Single mother hit with 20% hike by landlord calls for UK rent control
Bridget Chapman, 56, from Darlington, County Durham, has been a private renter her entire adult life.
She received a month's notice from her landlord informing her of a £100 rent increase.
A recent survey by Generation Rent found that 61 per cent of renters have been asked to pay higher rent in the past year, with almost a quarter reporting an increase of over £100.
Ms Chapman said that while she welcomes reforms in the Renters' Rights Bill going through Parliament, they do 'nothing to stop shock rent rises' like her family is currently faced with.
The Renters' Rights Bill seeks to introduce an end to no-fault evictions, stopping bidding wars for tenancies, helping tenants challenge unreasonable rent increases and preventing landlords from demanding more than a month's rent in advance from a new tenant.
'I just got so angry that the landlord can raise the rent whenever he wants and give me a month's notice,' Ms Chapman told the PA news agency.
'I'm paying a lot more now and it's having a knock on effect on everything else.
'I'm a single parent, so even though my kids are now adults they're still young and I'm still supporting them.
'I have a very low disposable income so it's really difficult especially since everything else has gone up including gas and electricity.'
Ms Chapman, who says she feels 'let down by the system' experienced extreme dampness in her previous home which led her to being rushed to hospital with pneumonia.
'We moved into the property and I've got asthma, so the damp started to creep in,' she said.
'We didn't realise how bad until the mould was literally black.
'The landlord gave me a dehumidifier which literally did nothing.
'Luckily I was okay. I survived, but when I had to recover, I had to go back to the house, which was full of damp and mould.'
Ms Chapman hoped her new home which she has been renting for eight years would be better but she now feels she has suffered a 'huge blow' to her security.
With rents in her local area being so high, she does not feel she can move to a more affordable option.
Ms Chapman launched her petition which has gained over 45,000 signatures on Sunday, as she feels she 'can't do anything else'.
'Doing this petition is my way to make my voice heard,' she said. 'The Government firstly needs to cap rent increases. They also need to look at capping gas and electricity bills.
'Wages are not going up, so people are struggling even more, because they're on the same wage and they pay more money for everything else.
'You get people who are working hard, full-time, and they're having to go to food banks. I think that's so wrong.'
Generation Rent says its research shows the 'most common' reason landlords put up rent is not higher costs, but rather to increase their revenue as local rents rise.
Almost a third (31 per cent) of landlords blamed higher market rents, while a further seven per cent stated that the increase was because of letting agent advice.
'This is indefensible. If renters are to finally feel secure in our own homes, we need protections from shock rent rises,' a Generation Rent spokesperson said.
'Private landlords should not be able to raise the rent higher than inflation or wages. The Government can and must act to change this.'
Government spokesperson said: 'Through our Renters' Rights Bill we are taking decisive action to transform the private renting sector for the better and empower tenants to tackle unreasonable rent hikes.
'Alongside this, as part of our Plan for Change we are putting more money in people's pockets by protecting payslips from higher taxes and increasing the minimum wage to deliver pay rises of up to £1,400 a year for millions of low-income workers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police issue warning over Palestine Action protests after group proscribed as terrorist organisation
The police have warned protesters against demonstrating in favour of Palestine Action after it was proscribed as a terrorist group by the government. Protesters are planning to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to Yvette Cooper, protesters said: " We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction. But we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order." But, ahead of the planned demonstration, the Metropolitan Police said the proscription means expressing support for the group is now a criminal offence in the UK. 'Officers policing these will act where criminal offences, including those related to support of proscribed groups or organisations, are committed,' the force warned. The Met said it is an offence to invite or express support for a proscribed organisation through chanting, wearing clothing or displaying articles such as flags, signs or logos. The warning raises the stakes ahead of the protest, with demonstrators facing the threat of being arrested under the terrorism act. It comes after the ban on Palestine Action passed into law despite a late-night legal bid to block it. The home secretary welcomed the court's decision not to block the law change, which means supporting Palestine Action is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A Home Office spokesperson said on Saturday: "We welcome the Court's decision and Palestine Action are now a proscribed group. "The government will always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of our citizens." Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was "disgraceful" and that the group had a "long history of unacceptable criminal damage". MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people - Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 - have all been charged in connection with the incident at Brize Norton. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Left-wing MPs, including Labour backbenchers, opposed the government's decision to proscribe the group, with independent MP Zarah Sultana telling the Commons: 'To equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb isn't just absurd, it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth.' Nine Labour MPs voted against the ban. Reacting to the proscription, a spokesperson for Palestine Action said: 'While the government is rushing through parliament absurd legislation to proscribe Palestine Action, the real terrorism is being committed in Gaza. 'Palestine Action affirms that direct action is necessary in the face of Israel's ongoing crimes against humanity of genocide, apartheid and occupation, and to end British facilitation of those crimes.'
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
One year on from Starmer's election victory. Here's my report card
One year on from Starmer's election victory, how has he done? The British public say very badly indeed: Starmer's net favourability has fallen to the lowest level on record. But what's the full picture? Has he kept his promises? As I await my children's end of year reports, here's my report card for the Prime Minister. Immigration 1) Starmer promised time and again he would 'smash the gangs'. Unfortunately for the public, the gangs are smashing him. The number of migrants entering on small boats is up 48 per cent, despite a fall in illegal migration into Europe. Only a tiny fraction of people smugglers have been arrested and sentences for immigration offences are being watered down. Despite promising to end asylum hotels, Yvette Cooper has been busy opening more. In May it sounded as though the penny had dropped. Starmer said 'we risk becoming an island of strangers' and that mass migration had caused 'incalculable damage'. He was correct. But last week he said he regretted those comments and had just read them out like a ventriloquist's dummy. Starmer's aides were furious with him, calling his u-turn 'weak', and saying that he 'lacked moral fibre'. I couldn't have put it better myself. Healthcare 2) Starmer boldly claimed he would fix the NHS. He has managed to increase the number of NHS appointments by 8 per cent, which is welcome. But that is a smaller increase than Victoria Atkins delivered last year – and on other metrics, things are going backwards. A&E waiting times are higher than they were last year. Starmer has directed extra cash to the NHS, but without real reform, that money is going into a black hole of waste and inefficiency. With social care reform delayed until at least 2028, the fundamentals will remain poor. The NHS is still being treated as a religion, not a critical public service in need of reform. Economy 3) Labour promised they wouldn't increase National Insurance or change the fiscal rules. In office, they immediately did the opposite, raking in £25bn from the national insurance increase and borrowing an extra £142bn by the end of the parliament – causing growth forecasts to be downgraded. This £167 billion lie is surely one of the most brazen cons on the electorate in history. Ed Miliband promised to cut energy bills, yet experts say that bills are expected to increase next year. Meanwhile factory after factory is closing down. Vauxhall is closing in Luton. NEG in Wigan. Sabic in Teesside. We are haemorrhaging critical industries. Housing 4) Angela Rayner's flagship pledge was to build 1.5m new homes by the end of the Parliament. I admire the ambition, but her plan is destined to fail. Rayner slashed London's housing target by 20 per cent; 23 of London's 33 boroughs had zero new housing starts in the first quarter of this year. In any case, Labour can't build their way out of the housing crisis when 5 in 7 of their new homes are forecast to go to migrants. Justice 5) During the election, Starmer was happy to boast about his time as Director of Public Prosecutions. But in his first year, the court backlog increased, with 77,000 cases awaiting trial. His Justice Secretary introduced two-tier sentencing rules that were eventually defeated. Tens of dangerous prisoners were let out by mistake and thousands have been released after serving just a fraction of their sentence. Most embarrassingly, Starmer's plans to scrap short sentences for 'minor offences' prompted unprecedented warnings from MI5 that they would risk public safety. My conclusion? Starmer is a creature of our failed elite consensus and he's going down with it. A man unable to convey any purpose for his government or unifying vision for our country. Worse, he is now beholden to his hard-left backbenchers. As bad as things are today, things can always get worse.
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
After Labour's week from hell, what happens next? Four scenarios
What happens next? That depends on what you think has already happened. Some things are beyond dispute. There was the most spectacular collapse of a flagship government programme in living memory and it occurred under the unforgiving televised gaze of the nation. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose economic plan relied on that programme being passed, was seen in that same pitiless televised gaze, openly crying on the front bench. This, however it may now be described in dismissive, sympathetic terms, was truly shocking. Then what happened? The Chancellor and the Prime Minister who had notably failed to offer her unconditional support on that terrible occasion in the House, appeared together at a staged event, she wearing much heavier make-up than is normally her custom and both of them with fixed, rictus grins for the duration of the public appearance. The manic cheerfulness of their demeanour seemed designed to ensure that not a single still photograph would catch them looking anything but madly joyful. At roughly the same time, a brazen spin operation was put into operation which made the perverse claim that the collapse of market confidence which this whole drama had provoked was actually an indication of how highly Ms Reeves was rated in the financial world. It was, went the story, the threat that she might be about to lose her job that had caused this market wobble – not the shambles over the government's attempt to reform welfare or the Chancellor's own apparently uncontrollable despair. Paradoxically then, Ms Reeves was safer in her position than ever. The official line is now that the thing that had so visibly distressed her was entirely personal: a private matter about which, needless to say, we have no right to enquire. This account offers two possible outcomes. Either Ms Reeves can stay in her post indefinitely – because her presence there is so valued by those whose economic judgement determines the country's fate – or she can use the 'personal problem' account as a reason to resign. It is easy enough to imagine a letter of resignation framed in such terms which no one could question and which the Prime Minister could graciously accept with deep regret, etc, etc. So Sir Keir has a choice. He can hold on to his Chancellor – as long as they can both keep smiling – or he can push her into resigning 'for personal reasons'. My own guess is that she will stay for the moment but that, come the summer recess, all bets are off. There are a number of possible scenarios which I will list in descending order of likelihood. First: Rachel Reeves is removed as Chancellor but is given another big job in the Government which would require the removal of only one major figure (David Lammy?). Everybody else stays put. How this would be interpreted: Sir Keir does not want to look as if he has panicked and thrown all the cards into the air especially as Labour may be facing yet another threat from a breakaway Corbynite party on the hard Left – even though that outfit seems already to be splitting. Zarah Sultana's unilateral announcement that she is to be its 'joint leader' with Jeremy Corbyn appears to have come as something of a surprise to everybody else. At the time of writing, Mr Corbyn has only made an official comment which welcomes her to the project but does not acknowledge her 'co-leadership'. Earlier, his comrades in the new venture were reported to be furious at her presumption. In the great tradition of Left-wing factionalism, the party has a schism even before it has a name. Second: There is a minor reshuffle in which Ms Reeves moves to a big job (as above) and some more junior people who have been either lacklustre or embarrassing are removed altogether. This allows Sir Keir to proclaim a 'refresh' of his team rather than a humiliating total rethink of the Government's programme. But moving a few players around will have to be accompanied by some kind of coherent account of what his Government, and his party, are for and who they believe that they represent which is the real gaping hole in their credibility. Third: there is a major summer reshuffle which involves David Lammy, who is clearly out of his depth and Ed Miliband, who is clearly out of his mind, as well as Ms Reeves and possibly even Lord Hermer who is a close friend (and presumably a soul mate) of Sir Keir. Removing him as Attorney General would suggest ruthless desperation and a determined effort to transform the identity of the Government based on a recognition that its elevation of contentious international 'human rights' priorities has been a massive domestic political misjudgement. In other words, an admission that Labour is seen to have abandoned the party's core constituency. Fourth: Nothing happens. Everybody stays where they are because Sir Keir does not want to raise fundamental questions about his Government's purpose which he has never delineated. All that he promised in his election campaign was 'change' without any account of what that might consist of, so there are no philosophical principles, or defining mission, to be judged by. This obstinate refusal to budge will be justified on the grounds that the Starmer government has always been confident in its grasp of reality. It will be framed as the grown up alternative to the populist threat from an economically naive Reform party and the new Corbyn tribe rooted in hard core ideology. In truth, sticking to the original plan (whatever that was) will not be in the power of the Labour leadership. Many of the backbenchers who might have been expected to jump on to the Corbynista wagon appear to have decided instead to stick with Starmer's party. Presumably, they would rather try to take over the steering wheel of the big bus than to run alongside it throwing stones at the driver. When you can influence – or undermine – the policy of a sitting government, why join a fledgling protest group? And that will be the real story of the Labour government's future: a constant struggle to hold power for no identifiable purpose.
