What the rent tribunal decides
When a tenant challenges a section 13 rent increase, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decides the open-market rent. Here is the legal test, how tribunals apply it, and what the published decisions show.
The legal test
Section 14(1) of the Housing Act 1988 asks for the rent at which the home "might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord" on an assured tenancy with the same periods and the same terms apart from the rent. The rent includes payments for furniture, council tax and services, but not a variable service charge (s14(4)). The tribunal must disregard the effect of the tenancy being granted to a sitting tenant, any value added by the tenant's own voluntary improvements, and any loss of value caused by the tenant breaking the tenancy terms (s14(2)).
For a notice served on or after 1 May 2026, the result is that open-market rent if it is lower than the landlord's proposal, and the proposal otherwise (s14ZB(5)). So a challenge can only hold the rent at the landlord's figure or bring it down, and it can bring it below the current rent: in a Manchester decision on a two-bedroom city-centre flat, the tribunal set £1,450 a month against a current £1,650 and a proposed £1,700.
How tribunals reach a figure
Most decisions follow the same pattern: a market rent for a similar home in good order with central heating, double glazing, white goods, carpets and curtains, then deductions for what this home lacks. In a West Molesey (KT8) decision on a two-bedroom flat, the tribunal started at £1,400 a month and deducted £50 for no central heating, £50 for no carpets and curtains, £45 for no white goods, £25 for an unmodernised kitchen and £50 for an unmodernised bathroom with disrepair, arriving at £1,180.
GOV.UK's guidance says evidence of rents actually agreed for similar nearby homes is stronger than adverts, and that market lettings outweigh housing association rents, fair rent decisions and Local Housing Allowance rates. About a quarter of the reasoned decisions published since 2023 record that a party gave no evidence, or little, on at least one point (the rent, the condition or hardship). Where that happens the tribunal relies on its own knowledge of the local market.
What the decisions show
Private landlords, decisions since January 2023 that state both rents: 1,086 decisions. The tribunal set the rent below the landlord's figure in 798 (73%), at it in 243 (22%) and above it in 45 (4%, all on notices served before 1 May 2026). The median change from the proposal was -5.3%; among cases that were cut, the median cut was 8.4%. In 137 of 1021 the rent ended at or below the rent before the notice.
For notices served on or after 1 May 2026: 76 decisions so far, 46 cut and 30 at the proposal, median change -2.9%.
By region
| Region | Decisions | Below proposal | Median change | Median £ a month |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South East | 274 | 74% | -5.6% | -£72 |
| London | 207 | 76% | -6.5% | -£100 |
| South West | 154 | 73% | -5.7% | -£57 |
| North West | 121 | 74% | -5.9% | -£50 |
| West Midlands | 107 | 71% | -4.0% | -£43 |
| East of England | 102 | 73% | -5.2% | -£50 |
| Yorkshire and The Humber | 57 | 72% | -5.0% | -£30 |
| East Midlands | 39 | 67% | -2.8% | -£25 |
| North East | 25 | 68% | -4.3% | -£50 |
By size of home
| Bedrooms | Decisions | Below proposal | Median change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Studio | 18 | 94% | -10.4% |
| 1 bedroom | 106 | 84% | -6.7% |
| 2 bedrooms | 319 | 74% | -5.3% |
| 3 bedrooms | 244 | 70% | -4.4% |
| 4 or more | 48 | 63% | -3.0% |
Bedrooms are only counted where the decision states them, so the rows add up to fewer than the total.
When the new rent starts, in practice
For notices served on or after 1 May 2026, section 14ZB(3) sets the start: the date in the notice if the decision comes first, otherwise the first rent period beginning on or after the decision, with a later date possible for undue hardship (within two months beginning with the decision).
We compared that rule with the start date stated in each published decision on such a notice that gives all the dates (76 so far). 58 start the new rent exactly as the rule produces. 6 set a later date, as the hardship power allows. 6 use the decision date itself, and 5 date the new rent back to the date in the notice, as the old law did. 1 we could not classify.
This is our reading of the dates written in each decision, assuming rent periods start on the day of the month of the notice's start date. If a decision on your notice gives a start date you think is wrong in law, you can ask the tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal; the decision explains how and by when. Get advice first.
About the data
- Source: every decision GOV.UK lists under "Rents - Market rent (assured shorthold tenancy)", fetched 17 October 2026. We keep 3,164 that are section 13 or 14 market rent decisions on homes in England, and leave out fair rent (Rent Act 1977) and section 22 cases.
- Outcome figures count private landlords only. 167 decisions with a social landlord are excluded: their proposed rents are often below market, and since 2023 the tribunal went above the proposal in 42% of them, against 4% for private landlords.
- Each figure links back to its GOV.UK decision. We store the postcode district, never the street address, and no names.
- We only show a local figure where at least 10 decisions back it; otherwise we use the council, postcode area, region or England.
- Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The decisions are Crown copyright.
Common questions
How does the tribunal decide the rent?
It decides the rent at which the home might reasonably be expected to let in the open market by a willing landlord, on an assured tenancy with the same rent periods and terms (Housing Act 1988 s14(1)). In practice it starts from the rent for a similar home in good condition, using the parties' comparables and its own knowledge, then deducts for anything a new tenant would expect but this home lacks.
What does the tribunal ignore?
Any effect on the rent of granting the tenancy to the sitting tenant; any value added by improvements the tenant made without being obliged to; and any loss of value caused by the tenant breaking the tenancy terms (s14(2)).
Can the tribunal set a rent higher than the landlord proposed?
Not for a notice served on or after 1 May 2026 (s14ZB(5)). It could under the old rules, and did in some cases, often where a social landlord had proposed a below-market rent.
How reliable are these figures?
They come from 3,164 decisions published on GOV.UK, of which 1,086 since January 2023 involve a private landlord and state both the proposed and the determined rent. We checked our reading of 20 decisions by hand against the full text. Cases that settle or are withdrawn are never published, so the figures describe challenges that reached a decision. Some decisions contain typing errors; we drop figures that do not add up rather than guess.
Sources
- Housing Act 1988, section 14 (determination of open-market rent)
- Housing Act 1988, section 14ZB (effect of determination: proposed new rent)
- S.I. 2026/421, regulation 8 (notices served before 1 May 2026)
- GOV.UK, Apply for an open market rent determination (updated 10 August 2026)
- GOV.UK, Residential property tribunal decisions: Rents, market rent
- Open Government Licence v3.0
Rules checked against the Housing Act 1988 sections 13, 14 and 14ZB as amended by the Renters' Rights Act 2025, S.I. 2026/421 and S.I. 2026/354, on legislation.gov.uk, and against GOV.UK guidance, Form 4A and Form MR1, on 17 October 2026. Tribunal figures come from First-tier Tribunal decisions published on GOV.UK. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. We store no names or street addresses from the decisions.
PRSCheck is an information service, not a law firm, and this is not legal advice. We do not act for you or contact the tribunal or your landlord. For advice on your own situation, contact Shelter, Citizens Advice or a housing solicitor.