This article is now 0 months old and may not represent current law.
Can a tribunal set a tenant’s rent below what they pay now? Yes. If a tenant challenges a rent increase, the First-tier Tribunal decides what the property would let for on the open market, and that figure can come out below the rent the tenant is paying already as well as below the figure you proposed. A decision of 17 September 2026 (case reference MAN/00BN/MRA/2026/0043) shows how that can look: a landlord proposed to take the rent on a Manchester flat from £1,650 to £1,700 a month, the tenant applied to the tribunal, and the rent was set at £1,450.
It’s natural to assume that the worst outcome of a challenge is that you don’t get your increase and carry on at the current rent. Under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the tribunal isn’t asked whether your increase is reasonable; it’s asked what rent the property might reasonably be expected to achieve if let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy, and the answer can be a long way from where you started.
The decision
The flat is on the sixth floor of a city centre development, with two double bedrooms, two bathrooms (one en-suite), an open-plan living area and kitchen, and a balcony, and it was let furnished. The tenancy started on 18 August 2025 at £1,650 a month. On 17 June 2026 the landlord served a notice proposing £1,700 from 18 August 2026, and the tenant applied to the tribunal.
The tenant argued that the market rent was about £1,400, that the furnishings were basic and dated, and that comparable flats in the same building and nearby developments were being advertised at between £1,400 and £1,500. She also said she’d agreed the original £1,650 because she was desperate for housing at the time. The landlord’s case was that £1,700 was the market rent for the largest flat in the building, on the top floor, with good light and views. Neither side had a representative. The tenant agreed to a decision on the papers; the landlord asked for a hearing and an inspection, but a legal officer decided that an inspection would be disproportionate.
The tribunal accepted that the most useful comparables were in the same building or in neighbouring developments of similar age and specification. It thought the £1,400 flat looked smaller than this one from the photographs and that it wasn’t clear how many bathrooms it had, and it couldn’t tell whether the £1,500 flat was in the same building. It described this flat as attractive and apparently of high specification, with fairly basic furniture in good condition, and noted that the tenant hadn’t referred to any ongoing maintenance problems. It then set the rent at £1,450, to take effect from 18 September 2026 rather than the 18 August in the notice. The reasons are short and don’t set out a line by line valuation, so there’s a limit to what can be taken from them about how it got to that figure.
The tenant had also said that a higher rent would cause her financial hardship, without giving any evidence of her finances. That made no difference, as the tribunal only has to consider undue hardship where the rent is going up, and here it was going down. Her comment about being desperate when she signed the tenancy wasn’t dealt with as such either, which makes sense given that the question is what the flat would let for today.
What the tribunal can do now
Since the changes under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 took effect on 1 May 2026, rent on an assured periodic tenancy goes up through a section 13 notice in the prescribed form (Form 4A), with at least two months’ notice and no more than one increase in any 12 months. A contractual rent review clause can’t be used instead. The tenant can apply to the tribunal before the date the new rent is due to start. The tribunal can’t set a rent above the one in your notice, it can look at whether the notice itself is valid, and it can set a rent below your proposal, as it did here.
The evidence
This is a first-tier decision on its own facts, made on the papers, so it doesn’t bind other tribunals and another panel could have valued the same flat differently. What it does show is how much weight comparables carry. The landlord’s case rested on the flat being the largest and best placed in the building, but the tribunal preferred evidence from the same building and neighbouring developments, and was cautious about anything it couldn’t match to this flat on size, bathrooms or location. The comparables the decision describes were advertised rents, so none of them shows what a flat actually let for.
If you’re going to serve a notice, it helps to have lets in the same building or immediately nearby, with details of size, bathrooms, furnishing and the date they were let, and photographs showing the condition of your own flat. Where a hearing or inspection is refused, as it was here, the papers are all the tribunal has to go on.
Before you serve a notice
Because the tribunal starts from the market rent, a challenge to a small increase puts the whole rent in play (here a £50 increase turned into a £200 reduction). If there’s a chance your current rent is already above market, it’s worth asking a letting agent for an honest view before you serve anything, and it may be that leaving the rent alone for the year is the better call. I should say that a challenge isn’t certain either, as a tenant who doesn’t apply before the date in the notice can’t use this route.
On the mechanics, check that you’ve used Form 4A, given at least two months’ notice, not increased the rent in the last 12 months, and got the current rent and the start date right, as the tribunal can now look at whether the notice is valid. It’s also worth speaking to your tenant before you serve the notice, as the figure may be something you can agree.
I act for business owners on sales, purchases and commercial contracts, and I don’t run tribunal cases myself. If you’ve got a rent increase to deal with and aren’t sure where to turn, get in touch and I’ll tell you who at Nexa is best placed to help.
Written by Steven Mather, a business solicitor acting on company sales and purchases. This is general information about the law, not legal advice on your situation.
Written by Steven Mather, a business solicitor acting on company sales and purchases. This is general information about the law, not legal advice on your situation. Law correct as at .
