Scottish landlords warned over new rules and fines of up to 36 months’ rent
3 weeks ago | 1 comments
Tribunal turns landlord’s £50 rent rise into a £200 cut
12:07 AM, 19th October 2026, 3 days ago
35
Categories:
A landlord seeking an extra £50 a month has instead had the existing rent cut by £200 by the First-tier Tribunal after a tenant challenged the increase.
A landlord’s proposed £50 monthly rent rise has ended with the First-tier Tribunal cutting the existing payment by £200.
The Manchester flat had two bathrooms and a balcony, and the tribunal considered the accommodation attractive.
However, it found that the market evidence did not support the amount being sought.
The landlord wanted to increase the rent from £1,650 to £1,700 but after the tenant challenged the increase, the tribunal settled on £1,450.
Now the landlord will receive £2,400 less per year and not the extra £600 they expected.
Comparable flats carried weight
Propertymark included the furnished two-bedroom flat at The Foundry in its review of four tribunal decisions.
The landlord pointed to the flat’s size and top-floor position, along with its light and views, to justify the proposed rent.
The tenant’s evidence told a different story with details of flats in the same building and nearby developments being advertised for between £1,400 and £1,500 a month.
The tribunal gave most weight to comparisons close by that were similar in age, character and specification.
There were no ongoing maintenance problems identified.
The accommodation was attractive, it found, while the furniture was basic but in good condition.
The ruling was made on 17 September, with the new rent payable from the following day.
Existing rent is also at risk
Property118 has previously reported a London case in which a landlord’s proposed increase resulted in a cut to the existing rent.
That article covered property lawyer David Smith’s review of 25 published decisions.
Half of the 24 cases where a rent was determined resulted in the full requested increase, underlining the mixed outcomes in that early sample.
Propertymark says the starting point for landlords and agents should be whether the rent itself matches the market.
Asking for only a little more does not settle that question.
Landlords and agents also need to look closely at the properties used as evidence, checking their size, layout and condition, as well as which services the rent covers.
Condition and layout matter
Propertymark also looked at a case in Leeds, where drainage problems prompted a £75 monthly deduction from the £1,000 assessed value of a house that was in good order.
The resulting £925 rent was below the £950 sought.
Meanwhile, a west London flat described as having two bedrooms measured just 39.6 sq m and lacked a conventional lounge.
The tribunal considered its size more consistent with a small one-bedroom home.
In Ashton-under-Lyne, evidence from other rooms in the same building helped determine a £700 monthly rent, halfway between the existing £675 and proposed £725.
Propertymark advises checking the applicable procedure and individual ruling before adjusting payments.
Tags:
comparable rent evidence, first-tier tribunal, landlord rent increase, propertymark, rent reduction, Section 13 Notice
35 comments on this article
Learn from your peers’ experience
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
NRLA urges capital gains tax reformNext Article
Check your tenancy agreement before emailing Form 3ARelated Articles
New rent dispute system will be more proportionate claims government
4 weeks ago | 4 comments
Tribunal cuts landlord’s existing rent after rise challenge
1 month ago | 5 comments
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 73
8:18 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Time for a Section 8, I reckon..
Member Since October 2026 - Comments: 5
9:29 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Am sure the landlord wanted to increase the rent due labour induced costs not for the fun of it, now with an even bigger cut to his existing rent how will he pay the mortgage or any other costs associated with letting the property.
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 73
9:49 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Fabio Lopez at 19/10/2026 – 09:29
Does anyone get the feeling that landlords are probably the most disliked group of people for the Labour Government?
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 107
10:25 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by G Master at 19/10/2026 – 09:49
Second on the list behind Reform.
Member Since March 2023 - Comments: 9
10:41 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Lets hope said tenant manages to find one of these cheaper properties to rent, now this one is going up for sale…
Member Since January 2016 - Comments: 302 - Articles: 1
10:47 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
make it clear during the negotiations that investing in Gilts is a better option as yield to redemption is over 5% pa with no capital gains tax and no aggravation!
Selling up is attractive!
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 73
10:51 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 19/10/2026 – 10:25
I think Reform are landlord friendly.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 654
11:22 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
This is what I hoped would not happen but suspected might happen when tribunals had the ability to reduce rents
Rents at unsustainable levels was not unusual in the 1970s when tribunals had similar powers.
The knock-on effect then was a big reduction in property prices.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 107
11:39 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
This all seems designed to put Landlords off increasing their rents.
In this example, if the going rate really is £1,400-1,500, then the landlord is either out of touch or being greedy – whichever, it does us other landlords no favours.
Member Since December 2023 - Comments: 16
11:43 AM, 19th October 2026, About 3 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Fabio Lopez at 19/10/2026 – 09:29
I’m not blind to the increasing costs being a landlord myself, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the existing rent is already well above comparables so to further increase it was a pretty foolish exercise. As the saying goes, play silly games win silly prizes.