Insane rent increase.
- Thread starter willhub
- Start date
It’s impossible to say without more information. At the moment its neither moral or immoral based on the information we have. That type of increase can be perfectly justified meaning it’s not immoral. If that cost is justified I wouldn't call it moral but at the same time its not immoral, it can be neither.
its like a 45% increase totally fine as long as I'm not the one renting
Been through all this earlier.
If you own the property outright then you can make a decent income while charging a fair rent price, the issue we have is too many landlords are trying to make as much money as possible from one property which has to cover the repayments on the mortgage, all costs associated with the rental and a monthly profit on top. That puts the monthly rent much much higher than an equivalent mortgage and is not sustainable.
If despite your lower costs due to owning the property outright you continue to push up the rent you charge then yes that does make you greedy. Your tenants can decide if you are a bad person.
Under what real world circumstances would a 33% rent increase for an active tenant be morally justifiable?
I'm starting to think you'll defend anything landlord related and actually have no moral compass on the issue at all.
It's not an active tennant? He said it's for new tennants.
Read it again
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Previous tenants were there 3 years with no increases. These were new tenants. Market has moved on somewhat and it's a desirable location. Have never increased rent to an incumbent. 
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 7,376
- Location
- Hampshire
I’m lucky where I am. My rent has gone up this year by £30, but now fixed for 2 further years. Landlord is also a decent person, fitted new carpets last year.
We've looked after the place too, though - painted and decorated 2 rooms, planning to re do all of them.
We've looked after the place too, though - painted and decorated 2 rooms, planning to re do all of them.
A lot of landlords don't increase the rent year on year. For all we know that 33% could be covering a 5 year, 10 year or even 15+ year timeframe with no increases. Its common practice to either wait till the current tenets leave then adjust the prices or wait as long as you can before you have no choice then increase the rent in one big go. Landlords are not all immoral like you say and some of them try to protect and avoid passing on costs to the tenets as long as possible. But there gets to a point where the price just has to go up. Plus there is supply and demand if the area is in heavy demand for renting then it might be justified to up the price.
Its more likely the problem is not me having no moral compass as that is not true, but you have an overly negative viewpoint of the world and see the worst in everything at least that is the impression I am getting of you. I bet you assumed there was an increase last year and this was a 33% increase this year but we don't know that. I would question your own moral compass given how you have acted in this thread. From my point of view you are the one that has acted immoral with your negative viewpoint. If it turns out that 33% is a year on year increase then sure I am with you it could be an immoral price increase but at the moment we don't know that and we don't know that rest of the situation of that area. What if that was the only increase in 15 years that works out at a 2.2% per year increase. Not that I am saying its been 15 years its just you seem to automatically jump to the most negative viewpoint you can.
EDIT: Just seen the post before mine. So it turns out the tenants never had any increase while they lived there and this is an increase to cover multiple years in what is a desirable location. It was also not an increase for the active tenants but for new tenants.
I have logically explained why landlording is inherently immoral , using real economics, and you are defending a 33% rent increase.
Come on my friend.
Fair enough, I have no argument with that.
Fwiw, I charge £100 a month less than market rate as the sitting tenant is no trouble and keeps the place in tip top order.
If she's there for years, this won't change (despite my management company repeatedly telling me i should charge more).
As for people thinking it's all profit renting, it ain't.
My flat is leasehold and we were told new windows and doors were needed to be replaced + the garage doors and asbestos roofs.
That's a lot of rental income gone in a flash, annoying but fair enough, but it adds to the value of the property, so no biggie.
My single concern is to keep the tenant happy, as it stresses the **** out of me when one moves out and the management company have find another one, especially with my very strict criteria.
I'd rather let the place sit empty than have a bad tenant.
No you have not logically explained why landlording is inherently immoral. Your explanation I found flawed and incorrect so I don't accept is as a valid reason for saying land lording is inherently immoral, using real economics. I am defending the 33% increase as it was an increase to cover multiple years at a time in a location that has got more desirable. It was not 33% a year. Its 33% over multiple years. Also it was not for active tenets and in this case active tenets never get an increase even over multiple years proving the landlord is not immoral like you say they are. If they where immoral they would increase every year.
Peoples issue isn't that rent is increasing, its that its basically a "I am raising it by X because I can". You are accusing him (and others) of being overly critical and negative of landlords and their practices while giving quite a number of very niche excuses for why something might be OK.
We are all talking in general terms here and yes, there will be people who are in negative equity so trying to recoup their losses etc, people who have had a bad tenant and lost money or whatever else that might justify a massive rent increase. A 33% increase however is (I would guess) because that is the current market value and thats that. Its what the market will bear. Plenty of people think that is totally fine. Personally I don't but its more of a symptom of a wider issue in the housing market than a particular attack on the person doing this.
There is a reason that in other countries plenty of people are quite happy to rent for their entire lives or for very large parts of it and its because they aren't paying nearly twice what a mortgage would cost to rent a place. The housing market is a mess and people lucky enough to own more than one house are taking advantage of that in most cases.
Note that you still defended it when you thought it was an active tenant increase.
Did you miss where I said "For all we know that 33% could be covering a 5 year, 10 year or even 15+ year timeframe with no increases." "Its common practice to either wait till the current tenets leave then adjust the prices or wait as long as you can before you have no choice then increase the rent in one big go."
see what I mean you seem to jump to the most negative version of events. The problem here isn't me, its your negative viewpoint of life. As it turned out I was right the increase was covering multiple years and your negative viewpoint was wrong.
I don't think a single 33% increase would ever be OK for an incumbent tenant. Unless pre agreed as part of major upgrade work.
And, frankly, I don't think it's OK to defend a 33% increase between tenants either. There's no way to argue that's anything but a societal Bad. And we shouldn't defend structures that create societal Bads.
That would be rather large for a incumbent tenet yes I agree with that. The rest is where we disagree to me a 33% increase between tenants its perfectly acceptable as long as it covers enough years to justify the increase since the last increase and supply and demand match's. If a landlord hasn't increase for many years and does a 33% increase between tenets to cover a long time frame and is still below the area average rent you cannot argue that landlord is being immoral as they are not.
Surly that landlord who hasn't increased the prices proves me right and you wrong. You are effectively saying the landlord that doesnt increase the rent price for active tenets and is under renting the price by 30% or 50% is immoral and greedy. That is what I disagree with. You calling those types of landlord greedy when clearly they are not. I just don't see how you can justify calling that type of landlord immoral and greedy. Some landlords are immoral and greedy but not all of them.
When an house price jumps up more then the region average and the owner sells for above the average as that's what the buyers wanted do you also call them immoral and greedy?