a low rent for the property and area, then try to negotiate a lower rise. He tried last year at 10% and got 5%, so he is using the same method to get 7.5% I assume.

Tell him you will give him 10% more in a year, but keep this 12 months the same. If he accepts, then you have a year to find another property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically if a tenant refuses to allow access for viewings even though they have signed an agreement that states that they must allow viewings, then its best for the landlord and agent to just accept that.

Obviously the tenant is just being a pain for one reason or another and the landlord/agent will make sure they make life hard for the tenant too.

At the end of day it is all just being childish although I can understand the issues with the OP.

Why is not wanting the agrro of an EA turning up at your door and showing someone (different) around, four times a day, childish?

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S'cool, hence my reply, not offended

I can see we sort of agree, ill answer simply with this, this discussion came up about 18 months ago or so on here, i happen to work with quite a lot of legal people (including specialists in contract law and property) and so at that time i had the situation checked over (as it was pertinant to me as i rent), the conclusion came back that you CAN unilaterally refuse access, you do of course run the risk of the landlord attempting to pursue but that chances of them either bothering or winning are so small as to be worth ignoring.

Feel free to go over my old posts (if you are interested), it was all laid out (no idea of the exact dates)

I remember the old thread, and I guess we sort of do agree, the tenant can refuse but runs the risk of Mr A Hole LL taking action (which he can) and winning albeit however unlikely. So in my opinion, you cannot unilaterally 'and with absolute impunity' refuse.

Edit, funnily enough our contract is up in August and we have every intention of refusing viewings (can't recall if the contract has it in or not) as our LA and/or LL have been arses over a number of things but we may slip onto statutory periodic before finding somewhere. The contract has rental increase of x% on the aniversary of the contract. I was going to post a new thread but since we're here, if we go statutory is the increase binding as the statutory should have the same terms as the AST but we are then out of the AST contract and the statutory periodic would be a notional new monthly contract. Just not sure of the implications?

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is not wanting the agrro of an EA turning up at your door and showing someone (different) around, four times a day, childish?

Totally agree,

Lets suppose you hire a car for 2 months, there is a clause in the hire contract that says for the last week you have to let other prospective hirers check out whether they will want to hire the car, even though you are still paying for it at this point.

Even though you know the term in the contract is not enforcable, you sign it anyway as all contracts have the clause in and the hire companies are rubbish and waffle on about it being a standard term

Would you be childish to say "no, i paid to hire the car, you can test drive it when i give it back" and how likely would you be to want to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the old thread, and I guess we sort of do agree, the tenant can refuse but runs the risk of Mr A Hole LL taking action (which he can) and winning albeit however unlikely. So in my opinion, you cannot unilaterally 'and with absolute impunity' refuse.

Edit, funnily enough our contract is up in August and we have every intention of refusing viewings (can't recall if the contract has it in or not) as our LA and/or LL have been arses over a number of things but we may slip onto statutory periodic before finding somewhere. The contract has rental increase of x% on the aniversary of the contract. I was going to post a new thread but since we're here, if we go statutory is the increase binding as the statutory should have the same terms as the AST but we are then out of the AST contract and the statutory periodic would be a notional new monthly contract. Just not sure of the implications?

As i understand it the following applies

If you renew the AST then the x% increase would apply as both landlord and tenant agree to it

If you lapse onto a periodic then the x% does not apply for 2 reasons

1 ) The original contract terms carry over into a periodic and one of the terms is the monthly rent

2) To increase the rent with a periodic the landlord must issue a section 13 which you are able to dispute.

Not sure of the exact position on this (this is only my interpretation), but you could always refuse to pay the increase, explain that you are going periodic (most LL / EA wont have a clue what this really means), worst case they issue you with a section 21 and you have at least 2 months to find somewhere else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i understand it the following applies

If you renew the AST then the x% increase would apply as both landlord and tenant agree to it

If you lapse onto a periodic then the x% does not apply for 2 reasons

1 ) The original contract terms carry over into a periodic and one of the terms is the monthly rent

2) To increase the rent with a periodic the landlord must issue a section 13 which you are able to dispute.

Not sure of the exact position on this (this is only my interpretation), but you could always refuse to pay the increase, explain that you are going periodic (most LL / EA wont have a clue what this really means), worst case they issue you with a section 21 and you have at least 2 months to find somewhere else

Cheers, I'll have to read up the act to be sure unless anyone else can say categorically. I'm kinda looking forward to sticking it to them for a number of things over 2 years (most minor but cummulative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.