Rental market is utterly broken
Discussion
"Your landlord must give you a minimum of one month’s notice (if you pay rent weekly or monthly). If you have a yearly tenancy, they must give you 6 months’ notice."
This seems unclear to me - is a 12 month AST where the rent is paid monthly covered by the first part of the sentence? Or the second?
This seems unclear to me - is a 12 month AST where the rent is paid monthly covered by the first part of the sentence? Or the second?
C-J said:
Acorn1 said:
Cheers for the link. Apologies if I am being thick here however does that really mean that for a 12 month AST that 6 months notice must be given for something that only comes into play after that particular 'contract' has expired?
Or is that overwritten by 1 month notice period (where there is no mention of how to deal with increase).
Extract from link:
How your landlord must propose a rent increase
If the tenancy agreement lays down a procedure for increasing rent, your landlord must stick to this. Otherwise, your landlord can:
renew your tenancy agreement at the end of the fixed term, but with an increased rent
agree a rent increase with you and produce a written record of the agreement that you both sign
use a ‘Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent’ form, which increases the rent after the fixed term has ended
Your landlord must give you a minimum of one month’s notice (if you pay rent weekly or monthly). If you have a yearly tenancy, they must give you 6 months’ notice.
I would steer clear of any process or forms because its just an opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot by getting it wrong.
troika said:
Let’s face it, your tenants are getting a bargain. Think I’m going to do the same with a place we thought we might live in one day but now seems unlikely. Take advantage of the reduced CGT rate before labour increase it IMHO. Only doing short lets now to avoid my hands being tied.
They really are. Maybe if property prices were soaring I could convince myself that I was getting the better side of the deal, but as it is I’m literally losing thousands of pounds a month having them live there.It was the prospect of paying £130,000 in stamp duty if we sold then bought again that tipped us over to renting it out, but now we don’t expect to live there again it’s time to get rid of it.
98elise said:
You can use the government templates, but if you don't have a process in your tenancy agreement then you can simply write them a letter upping the rent. If they start paying the new rent then that's all the acceptance you need. They don't need to sign anything.
I would steer clear of any process or forms because its just an opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot by getting it wrong.
Cheers.I would steer clear of any process or forms because its just an opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot by getting it wrong.
So curent process if the previously rare situation when a rent rise is required (sadly i don't have a crystal ball with 6 months visibility!) is a couple of months before 12m AST (rent paid monthly) expires then email exchange with tenant to agree new rate and a new 12m AST then set-up which commences on expiry of the old.
Do I stay out of jail with the above? Or does it foul the 6m notice rule?
C-J said:
"Your landlord must give you a minimum of one month’s notice (if you pay rent weekly or monthly). If you have a yearly tenancy, they must give you 6 months’ notice."
This seems unclear to me - is a 12 month AST where the rent is paid monthly covered by the first part of the sentence? Or the second?
Typical Govt ambiguity.This seems unclear to me - is a 12 month AST where the rent is paid monthly covered by the first part of the sentence? Or the second?
It could mean that if the tenant pays annually i.e. 12 months in advance?
Not that many do that.
C-J said:
"Your landlord must give you a minimum of one month’s notice (if you pay rent weekly or monthly). If you have a yearly tenancy, they must give you 6 months’ notice."
This seems unclear to me - is a 12 month AST where the rent is paid monthly covered by the first part of the sentence? Or the second?
It can only be the 2nd. It's hardly common for people to pay for a year at a time to that isn't going to be something that is referred to there. Of course, I know that someone will now post that they always pay a decade up front.This seems unclear to me - is a 12 month AST where the rent is paid monthly covered by the first part of the sentence? Or the second?
Acorn1 said:
Typical Govt ambiguity.
It could mean that if the tenant pays annually i.e. 12 months in advance?
Not that many do that.
I wondered if the second part was referring to a multi-year contract which might be expressed as £x per annum - however that would be more likely for commercial units than residential - and it doesn't say what I am suggesting anyway.It could mean that if the tenant pays annually i.e. 12 months in advance?
Not that many do that.
Am I crazy for thinking about selling up and getting out? I am concerned that it is only a matter of time before the government introduce rules where it is impossible to evict tenants.
If I sold up and put the money in a 4.75% Marcus account I would be getting more interest each month than I get in rent for zero hassle or stress.
I still have a mortgage on the house and am looking at paying another £250 in mortgage payments come October.
Capital gains would hurt, it has increased about £125K in the last 7 years.
Not sure what is best long term.
I am also concerned that Labour might come up with a scheme where landlords are forced to sell to tenants at a discount?
If I sold up and put the money in a 4.75% Marcus account I would be getting more interest each month than I get in rent for zero hassle or stress.
I still have a mortgage on the house and am looking at paying another £250 in mortgage payments come October.
Capital gains would hurt, it has increased about £125K in the last 7 years.
Not sure what is best long term.
I am also concerned that Labour might come up with a scheme where landlords are forced to sell to tenants at a discount?
I think that in a great many cases it makes no sense to be a private landlord and it’s going to get even less worthwhile in the future.
I get £42,000 per year rent, and then have to pay £14,000 service charge, and then tax.
It’s unmortgaged, and I could broadly expect to get £130,000 per year if I put the equity into a broad-based stock fund instead which, as you say, has zero hassle.
I get £42,000 per year rent, and then have to pay £14,000 service charge, and then tax.
It’s unmortgaged, and I could broadly expect to get £130,000 per year if I put the equity into a broad-based stock fund instead which, as you say, has zero hassle.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I am also concerned that Labour might come up with a scheme where landlords are forced to sell to tenants at a discount?
That would be good. I'm hoping for rent controls, tenant compulsory purchase (at a discount), increased CGT, and revised (re valued) Council Tax.Olivera said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I am also concerned that Labour might come up with a scheme where landlords are forced to sell to tenants at a discount?
That would be good. I'm hoping for rent controls, tenant compulsory purchase (at a discount), increased CGT, and revised (re valued) Council Tax.Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
Your sense of self entitlement doesn't qualify as public interest.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 27th May 15:58
98elise said:
Why just a discount on rental properties? Shouldn't you be entitled to a discount on anyone's property?
Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
It would be a piece of piss to enact. Compulsory purchase is legal and applied in a variety of cases. The discount could be restructured as additional tax (stamp) due from the seller, which could be refunded to the purchaser. When there's a will there's a way Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
Olivera said:
It would be a piece of piss to enact. Compulsory purchase is legal and applied in a variety of cases. The discount could be restructured as additional tax (stamp) due from the seller, which could be refunded to the purchaser. When there's a will there's a way
I guess you aren’t being serious but.. start off with real estate but where would it end Olivera said:
It would be a piece of piss to enact. Compulsory purchase is legal and applied in a variety of cases. The discount could be restructured as additional tax (stamp) due from the seller, which could be refunded to the purchaser. When there's a will there's a way
Why should the state take my home from me just because I rented it out while working abroad?Olivera said:
98elise said:
Why just a discount on rental properties? Shouldn't you be entitled to a discount on anyone's property?
Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
It would be a piece of piss to enact. Compulsory purchase is legal and applied in a variety of cases. The discount could be restructured as additional tax (stamp) due from the seller, which could be refunded to the purchaser. When there's a will there's a way Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
Olivera said:
98elise said:
Why just a discount on rental properties? Shouldn't you be entitled to a discount on anyone's property?
Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
It would be a piece of piss to enact. Compulsory purchase is legal and applied in a variety of cases. The discount could be restructured as additional tax (stamp) due from the seller, which could be refunded to the purchaser. When there's a will there's a way Unfortunately for you expropriating property goes against Article 17 - EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
"No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss."
This may help...
"The law specifies that the compensation to be paid where land is compulsorily acquired shall reflect what that land might be expected to realise if it were sold in the open market by a willing seller at the valuation date."
..from government guidelines on compulsory purchases.
I can end my tenancies faster then any new law could be implemented so I'm not concerned about any asset confiscation Labour are planning.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 27th May 16:38
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff