Tribunal cuts landlord’s existing rent after rise challenge

A landlord who wanted to increase a tenant’s rent instead ended up with a lower figure than the renter was already paying after the case reached the First-tier Tribunal.

The London tenant had been paying £2,066 a month when the landlord sought £2,475.

The tribunal determined the rent at £1,950 after a replacement section 13 notice was served.

It is one of 25 published decisions reviewed by property lawyer David Smith covering notices served since the new Renters’ Rights Act regime began.

Most increases approved

Half of the 24 cases in which a rent was determined resulted in landlords receiving the full increase they had requested, while the median award was 92.4% of the proposed uplift.

However, six landlords received 25% or less of what they had sought and two secured no increase above the existing rent.

Mr Smith found that the four cases involving proposed rises above 10% produced markedly different results, ranging from full acceptance to substantial reductions.

The evidence submitted by landlords was often limited, with 10 providing no comparable rent evidence or little more than a general assertion about the market.

Landlords face downside

Mr Smith, a partner at Bishop & Sewell, said: “In practical terms that means landlords are, in most cases, either getting the whole notice figure or being sent home with very little.

“There is not much middle ground.”

He added: “But the fact that landlords are getting what they asked for in a significant number of cases illustrates that many landlords are getting their ask right and where they do the FTT will accept them.

“That is not the tribunal being lenient; it is the tribunal accepting that a modest, sensibly pitched uplift is inherently plausible and does not need extensive evidence.”

Rent evidence matters

Only two landlords produced what Mr Smith described as achieved-rent evidence, with both receiving the figure set out in their notices.

Other landlords mainly relied on advertised properties, while in most of those cases the portal from which the listings had been taken was not identified.

Mr Smith says landlords and agents with comparable properties should provide dated evidence of achieved rents rather than relying solely on advertised figures.

Notice mistakes exposed

The early decisions have also exposed procedural errors which can undermine a landlord’s case.

A Sheffield case was struck out after a notice served on 5 July sought to introduce the new rent from 1 August, failing to provide the required two months’ notice.

Fourteen tenants also claimed that the proposed increase would cause undue hardship, although only two successfully secured a postponement of the new rent.

Mr Smith cautions that the sample remains small, with decisions during September and October expected to bring more cases involving notices served later in the summer.