Tribunals are generally giving landlords most of what they asked for in rent increase cases since the Renters’ Rights Act - but they aren’t being generous, analysis has shown.

Property lawyer David Smith has reviewed the 25 Section 13 rent-increase cases decided between 24 June and 2 September and found that half of the determinations (12 of 24) gave the landlord 100% of the notice figure, but six cases awarded 25% or less of the proposed increase, and two of those awarded nothing at all above the existing rent. The median share was 92.4% but the mean was only 67.1%.

The rent increase range ran from a 5.6% reduction on the current rent (the landlord’s first notice was invalid and the replacement was set below the existing rent) to a 26.2% increase.

“In practical terms that means landlords are, in most cases, either getting the whole notice figure or being sent home with very little,” Smith, partner at Bishop & Sewell, explains. “There is not much middle ground. 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.”

Described

However, only two of the landlords produced anything that could properly be described as achieved-rent evidence - both apparently from institutional PRS operators using their own portfolio lettings - while ten landlords provided no rent evidence to the tribunal at all, or nothing more than a general assertion about what the market rent was, says Smith.

Every other landlord who provided evidence relied on advertised comparables lifted from a property portal, and only in three of the 15 cases where the landlord did produce portal comparables was the portal actually named.

Meanwhile, in 15 of the 25 cases the tenant provided no comparable rents at all. He says: “I would expect that, over time, tenants will learn to provide better evidence, and this is likely to see a change in FTT determination outcomes.”

Hardship

Only two tenants succeeded when asserting undue hardship under section 14(7) as a ground for postponing the effective date of the new rent.

Smith adds that one case was struck out because the notice was less than the statutory minimum two months’ notice. Based on these recent cases, he suggests landlords should pitch increases moderately unless they have strong evidence, use achieved rents and provide supportive data where they rely on advertised rent comparables, and check the two months’ notice period before serving.

“Landlords or agents with portfolios of comparable properties should be putting their own lettings data in front of the tribunal, dated and evidenced, and not relying on portal data,” he adds.

‍