Landlords who can show evidence of rents actually achieved, rather than advertised, could be in a stronger position when defending rent increases, according to lawyers.

In an early tribunal case under the new Section 13 regime following the Renters’ Rights Act, both the tenant and landlord - Get Living - provided comparable rents. The tenant’s came from advertised rents in similar properties from the same landlord, while the landlord’s were actual achieved rent on other similar flats within the same development and an adjoining one.

The flat is in a build-to-rent development - Skylark Point in London – where the rent was £3,102 and the landlord sought £3,180, while the tenant proposed £3,040.

The First Tier Property Tribunal judge ruled: “The tribunal has also taken into account the tenant’s advertised comparables but gives them less weight as they do not demonstrate rents that were ultimately achieved.”

Decision

Although this decision is not binding on other tribunals, David Smith, partner at Bishop & Sewell (pictured left) says it highlights that the FTT is - at least so far - preferring comparable evidence of achieved rents over that from advertised rents.

“The FTT still preferred the landlord’s evidence, even though the tenant highlighted that there was no clear evidence that these properties were entirely comparable,” he adds. “Landlords who can provide good evidence of actual rents achieved will be in a strong position in the FTT. This is especially beneficial in flats and especially build-to-rent landlords who have a substantial number of very similar properties to show.”

Large institutional landlords will be well-placed to produce convincing evidence to justify rent increases, agrees Robin Stewart, property disputes partner at Anthony Gold Solicitors.

Speed

Stewart says the speed of the decision is also interesting as the notice was served on 30 May, the new rent was proposed to take effect from 20 August, and the decision - on 17 July - upheld the landlord’s increase with effect from the date proposed. “This is much quicker than I and many others thought possible - the rent increase will not be delayed at all by the tenant’s decision to challenge the increase.”

Smith had been concerned that tribunals would want to inspect properties, however, this case was heard entirely on paper and without an inspection, while the case was judged in the Leicester region, miles away from the flat. “This is good in terms of getting things done but does mean that judges are unlikely to have much in the way of local knowledge,” he comments.

‍