Hi Dave. I did actually reply on 13th (above) but I guess you didn't see it. Copy of reply: I need to clarify a few matters with you before I can reply ... firstly, you say the 'Shorthold' tenancy expired and became an 'ordinary' tenancy. Can you confirm the original tenancy was in fact an Assured Shorthold (Housing Act 1988) and that it lapsed (neither you nor the tenant did anything at expiry of the fixed term) into a Statutory Periodic tenancy, running month to month? Secondly, did the original tenancy agreement contain a mechanism for rent increases? if so, what did the mechansim state? Finally, you mention the tenant's rent is 'subsidised by the local council'. What is the nature of the subsidising? For example, if the tenant is receiving housing benefit, has there been a formal assessment of the rent in detrmining the level of benefit being paid? Is the benefit amount paid to the tenant or to you? Has there been a Market Rent determination (via Rent Officer or Rent Assessment Committee)? Have you had to submit documents to the local authority for verification of the tenancy? Cheers, Tony

Hi Bob. Assessing the right rent increase percentage is always difficult, particularly if you don't want to lose good paying tenants. A bit of research on local comparables (the rents of similar properties in the area) is often the best way. Landlords need to remember that market forces apply to rents - not what may be happening to mortgage rates. It's also useful to be on good terms with the tenants, as you can then sound them out over what they are likely to accept and what may persuade them to look elsewhere. Rent levels are under pressure at the moment, particularly in areas of over supply like some inner cities, so probably best to err on the cautious side .. keeping the rent as is or only a small increase to keep the tenants or attract new ones.

Hi Tony, sorry yes I missed that. It was an AST originally, and it has just lapsed with neither of us doing anything. There was no provision for rent increases stated within it. The tenant has not had a rent assessment, she works, but earns little, and so they just apparently top up her rent each month (paid to her). They wrote to me to confirm her monthly rental payments, but that was all. In fact, I am not even sure that she is still in that situation, or whether she now earns enough to pay it in full herself. Thre has been no market rental determination, and I have not had to submit anything to the council. What she pays in rent, considering the area she lives in is ridiculously low. I just want to make it more realistic. None of my four tenants have had a rent increase in 3 years.

Hi Dave. It seems you are in much the same position as Jo, the other contributor to posts on this issue. Take a look at my answer to her dilemma, 13 Jan 2007 above. I would just add that the tenant may object to a large rent increase proposal and would probably refer the rent to the Rent Assessment Committee. This is not always good news, as the RAC can determine a lower rent if they feel it is appropriate. It may be better for you to terminate the existing Statutory Periodic tenancy (two months notice requried) and start a new tenancy with a new rent. This decision depends largely on how much you value the current tenant and whether you are prepared to pursue the matter through the courts (should the tenant fail to vacate at the end of the notice period). It is remiss not to have a rent increase term in the tenancy agreement and, unfortunately, these are the complications of that situation.

Good article .... if you want more advice about rent increases, read the 23 October 'Property Matters'. You should always refer to them in your tenancy agreement. Christopher Browne