Keep a proven tenant or seek £5,160 for a London condo?

[makeTheCanvas]

Getting this wrong could either leave a substantial amount of rent on the table or drive out a tenant who has proved dependable. The London condo currently brings in £4,387 a month, while similar properties are advertised near £5,160.

The tenant pays on time and cares for the place. They do raise maintenance matters fairly often, although the requests have been legitimate rather than trivial. That history makes me hesitant to treat the highest listing figure as an obvious target.

Would you offer a smaller increase and accept part of the difference as the cost of continuity, or test the full market level? I need to compare against genuinely agreed rents, likely vacancy and refurbishment costs, then check the tenancy dates, notice route and deposit arrangements before acting.

 

[xavi_flint]

I would treat some of that gap as the price of retaining a proven tenant. £5,160 is an asking rent, not necessarily what a replacement tenant will pay, and turnover can consume several months of increase surprisingly quickly.

Compare a modest rise over the next year with the realistic net result of reletting. Then approach the tenant early and explain the figures without presenting the maximum asking rent as an ultimatum.

 

[GrandCorner]

How close are those comparables in size, condition, furnishing and exact part of London? Also, are they actually letting or merely being advertised repeatedly?

The tenancy agreement and its dates matter too. Before choosing an amount, establish whether there is a contractual review mechanism and which notice route applies. A friendly conversation is useful, but it does not replace the correct process.

 

[romy_listings]

I partly disagree with being too generous purely because the tenant is reliable. The gap between £4,387 and £5,160 is substantial, and leaving it untouched indefinitely creates a harder conversation later.

That does not mean demanding the full asking figure now. A defensible increase, possibly combined with greater certainty for both sides if mutually agreed, can recognise the tenant’s value without allowing the rent to drift far behind credible comparables.

 

[romy_listings]

One addition to my previous comment: separate ordinary maintenance from improvements that justify a higher rent. Jobs that are already the landlord’s responsibility should not be presented as favours in exchange for an increase. Clearing genuine outstanding items before the review would make the discussion feel much fairer.

 

[MaraSage]

The missing number is the likely vacancy period. Even a short gap, plus cleaning, refurbishment and reletting costs, may outweigh the extra monthly rent. On the other hand, don’t charge every maintenance job to turnover if it would need doing with the current tenant still there.

Run both cases over the same period and use conservative assumptions.

 

[reviewThePlan]

Check the current tenancy paperwork before sending a formal proposal. The permissible method and timing can depend on the agreement and circumstances, and the rules can change, so use current England-specific guidance or obtain advice if anything is unclear.

If the tenant leaves, keep the rent discussion separate from the deposit. Any proposed deductions should relate to the condition and evidence, not to the tenant declining an increase.

 

[bakesAndView]

I would challenge the £5,160 figure before letting it drive the decision. Asking prices can be optimistic. Look for genuinely comparable homes and watch whether the listings disappear quickly or linger.

Payment reliability and good care have economic value that an advert cannot show. A moderate increase from a known tenant can produce a better risk-adjusted result than holding out for the highest advertised number.

 

[readTheEcho]

A practical approach would be to write with plenty of notice: acknowledge that the tenancy has gone well, explain that the rent is being reviewed against comparable homes and propose an adjustment below the apparent market asking level. Invite a discussion rather than threatening immediate reletting.

Before that, finish or schedule the legitimate maintenance items, confirm the correct formal notice procedure, and calculate the break-even vacancy period. Those three steps should make the eventual figure easier to defend.