Reliable tenant, widening rent gap: how should I review it?

[kit_reese]

The surprising part is how large the difference has become: the tenant pays €1,863, while apparently comparable properties are being advertised around €2,355. They are reliable, flag maintenance issues promptly and keep the home in good order, so replacing them purely to chase the headline figure could be expensive.

I am leaning towards a modest, clearly explained increase rather than an immediate move to market rent. Before deciding, I plan to check whether those comparisons are genuinely similar, review the maintenance history and confirm the local notice requirements. Would you discuss possible improvements at the same time, or keep that separate? I would also like to account properly for vacancy, turnover and deposit handling if the tenant chooses to leave.

 

[eva_escrow]

I would favour a modest increase rather than jumping straight to €2,355. Reliability and early maintenance reporting have real value, even if they do not appear in the headline rent. Before choosing a figure, work out what even a short vacancy plus preparation for a new tenant would cost. Also confirm the local notice rules and timing before starting the conversation.

 

[StrongGarden]

I would first challenge how firm that €2,355 figure is. Are the comparisons genuinely similar in condition and terms, or just current asking prices? If the evidence is solid, explain the gap and propose a staged approach rather than presenting improvements as compensation for a predetermined rise.

Also compare the extra annual rent with the possible costs of turnover, including vacancy time and deposit handling. A good tenant may still accept a reasonable review, but predictability and clear communication could matter as much as the amount.