My landlord has just increased my rent by £700 per month

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 20/08/2024 - 13:42
I suggest talking to your tenant first about the situation, then mentioning what Denzel does, then referring your tenant to him / his team.

Denzel and his team will then explain to your tenants why it will be in their best interests if you serve a S21 notice, so instead of creating anxiety and resentment, you are presented as the good landlord who is trying to be helpful and to find a solution.

The worst-case scenario I can forsee from the above is that you're in the same position, i.e. needing to enforce the notice and sell up.

I would have looked at this more laterally. What skills does the tenant have and what would a relocation from the most expensive city in the UK have done for quality of life and financial security.
I have relatives who rent in the London area and have been trying to convince them for several years that taking a drop of the "London weighting" to a normal min wage job and subsequently reducing their rent by about £1100 a month is financially more sound than staying put.
I understand the trade off between the costs of avoiding homelessness on the tax payer and subsidies bit surely the first step has to be relocation and work allocation.

Reply to the comment left by Paddy O'Dawes at 20/08/2024 - 13:59
The landlord and tenant situation I am aware of in Norwich is a very different to what you are describing though.

The tenant has several disabilities meaning that working is impossible for her. She already lives in a City with comparatively low rent. She has rented the same bungalow for 18 years and her kids and whole support system are there for her. The bathroom has also been adapted for the tenants disabilities. The property has a bus stop outside and a supermarket across the road. It is perfect t for them.

The landlords mortgage interest has more that doubled. He could sell up, pay his CGT and walk away with nearly £100,000 but that's not what he wants. His preference is to eventually leave the property as a legacy for his grandchildren.

Both landlord and tenant may get what they want, they may not, but surely its worth trying?

Shame that the lady in news last week wasn't aware of Denzel. She had 6 kids ranging from 7 months to 16 years, been in house since 2018. Rent was £1900 pm which was increased by £100 to £2000. She couldn't afford extra and received Section 21 last November. I did wonder why council (Enfield I think) couldn't help out with extra £100, would be cheaper than providing accomodation for the family one would think.
There maybe other issues of course.....we only get to hear tenants side of the situation from the press.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118 at 20/08/2024 - 13:54
Yes, Mark, that makes sense, while keeping my S21 option on the table. She did express an interest in buying last year, but didn't follow up.

Reply to the comment left by Denzel at 20/08/2024 - 11:16
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡-𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 £20𝐾 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟.

If the tenant in this circumstance was made homeless, the home would have become available to another tenant.

There is zero impact on the homeless costs.

Yet again, this is a cost of lax immigration laws.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 20/08/2024 - 19:45
Are you serious??

Many landlords want to keep their good tenants and help them.

I am shocked at your views on this.

Reply to the comment left by howdidigethere at 20/08/2024 - 12:07
All of that 'free money' is either coming from Council Tax payers or by increase to the national debt, i.e. the devaluation of every single penny. The real question should be why is it that large sections of society can't earn enough to sustain themselves, it's not sustainable

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118 at 20/08/2024 - 20:56
Of course we want to keep our best tenants and help them when we can.

My point was that making the present tenant homeless may well cost the taxpayer £20k. But the property would become available for somebody else who is already homeless and potentially costing the taxpayer £20k.

If there are ten people homeless and ten people in rental properties, evicting one tenant and putting another in the property still leave ten people homeless and ten people in rental properties.

I think it’s crazy that some people receive more in housing benefit than I earned by working full time.