By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Three quarters of landlords have hiked rents or will do so soon

The Deposit Protection Service is the latest part of the industry to try to quantify how many landlords are implementing rent rises in the face of increasing costs.

A study of 1,000 landlords found that three quarters of those planning to remain in buy-to let during the next few years have either increased rents during the past 12 months (40 per cent) or are planning to do so in the near future (35 per cent). 

DPS managing director Matt Trevett says: “Demand for rental property remains high, and our survey suggests most landlords see a future in the rental market.


However, landlords have also told us that their costs have increased recently, particularly as a result of higher interest rates – and it seems a large proportion are raising rents to cover their expenses.

“Clearly increases to interest rates and the cost of living will also be affecting some tenants, and we’d encourage both renters and landlords to have an open and constructive dialogue about financial pressures in the current economic climate.” 

Almost three quarters of landlords agreed that keeping rents in line with their local rental market was an influential or very influential factor in their decision to increase letting prices; some 68 per cent said that increasing costs relating to legislation and compliance were a key factor in their decision, with 62 per cent mentioning increasing maintenance costs, and 55 per cent saying rent rises were necessary because of increasing risks.

Just over half said that the requirements of mortgage lenders, such as financial stress testing and affordability requirements, did not influence their decision, with 53 per cent saying that increasing costs of letting agents did not affect their thinking either.

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    I've been a landlord for over 30 years and until this year I've never increased anyone's rent. Even with tenants that were with us for 17 years.

    Due to governments recent interventions, all of my rents next year will be increasing to get them slowly in line with local rents.

    The government will blame landlords for the increase, for me it's the government legislation and landlord bashing and this is my 1 foot out of the grave before I sell up and make a lot of people looking for a new home.

    It's not a decision I wanted to make, but I intend to sell all of the houses at the best price I can get for them, and selling an empty house seems to make the best business seance.

    I'm fed up with funding the government with taxes, so let them find homes for all of my current tenants.

    I'm waiting to hear of the full impact of the RRB before I sell up and put the the money to better use. My funds for my next buy to let is already set to go into a high interest bank account.

    Looking at what is on the horizon, I don't want any more houses.

    So sad to feel this way, I was planning to buy a few more houses before I retire but now the government are forcing me to sell up and evict my tenants.

    by almost getting rid of tax relief on capital gains tax there is no incentive for me to just sell 1 house per year and I can just offload all of them at once.

    I think that there is a perfect storm on the horizon for landlords selling and the idiots in government about to have a tsunami of people looking for homes, their idea of big corporate companies taking over is not gointg to be enough to take up the amount of landlords leaving the sector

    What is a total mess now is going to be total chaos when Labor take control next year.
    A lot of people will be homeless.


    Totally agree, but no one is listening 👂 to us or really changing direction, Labour certainly won’t 😳


    D Duck. I couldn’t agree more. Could say more but have summed it up perfecto.


    Like Simon I totally agree too. I've been in the business a little less than you but feel exactly the same, though plan a slower timescale. If tenants move on then I'll sell, otherwise I'll look to dispose of the portfolio over the next few years.

    I was talking to another landlord yesterday who has a respectable portfolio but he's planning on starting to sell too. 'Tsunami' seems an appropriate word with the wave of homelessness that's coming. The councils are struggling now but they 'ain't seen nuthing yet'


    As of about a month ago all tenants are entitled to NON MEANS TESTED legal aid when faced with eviction. Perhaps they can see what’s coming!

    For those still wondering the free legal aid does only apply to tenants all paid for by us. Landlords are surprising not included and pay all of their own costs. Strangely we can still offset our legal costs. When will that be abolished?


    Like D Duck, I used not to increase rents mid-tenancy, even for long ones.
    But that ended with the Tenants Fee Ban.
    Someone had to pay for the services those fees used to be charged for: the agents weren't going to, and neither was I.

    An unintended consequence: long term tenants had rent increases, but usually did not generate work the fees used to be charged for.
    They effectively subsidised the shorter term tenants who caused the work the fees used to be charged for.

    I expect lots more unintended consequences from the RRB when enacted.
    Many of these Govt. are being warned about.

    With RRB proposals on rent increases, I'll have to start increasing more regularly.

    I was a tenant several times several decades ago (student and couple of early jobs before I could buy): pleased I am not one now.


    Sums it up for me also. Have just got my property back after after just over a year of having a non paying tenant. Two court appearances and a wait of almost 4 months for bailiffs to evict this tenant, with no chance of getting any rent back....not a penny.
    What does the Government then do, well they put their big foot on my neck to squeeze whatever else they can from me.
    With the housing crisis you'd think they would invest in me to get the house ready to re-let.
    We now live in strange times!


    One of the best comments on here, ever.
    Sums it up perfectly.

  • icon

    I have been a LL for over 20 yrs & in contrast to d Duck I put my rents up pretty much every year! Nothing new here for me!


    Hi Tricia.
    I am going to put mine up by 25% next year and I will still be below the current level.
    Compassion and loyalty has nothing do with it anymore, as we are still looked upon as 'greedy landlords" and I, for one, won't be losing any sleep over it.
    The Welsh so-called government have shafted landlords, with their leftish politics.
    If a tenant decides to leave then I will attempt to sell the property and if that's not possible then I will be charging the full going rent to newcomers.

  • icon

    All landlords must bring your rents up to market rents


    Agree Pat.
    The time for rewarding loyalty has long passed.


    I started this year, it will continue every April going forward.

  • icon

    Of course we've increased prices due to increased costs. So have supermarkets, energy companies, petrol stations etc.


    But we are 'greedy landlords',so we are not supposed to be compared with these businesses.

  • George Dawes

    I’ve frozen mine as I’ve got good tenants

    More twaddle I guess, this place is becoming a bit of a joke


    I have good tenants too George and have never increased the rent for an existing tenant in over 30 years of being a landlord. However, times have changed and I am just hitting my tenants with a 33% increase WEF January next and that will still be a lot below what local agents claim they can get for my property. Three reasons for such a large increase..
    1, They went in Nov. 2019 on a modest rent hoping to buy the property from me during the following 12 months but Covid killed that for them.
    2, I dare not risk the government, that is so anti landlord, imposing a rent freeze when my rent was so modest.
    3, If I sold the property and invested the money in year 6% bonds, I could get just as much income without any grief and that is even after paying a very substantial CG Tax bill.
    My tenants are aware of these reasons for the large increase and chose to stay because it is still a reasonable rent for the property and this is a fact, not more twaddle
    George, although most of the times I agree with your comments.

  • icon

    I'm glad people are beginning to realise basing their income on charging people for their basic human rights might not have been a good idea.

    • A JR
    • 31 October 2023 08:49 AM

    Like most things in life, most ‘rights’ including housing whether purchase or rent are ‘earned rights’. Earning = working for, paying for.
    You need to rethink and question your delusion.


    A JR, I suggest you take your issue up with the European court of human rights. Unfortunately I don't have that kind of sway. Good luck.


    Do you mean Tesco not allowing thieves to steal food?


    Of course not, but there's a good chance they're stealing food because their rent has been hiked by 500%. Homes are not for profit, in the same way that water shouldn't be. Because without a home, every single other part of your life will be stalled. That's why access to a safe and secure home is a basic human right. Just about anyone who can pay rent can afford a mortgage.


    Housing may be a human right, though I thought it was actually shelter rather than housing.
    Whether housing of shelter is a right, that doesn't mean the PRS has to provide it. And if we can't charge enough to make it economically viable then we won't bother.

    If basing income on charging people for housing is wrong, then there is no point in the PRS (and other housing providers like the state, housing Associations and charities) still charge rents to keep them operating.

    Perhaps food and water is also a basic human right. In which case Tesco, the Coop et al shouldn't base their income on charging and instead make it free.

    Reminds me of Generation Rant during the pandemic: wanting free rentals like they wouldn't get free food.
    Economic illiteracy.


    James, go and see what other countries do, especially their Governments. They reward Landlord's to be Landlord's. This results in cheaper rents. Our Government are doing the opposite and necessitating rents to rise drastically.
    Yes some Landlords are greedy and yes some do not follow though on their obligations, but this is the minority in the same way that most tenants are good tenants.
    What is happening currently is bad for all of us invested here and as such the private Landlord will disappear, not a good scenario for obvious reasons.


    I don't see it as a basic human right. Lions don't feed and house other lions other than their own family. Snakes, seagulls, dolpins are all the same. They don't sit on their bottom claiming Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Legal Aid and all of the other nonsense.

    People should house themselves. For the people that don't landlords will do it at a cost. Don't want to pay? That's fine - goodbye and good luck.

    We need more properties and less people. That's the answer.


    These are the human rights as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, note the right to own property and the right to freedom from state interference in that right:

    Article 1 Right to Equality
    Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
    Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
    Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
    Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
    Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
    Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
    Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
    Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
    Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
    Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
    Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
    Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
    Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
    Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
    Article 17 Right to Own Property
    Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
    Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
    Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
    Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
    Article 22 Right to Social Security
    Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
    Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
    Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
    Article 26 Right to Education
    Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
    Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
    Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
    Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights


    The Human Rights Act 1998 also protects against state interference in your possessions. These are the rights in that act:

    The right to life: protects your life, by law. The State is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody.

    The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment: you should never be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way, no matter what the situation.

    Protection against slavery and forced labour: you should not be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour.

    The right to liberty and freedom: you have the right to be free and the State can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime.

    The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law: you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law.

    Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry: protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and enjoy family relationships.

    Freedom of thought, religion and belief: you can believe what you like and practise your religion or beliefs.

    Free speech and peaceful protest: you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views.

    No discrimination: everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, disability, sexuality, religion or age.

    Protection of property: protects against state interference with your possessions.

    The right to an education: means that no child can be denied an education.

    The right to free elections: elections must be free and fair.

    There is no right to have housing.


    Ellie, could landlords bring a human rights challenge against the government over the RRB do you think?


    I am not certain, Nick. The state may be found to be interfering with the right to property through excessive or arbitrary controls.

    However, the second paragraph of Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention says that the State is entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest..."

    In determining the amount of permissible interference with the right to property the European Court of Human Rights distinguishes between types of interference. It applies closer scrutiny to interferences involving deprivation than to those involving control alone.


    Ellie, I asked Bard "could landlords use the Human Rights Act to challenged the Renters Reform Bill?" Whilst not always accurate it's response was:

    Landlords could potentially use the Human Rights Act to challenge the Renters Reform Bill, but it is unlikely that such a challenge would be successful.

    The Human Rights Act (HRA) incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The ECHR protects a number of fundamental rights, including the right to property. Landlords could argue that the Renters Reform Bill infringes their right to property by making it more difficult for them to evict tenants, even if those tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreements.

    However, the HRA does not give landlords an absolute right to property. The government can interfere with property rights if it has a legitimate aim for doing so and if the interference is proportionate to that aim. The government has stated that the Renters Reform Bill is necessary to protect the rights of tenants and to create a fairer private rented sector. It is likely that the courts would find that these are legitimate aims and that the interference with landlords' property rights is proportionate.

    In addition, the HRA allows the government to derogate from certain human rights, including the right to property, in certain circumstances. The government could argue that it is necessary to derogate from the right to property in order to implement the Renters Reform Bill. This is because the bill is designed to protect the rights of a large number of people (tenants) and to improve the overall fairness of the private rented sector.

    It is important to note that the Renters Reform Bill is still in its early stages and has not yet been enacted into law. It is possible that the bill will be amended before it becomes law, which could address some of the concerns of landlords.

    Overall, it is unlikely that landlords would be successful in challenging the Renters Reform Bill under the Human Rights Act. However, it is possible that they could mount a legal challenge on other grounds, such as arguing that the bill is discriminatory or that it infringes their right to a fair trial.


    The only point I would make is that the Renters Reform legislation may not be in the general interest of tenants because it is reducing the supply of housing available to them and consequently leading to increased rents.


    Not according to Michael Gove in the commons debate last week. He said there was "no evidence" of that (of landlord selling).

    I don't want to be without S21 having to gather evidence for people like that who don't want to recognise anything!


    Good evidence would have to be obtained/gathered if there were a human rights challenge by landlords under Article 1 on the grounds that government contols in the RRB were harming tenants by leading to increased rent and reduced supply - so that those legislative provisions in the RRB were not justified control of the owners' properties.

    It would have to be better than Michael Gove's evidence.


    There is the historical evidence - data and statistics - showing how small the private rental sector was when the Rent Acts were in force because landlords could not get their properties back once they had let them.

    At the moment, many landlords are still biding their time, but what will happen is predictable from the past.


    So James are you lazy and expecting a free ride through life ? sounds like it. hope you end up sleeping in shop door ways where your kind belong


    Actually the same Human Rights argument could apply to additional licensing.

    The controls on the landlords' properties are not justified because they are leading to tenants having to pay more rent; previously a two double bedroom flat could have been occupied by three or four people - and now it may only be legally let to two people so obviously each tenant has to pay more even if the rent is the same as it was years ago.

  • icon


    While you didn't say it originally, you now appear to be okay with charging rent, as long as there's no profit.
    Which means there would have to be enough charities etc to fill the void left by the PRS.

    Would they get enough funding to do so? Though the supposed tenant helping charities could always use their donations to actually house people rather than attack landlords.

    I caught out Crisis telling complete untruths. Should have reported them to the Charity Commission (may still do so, as their 'excuse' showed they were LLD bashing).



    Whilst there's not a magic money tree, some food and building materials ( wood) grows on trees so I am sure you could become self-sufficient and not rely on charity from others if you wanted to do so.


    Basic human rights are not free they have to be paid for James


    What does 'access to a safe and secure home is a basic human right' mean? Does that mean a homeless person can get accommodation with no money? Who pays for it? Sounds like communism, the government pays for all accommodation, gives you a free home but tells you where to live and work and everyone pays higher taxes.


    John - James is an Acorn tenant's union disciple. so communism is exactly where he is at!


    I've got nothing to do with acorn "nick", they're as useless as you.


    James, I wish you would direct your anger towards the government. If the PRS was less restrictive and landlords could make decent money then the PRS would grow. This would give tenants much more power by being able to vote with their feet. If the rents were too high, or the property was in poor condition, you could just choose a different property and the landlord would have to improve or quit.

    Don't forget landlords and tenants both need each other.

  • icon

    Until October 2022 I'd almost never put up rents for existing tenants. Most of mine are students or young professionals and used to move every year or two, so it was perfectly viable to just increase rents when reletting the rooms. The family stuff I let is mainly occupied by low income families so I had tended to keep it at whatever LHA was.
    After all the small utility companies went bust I was looking at the included utilities going from £8000 to £35000 for the same amount of usage. I had based rents on the 14 month utility contracts I had signed up for and suddenly they weren't honoured. So I went and talked to a few tenants to see how they would feel about a rent increase and what kind of numbers would be OK. It was new territory for me and I was pleasantly surprised by their reaction. The media had been full of horror stories about London rent increases so they were relieved my ideas were more modest. I then emailed all HMO tenants explaining the situation and increased rent by between £25 and £60 a month for 12 of them. The others were still in the fixed term phase of their tenancy agreement. One HMO household even offered to have a whip round to help pay the extra utility cost (which I thought was very sweet).
    This year I knew mortgage rates were going to increase hugely on 5 of my properties when their fixes ended. Overall the December mortgage payments will be around £2500 higher than the January payments were. Then there's the extra Section 24 tax to add on top of that.

    In April I had another batch of rent increases for 9 tenants and decided to go for 7% as that was the figure Social Housing was going up by. This time the low income families were included. I figured the LA could hardly have an issue with rent increases that matched their own so should hand out DHPs to pay the increase. I don't know if the tenants bothered applying or if they realise quite how much below market rent they're actually paying.

    The October 2023 batch of rent increases were mainly at 9% as the BoE has been incessant in hiking the base rate.

    Newly let rooms have had mainly bigger increases to keep pace with market rents.

    Overall it's probably going to take about 3 years of rent increases to cover all the extra costs and then my next batch of mortgages will be coming to the end of their fix.

    A combination of the government with Section 24, Ofgem with the utility price cap and the BoE hiking interest rates has baked in rent increases for the next several years. Both landlords and tenants are significantly worse off financially due to the above inept trio.

  • Vanessa Warwick

    It's unfortunate that the emotionally charged word "hiked" is used here. The emotional rhetoric is not helpful when discussing the issue of rent rises imho.

    Most landlords, as evidenced above, don't put up rents for good tenants, or just put rents up a little bit each year.

    In my case, I generally put rents up when a new tenancy starts.

    Government policies that slim landlord margins are responsible for rent increases anyway - landlords can only operate at market rents, they cannot over-egg them as so many media like to suggest.

    In any business, when the costs rise and/or margins slim, the cost of the service has to increase in line with that. It's simple economics which the government seems to struggle to understand!

  • icon

    The rents have to be hiked every year as the damage left by tenants is quite high, apart from the all the heavy costs induced by the government intervention. Some are legitimate like gas and electricity certs. However, S24 and removing of tax relief on capital gains does not make any sense at all. Removal of S21 will see many LL's departing in droves. With high interest rates and all the material and labour costs do mean that the profit margin is eroded. It is not just interest payments and maintenance and repair costs, LL also need to be able to reduce capital borrowing each year. Any tenants who feel they should be allowed to stay rent free or at a lower rent because of humanity, maybe the law should allow the LL to place clauses in the contracts that all on-going works to be the responsibility of the tenants, otherwise it is breach of the contract and grounds for notice for eviction. Why all the responsibility is on the LLs shoulders and tenants to carry out damage within 6 months stay in the property. What about the responsibility of the tenants to care for their home, which is not their to damage? We need to have a database of tenants for LLs to see who are persistently causing damage, like placing candles on window sills, mantel pieces, dressing tables etc and leaving marks so at the end of the AST the items need to be replaced or repaired. This is not always possible. If the tenants wish to live in a property, they need to learn to look after the property first. Instead of just educating the responsible LLs, the tenants need educating.


    Interesting that you mention high levels of damage. Who do you let to?
    I have very little damage most years. Student houses usually come back somewhere between very good and immaculate. One room this year had a lot of soot damage from candles and joss sticks but that was the first real damage for years.
    Young professionals usually leave their rooms pretty good. Maybe a bit of dust behind the bed or on top of the wardrobe.
    A long stay family house will probably need fully redecorating but it's not frequent if it's long stay.

    Candles are probably the biggest problem and I'm amazed most standard tenancy agreements don't have a specific clause about their usage. It always worries me when I see candles or tea lights in any of my houses .


    I am really worried about candles, too.

    There was a large ornate multiple candle holder left in the flat when I inherited it. I left it in the front garden and I was glad that it was taken away.

  • David Saunders

    Our governments housing policy seems akin to the Titanic that's heading full speed towards a huge iceberg (RRB) placed there by inept ministers at the request of Shelter and Generation Rent etc and sadly the main casualties will likely be tenants and the homeless.

  • icon

    Jo, you have been so lucky with your Tenants I have spent so much time clearing & cleaning after them, How does a full
    8cu yd Skip sound + more than a weeks work the Skip alone in London is £350. Incl’ VAT without compensation the Company for the Permit of you can get it for that. It was horrendous all kinds of stuff from bits of car to several 5 gallon plastic oil drums stinking of diesel, every cupboard and storage space full full full, crates of empty beer bottles. We don’t post photos but I have them all. It was arranged to vacant well in advance I couldn’t continue because of all that was going on and arrears and in frequent payments and risk to the property and my responsibilities. Ok that’s grand so they agreed to meet Sunday evening 16th at six everything was to be cleared and hand over to keys, what’s wrong with that apart from nothing, except nothing cleared no hand over and no one the to greet me.
    They might appear to have a poor grasp of English but I can tell you they understood everything perfectly.
    All over head door closers removed and all bedroom door locks changed that were installed fo HMO regulation’s, no need to go on not my first day on the job. This never happened when the Landlord was in Charge and not controlled by Council’s interference undermining landlords authority.

  • icon

    All this talk of "uman rights" whats missing is Human Responsibilities.
    Adults need to be responsible for their actions - we need a court of human responsibilities!


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up