Government announce fee for tenants appealing rent increases

Reply to the comment left by Ian Cognito at 26/03/2026 – 13:14
touché

Good news – a £47 fee for a tenant to challenge a rent increase. That puts some skin in the game and avoids an automatic objection.

We generally keep rents for long-term tenants around 5% below the market rate. It makes economic sense to look after good tenants and they appreciate it. My advice would be to send your rent increase, telling them you do this.

Then, if they say they will challenge it, tell them you are withdrawing the increase it (so it was never actioned / activated) and resubmitting it at the market rate because of the challenge. Explain that’s because it takes time to process, and because of that, it’s harder to discount the rent for them. They can then either accept the original notice or go through the process at the market rate.

It could take up to 4 months to go through the challenge process, during which the rate doesn’t change, so this will make up for that.

Reply to the comment left by Andrew at 26/03/2026 – 13:36
It’s an interesting idea… I am not sure where you get 4 months from. My last Ft-T application took 14 months to get to a hearing

Reply to the comment left by northern landlord at 10:58
my thoughts exactly. If the rent increase proposed is to genuinely match to the current market rate (at the time the tenant goes to tribunal) then on paper the LL has nothing to worry about, but it cant be applied retrospectively even if the tribunal agree the rent increase is fair.
As far as I can see there is nothing to say that once the LL gets notification from a RT that the T has made a claim, that this in itself does not mean the LL cannot still serve S8 notice (if they fulfil the criteria of the Ground chosen). A notice to sell or move a family member in can come at any time, meaning even after the T makes a claim to the RT and while an answer is still pending. In fact you could even list the reason for selling is partly due to the imbalance of the rent increase challenge process itself. It would be justified to claim it would be difficult for the LL to be able to continue to let the property/adhere to all legal requirements without clear certainly of income to properly fund the rental service he/she provides.
Any eviction notice served after the T seeks a RT judgement but before an outcome is made would also not be seen as ‘retaliatory’ because a decision is still pending. The tenant is in no worse a position that he would be if the RT had not been contacted in the first place. T would not have any evidence to prove otherwise in any defence.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 26/03/2026 – 13:46
The downside with that approach is that if you use the grounds of a sale or occupation by a family member, you can not then relet that property for the next 12 months so effectively any rent challenge would lead to you selling up

Reply to the comment left by Tim Peters at 26/03/2026 – 13:56
Is that a downside? Life is much easier, less risky and more profitable if you are not a landlord:-)

Reply to the comment left by Tim Peters at 26/03/2026 – 13:06
Renters act must be stopped and section 21 be reintroduced for the safety of the landlord
LANDLORDS borrow mortgage to let the property.
But LABOUR GOVERNMET IS SO IDIOT IT JUST WANT TO KILL LANDLORDS, WHAT A SHAME TO LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 26/03/2026 – 13:32
I agree as my strategy is down to communication and trust. Putting the spade work in with each tenant so they realise they are getting a fair deal and do nothing to change that. Happy to be very open in discussions providing evidence of what the “market rate” increase is and how theirs compares. Yes of course some tenants that will deliberately game the rules as in their nature, but now is the last chance saloon to part ways with those sort will likely just become even bolder in the missguided impression they are always protected.

Many of the decent tenants will become increasingly nervous as we all know the rapidly shrinking rental sector is going to increasingly make very adverse national headlines about homelessness. That, along with building that relationship of trust that they are getting currently a decent deal, should help avoid most of the adverse fall out from the RRA. Many will then know that not only will the £47 lead nowhere, but will risk negatively effecting the relationship moving forwards.

I’m no longer looking to absolutely maximise profits from rentals, but get them to the highest level possible whilst ensuring they remain as far as possible hassle free.

Reply to the comment left by Andrew at 26/03/2026 – 13:36
Its an interesting policy, and worth considering.
However I am with Tim Peters wrt the timeliness for any appeal. They will be way, way over 4 months. An order of magnitude more.
The government are guaranteed to underestimate the number of appeals. Such a low appeals fee of £47 with no retrospective increase of rent will be guaranteed to make pretty much all tenants appeal. Its in their interests.
The system will be log jammed from day 1 in the tenants favour.
So more and more landlords will just withdraw the increase and sell up. So even less accommodation for tenants to choose from.
Vicious circle.
I suppose your proposal to tell the the tenants before you officially increase with paperwork is the only way to give you a chance of a avoiding an appeal. The issue comes in the very likely scenario where they ignore your proposal of 5% below market rate, and just wait the paperwork, then appeal, knowing full well they have a long period of no increase before the tribunal.
What happens if they open an appeal for £47, then you back down and withdraw the increase, but then put a bigger increased rate in the next month? Do they have to pay £47 again, or is the original appeal still active?

Reply to the comment left by Tim Peters at 26/03/2026 – 13:56
….leave empty and then relet at a significantly increased rent? If this happens en mass, the market rate will increase exponentially!