Not every rent tribunal story ends with the landlord losing out.
In Dagenham, a tenant recently challenged his landlord’s Section 13 increase on a four-bed semi, and lost.
What happened
Tribunal horror stories have been everywhere since Section 13 became the only way to raise the rent. We reported on one last week that involved a Manchester landlord who’d asked for a £50 increase, only to see his rent cut back by £200 a month.
But this one went the other way. Mostly.
The tenant has lived in the property since 2010, and the rent had been set at £1,200 a month since his current tenancy began in 2022.
In May, the landlord served a Section 13 notice proposing a new rent of £2,400 a month from August. The tenant challenged it at the First-tier Tribunal, and at the end of September the tribunal set the rent at £2,250. That’s a rise just shy of 88%.
What was argued
The tenant said the house only had two bedrooms, and that access for cars was restricted because the kerb outside wasn’t fully dropped. He also claimed undue hardship, as his rent is paid through housing benefit.
What he didn’t do was provide any comparable rents, or respond to the ones the landlord put forward.
The landlord said the house had four bedrooms, and pointed to the council’s licence as proof. He also highlighted a newly fitted kitchen, a large outbuilding, off-street parking for up to three cars, and a large rear garden.
And, most importantly, he backed it up with evidence of 10 comparable properties, all within about a mile of the house.
How the tribunal arrived at its decision
The tribunal inspected the house in September and sided with the landlord, agreeing that it had four bedrooms (two doubles, two modest singles, and a separate living room).
It also specifically referred back to the evidence the landlord had provided, using the comparables to land at an 88% increase.
On that basis, it decided the house would let for £2,500 a month in good condition. The trouble was the condition. The tribunal found condensation, damp and mould in two of the downstairs rooms, as well as worn carpets throughout and shabby decor. It knocked £250 a month (10%) off for that, which brought the rent down to £2,250.
The tribunal also accepted the tenant’s hardship claim, and given the size of the increase, pushed the start date back from August to October. Finally, it ordered the landlord to refund the tenant’s £47 application fee (which he, unsurprisingly, didn’t contest).
What landlords can learn
Put this next to the Manchester case, where a landlord’s £50 rise turned into a £200 cut, and the pattern is clear. Tribunals follow the evidence, and the side that brings the most of it tends to come out on top.
There are three lessons landlords can take from this decision:
1 - Evidence wins, even when it isn’t perfect. Asking prices carry less weight than agreed rents, (and the tribunal said so). But they were the only evidence in front of it, so they carried the day.
2 - Condition costs money. Damp, worn carpets and tired decor cost this landlord £250 a month, or £3,000 a year. Sorting them before serving notice could well have paid for itself.
3 - Big catch-up increases are risky. A jump of nearly 90% invites a challenge, and it gave the tenant strong grounds for hardship. The delay meant two more months at the old rent, which cost the landlord about £2,100. Smaller, regular increases would have avoided most of that.
Our view
Renters’ Unions and the media have held this up as an example of a system that’s failing tenants.
But while it’s tempting to read this as a story about a greedy landlord, the decision points to something much more mundane: a rent that had fallen a long way behind the market and a landlord who was ready to prove his case.
Ultimately, the tribunal did what it’s designed to do. It worked out what the house would let for, then adjusted for its condition. The landlord’s biggest mistake was leaving the rent at £1,200 for four years before asking for more. But he got most of what he asked for, simply because he could show why he was asking for it in the first place.
That’s the key here.
So if you’re planning your own Section 13 rent increase, start with the evidence.
We’ve gone through every tribunal decision published so far to see what separates the landlords who get their increase from those who don’t, and turned what we found into a free Section 13 guide. It walks you through everything you need to know before you raise your rent. And if you’re still unsure, our rent increase checker lets you test your figures before you serve notice.
Case reference: LON/00AB/MRA/2026/0035 (link to the decision on GOV.UK).