1 day ago | 12 comments
A modest rent rise still needs evidence to support the whole proposed rent and for landlords concerned by Property118’s recent tribunal coverage, that means looking beyond the size of the increase.
Here, we examine the Manchester and Leeds decisions alongside Propertymark’s review to explain what a useful evidence file should contain.
In the Manchester case, the landlord sought an extra £50 a month, but the tribunal set the rent £200 below the amount already payable.
The question illustrated by both of those decisions is whether the proposed monthly rent reflected the property’s market value. Describing an increase as modest does not establish that the resulting total is justified.
At The Foundry in Manchester, the tribunal determined £1,450 a month against an existing £1,650 and proposed £1,700.
It favoured comparisons within the building or immediately neighbouring developments of similar age, character and specification.
However, it also noted gaps: one advertised flat appeared smaller, its bathroom count was unclear, and another property’s building was uncertain.
Those details explain why a collection of nearby adverts needs an accompanying explanation.
The Leeds outcome was different. For the house in Calverley, the tribunal determined £925 a month against £895 previously payable and £950 proposed.
It assessed £1,000 for the property modernised and in good order, then deducted £75 for drainage issues. The resulting rent therefore remained above the existing payment.
Although there had been no recent major incidents, the problem was being managed through careful use rather than shown to have been fully remedied.
The tribunal also rejected the account that the landlord knew nothing of the problem until February 2026: messages showed contact with the tenant from August 2025.
Drawing on these decisions and Propertymark’s review, the following checklist provides a practical starting point for all landlords:
Note: This is a suggested evidence file, not a tribunal-prescribed submission format.
The Manchester tribunal considered advertised rents, and its decision does not support the claim that only achieved rents are admissible.
Nor did that case turn on outstanding disrepair: the tribunal described the furniture as basic but in good condition and identified no ongoing maintenance issues.
In Leeds, by contrast, the continuing drainage limitation mattered to the valuation. A record of attendance or attempted work should therefore be distinguished from evidence that normal use has been restored.
These individual outcomes are not binding nationwide rules or a study of how often challenges succeed. Appeal status has not been independently established.
For landlords reviewing their evidence, the useful question is straightforward: can each comparison, photograph and repair record help explain the full rent proposed for this particular home?
Be the first to comment
Have you dealt with something similar? Share what you learned, raise a question or offer a perspective your peers may find useful.
Next Article
Prime London landlord yields highest since 2009
1 day ago | 12 comments
2 days ago | 35 comments
2 days ago | 4 comments
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with