Rent increase versus keeping a reliable tenant after 97 days

[makeTheCanvas]

After 97 days, I’m still undecided about the rent on a London small multifamily. Comparable asking rents appear to be around £1,152, while the tenant currently pays about £1,013. They pay reliably and look after the home, so I don’t want to lose a good tenant for the sake of chasing an advertised figure.

How would you balance a modest increase against vacancy, refurbishment and deposit-handling work if they leave? I also want any review and notice to follow the tenancy terms and applicable local rules.

 

[bakesAndView]

I’d lean toward retention. The gap is £139 a month, and asking rent is not necessarily achieved rent. One empty month at £1,152 would swallow more than eight months of that difference before decorating, repairs or reletting costs. Check genuinely comparable agreed rents, then discuss a smaller adjustment openly rather than jumping straight to the advertised level.

 

[theo.east]

What does the 97 days mark: the age of the tenancy, time since the last increase, or how long you’ve tracked the market? That matters. If the tenancy itself is only 97 days old, an increase may feel very different to the tenant and the permitted route depends on the agreement and timing. I’d also look at maintenance history—are there unresolved items that should be dealt with before asking for more?

 

[readTheEcho]

I agree that vacancy costs matter, but retention shouldn’t automatically mean leaving a roughly 14% market gap untouched indefinitely. First confirm that £1,152 reflects similar homes actually securing tenants, not optimistic listings.

If the evidence holds, write to the tenant with the comparisons, propose a measured increase below the full gap, and give them room to respond. Before serving anything formal, verify the tenancy terms, current notice requirements and deposit compliance for England. That keeps the negotiation separate from avoidable procedural problems.