Closing a large rent gap without losing a reliable Warsaw tenant

K

kian_roofs

Landlord
Established
I’ve been thinking about how to handle a reliable tenant in my Warsaw property. They pay on time, report problems early and look after the home, but they pay PLN 18,090 while estimated market rent is about PLN 23,490.

I don’t want that gap to keep widening, yet a vacancy, preparation work and an unknown replacement tenant all carry costs. Would you propose a smaller predictable increase, leave the rent unchanged, or combine a review with agreed improvements? I’d also be interested in how Polish notice requirements and the lease terms should shape the timing.
 
I’d avoid jumping straight to PLN 23,490. A staged increase gives the tenant time to plan and preserves some of the value of their payment and maintenance history. Before proposing it, calculate what one vacancy period plus turnover work would cost. That tells you how much discount is actually buying useful stability rather than simply becoming permanent.
 
How firm is the market estimate? Are the comparable Warsaw properties genuinely similar in location, condition, furnishing and lease terms, or are they just current asking prices?

Also, when does the existing lease renew? The sensible approach could differ substantially depending on whether a review is already due or whether you would be trying to change terms mid-agreement.
 
I’m less convinced that a very gradual increase is automatically best. The gap is PLN 5,400, so keeping the current rent has a substantial ongoing cost. A good tenant is valuable, but that value should be compared with a realistic turnover estimate rather than treated as unlimited.

I’d present the evidence calmly and offer alternatives: a moderate increase paired with more certainty for both sides, or a different increase alongside a genuine upgrade the tenant values. Any proposal still needs to follow the lease and applicable Polish notice rules.
 
At renewal, it may be tempting to combine the rent discussion with a package of works, but that can blur two very different costs. Necessary maintenance remains the landlord’s responsibility in the budgeting exercise; an optional improvement can be assessed for its effect on retention.

For example, fixing an existing fault should sit outside the negotiation, while adding storage the tenant has requested might support a longer commitment. I would first confirm what the tenant values and price it, then compare that option with the PLN 5,400 rent gap and a realistic turnover estimate. Only after that would I decide whether an upgrade belongs in either rent proposal.
 
cpeterson’s questions are the key next step. Confirm the comparable evidence, the renewal date and whether the tenant intends to stay. Then put actual figures beside each option: continued discount, likely vacancy time, preparation costs and the risk of a less dependable replacement.

Keep the deposit out of the turnover-income calculation; it is not a substitute for rent, and its handling should follow the agreement and local requirements. With those numbers, a respectful staged proposal seems more defensible than either a permanent freeze or an immediate move to full market rent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top