7 days ago | 22 comments
Landlords seeking even minimal rent increases could face tribunal challenges after campaign groups encouraged tenants to contest rises.
The Telegraph reports that tenants’ groups in Oxford, London and Manchester are promoting challenges even where tenants can afford the proposed increase.
Applications cost £47 under the rules introduced in May, with tenants continuing to pay their existing rent while the tribunal considers their case.
Chris Norris, of the National Residential Landlords Association, told the Telegraph: “It is disappointing that campaigners appear to be using the frailty in the system to instigate a de facto rent freeze by ‘flooding’ the tribunal with potentially vexatious claims.
“This is irresponsible and will lead to poorer outcomes for landlords and tenants who rely on a functioning tribunal system.”
Nathan Emerson, the chief executive of Propertymark, told the newspaper: “The tribunal process is an important safeguard against unfair rent increases, but it should not be used as a tactic to deliberately create delays.”
Jae Vail, a spokesman for the London Renters Union, said: “Every renter should exercise their hard-won legal right to challenge the unaffordable rent increases that landlords are demanding from us.”
A guide from a network of tenants’ unions says tenants can apply to a tribunal up to one day before their proposed rent increase takes effect.
Oxford Renters Union puts the time taken to reach a decision at five to six months from the date of appeal.
Its website states:
“Renters who challenge increases save £1,140 per year on average.
“Rent tribunals save you money even if you lose.
“The more people that take cases to the tribunal, the slower it will be for everyone, and the longer you will pay the lower rent.
“Even if you think you can afford the rent increase. Even if your proposed rent increase is minimal. Resist. Resist on principal.
“Resist for the others in your community who can barely afford their groceries. Resist because landlords simply do not need and do not deserve another pay rise by leeching off of our hard work. Our labour should not be their pocket money.”
The tenants’ campaign follows Property118’s report of a landlord whose request for an extra £50 a month resulted in a tribunal cutting the existing rent by £200.
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook shared a link to that case on X on Tuesday evening, describing it as an example of how the rules empower ‘private renters to challenge unreasonable rent increases’.
He said: “If a tenant believes a proposed rent increase is above the open-market rent, they can refer the matter to the first-tier tribunal.”
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, landlords can increase rent only once a year.
A Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government spokesman said: “Our Renters’ Rights Act empowers private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases through tribunals – stopping landlords from using increases as a backdoor means of eviction.”
36 comments on this article
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Previous Article
Landlord offered £4,500 for asylum accommodation
7 days ago | 22 comments
1 week ago | 8 comments
2 weeks ago | 48 comments
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3776 - Articles: 5
5:14 PM, 24th October 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 11:15
it should be a question on a tenancy application form. Another thing to ask which, if they lie, can be easily detected as the tribunal findings are public. Not a lot of tenants are aware of that.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 602
2:01 AM, 25th October 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 24/10/2026 – 14:17
Agreed . Their resentment against LL`s is sometimes palpable . But if given the opportunity 99.9% would in fact love to swap places with me if they could. But because they cant, they kick up out of misplaced envy and jealousy. Communists are often cloaked capitalists at heart me thinks
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 95
6:20 AM, 25th October 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Jill Church at 23/10/2026 – 16:55
Reply to my own post….
Should be S8, not S21….
Old habits eh!
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1048
7:16 AM, 25th October 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Clarke at 02:01
…. Fabians – wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1771 - Articles: 3
10:56 AM, 25th October 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 25/10/2026 – 07:16
It couldn’t be any more obvious, yet no one appears to be taking them seriously. Maybe, we simply can’t do anything about it. Lambs to the slaughter!
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2091 - Articles: 21
10:39 AM, 26th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Carchester at 24/10/2026 – 11:06
“Why can the Government not introduce a measure that would allow any Landlord to increase rents say 1-2 % over annual inflation . Simple legislation in my view.”
With the utmost respect (lawyer-speak for you are out of your mind), no Government is going to do this. By definition it is adding to inflation. There is no reason landlords should get annual increases automatically. Nor is it sensible to limit increases by reference to inflation. What if a landlord has improved a property? Should he not be able to ask for a higher rent?
The nastiness of the RRA is that rent increases aren’t backdated to the review date. This incentivises tenants to delay the increase. With commercial leases, increases are back-dated and interest is payable on the instalments of extra rent that should have been paid, if the review had concluded by the review date. Interest is usually at Bank Base Rate. That is fair to both parties.