Scottish landlords warned over new rules and fines of up to 36 months’ rent
4 weeks ago | 1 comments
Tribunal turns landlord’s £50 rent rise into a £200 cut
12:07 AM, 19th October 2026, 2 weeks ago
47
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
47 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
1 month ago | 4 comments
Tribunal cuts landlord’s existing rent after rise challenge
1 month ago | 5 comments
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 40
9:47 AM, 24th October 2026, About 5 days ago
I can see an industry in adverts with ‘artificially’ high prices. Then the tribunals will be looking at these adverts as the market price.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 264
3:54 PM, 24th October 2026, About 5 days ago
Without knowing the flat personally, it looks like the landlord shot themselves in the foot by being greedy and charging too much in the first place. Not helpful to the rest of us.
Member Since December 2015 - Comments: 454
2:10 PM, 29th October 2026, About 5 hours ago
So what is a fair rent? I asked OntheMarket, for a 2bed bungalow HR6 8DU, says £925pm. BRMA says £595. Current rent since Jan is £577.
If OTM is closer, it needs to go up, if BRMA is what a Tribunal would use, I won’t risk it.
https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?Postcode=HR6%2b8DU&LHACategory=999&Month=10&Year=2026&SearchPageParameters=true
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2091 - Articles: 21
2:57 PM, 29th October 2026, About 4 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Chris Byways at 29/10/2026 – 14:10
Chris
BRMA is the Housing Allowance rate which will almost always be below the market rent. The market rent depends not just on location and number of bedrooms but also square footage, amenities such as off road parking and the condition of the property.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2091 - Articles: 21
3:04 PM, 29th October 2026, About 4 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Robert Jackson at 08:33
Robert
Under the RRA, notice of two clear months has to be given, ending on the start or end of a rental period. So if the tenancy runs from the 1st November the tenant could give notice on Day 1 to expire on 31st December or 1st January. If the tenant gives notice on 2nd November or later in the month, the notice will expire on 31st January.
This may turn out to be a nuisance to both landlords and tenant. A tenant moving house may think he can get out on exactly 2 months’ notice – which is bad enough for a landlord with an empty property. However, if the existing landlord holds the tenant strictly to the RRA, almost 3 months’ notice may be required. Tenants who want to avoid paying double rent may need to give notice before committing to a new property.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out in practice.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 133
6:24 PM, 29th October 2026, About 57 minutes ago
… doesn’t the market yet realise that when the government finds a way of attaching the BRMA to all rental levels through Tribunal findings it will slash the Housing Benefit bill and on these prospective figures it’ll convert through to a 35.67% reduction in capital values, more when future maintenance and carbon reduction liabilities are factored in.
A two-tier market already exists in commercial property with many outdated properties now redundant as massive new schemes are built to lure tenants away…
… the same is happening with the growth of build to rent by institutional investors but the market holding the older stock hasn’t yet factored these changes in. We’re back to pre Housing Act 1988 when the PRS was decimated on an ill thought out economic model but a well thought out political strategy… it’s all about getting and retaining voters and tenants outnumber landlords many times over…
… the only answer is a change in administration and a reform of the market but if history is anything to go on that could be a ten year plus cycle…
… can private landlords coalesce in sufficient numbers to bring about this change… as a fragmented group they stand no chance and are just being picked off one by one…
Member Since February 2024 - Comments: 40
6:58 PM, 29th October 2026, About 23 minutes ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 29/10/2026 – 18:24
If you believe capital values will fall 35.67%. I suggest you short some stocks and you will become a very rich individual
Specifically REITs, Housebuilders and any estate agent or property portal