Rights against rent increase

RHemmings

GDB2222 said:

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

BobT36 said:

[Deleted User] said:

RHemmings said:

[Deleted User] said:

R200 said:

The tenant does not have to pay LL costs even if they lose at the tribunal 

What landlord costs? You keep mentioning this point, please explain?
You do realise that the tribunal decision can be beneficial to the landlord and this happens in a significant proportion of cases?

The tenant will need to accept the tribunal's decision or pay for an appeal.
The appeal costs the tenant £275 with the potential for other fees on top. All explained on the websites listed above.

Is it possible to find out which decisions go the landlord's or tenant's way? I can see the results, e.g. here:

Google is your friend, I won't post links.

Landlords could have asked for more in nearly 30% of rent increase cases, according to research into English First-Tier Tribunal decisions in the second quarter of 2023.

In some cases, renters are ending up with figures that are hundreds higher than the landlord suggested.

Analysis by the i newspaper of 30 property tribunal hearings in the last three months reveals that more than a quarter, or eight cases, ended with higher increases than the landlord proposed.

In 10 cases, the tribunal decided the rent should stay the same, and in 11 it could be raised, but not as much as the landlord wanted.

The tribunal lowered the rent in one case to below the original monthly amount.

In one example, a landlord who owned a property in Surrey had asked to increase the rent from £1,260 to £1,300 per month, but the tribunal initially said a figure of £2,200 per month was reasonable.

It concluded with a figure of £1,540 once evidence about the dated condition of the property was considered.

A landlord with a flat in south east London wanted a rent increase from £86 per week to nearly £93 per week (from about £375 to £402 per month), but the tribunal initially said the property could command £1,050 per month in good condition.

But it said: “Given the issues regarding damp this is reduced to £800 per month [equivalent to around £185 per week].”

Even at 30%, that's still 70% of the time it works IN the tenant's favour, by them paying less than the landlord was wanting. Well worth a go, with a bit of research. 

I'm surprised that many AST cases get to the tribunal. If the landlord and tenant cannot agree on a fair rent between them, then it seems like the working relationship between them has broken down, and it's probably best for both of them to end the tenancy. 

In practice, it's a lot of work to prepare for the tribunal hearing, and if both parties prepare properly they ought to have a pretty good idea of what the tribunal will decide. So, why bother to waste a day in the tribunal, if you know what the outcome will be?

Some of the examples on this thread are quite extraordinary, like where there's only £50 difference between the parties, and the tribunal split it evenly. 

In the examples I read, there were quite a few where the comparables provided by the landlord and the comparables provided by the tenant were very different. And cases where the claims about the condition of the property were also very different. Hence, I'm not surprised that there are differences of opinion that make it to tribunal. For whatever psychological reason, it appears that the landlords and tenants are seeing different things. 

There are also clearly different opinions of what market rents are. There seems to have been one landlord in Brighton who rented a flat in a building for £1550. A building in which the landlord owns at least three flats. The landlord then wanted to increase the rents of the other flats in the same building to the same level, claiming 'market rent'. But, the tribunal disagreed.

Assuming that the tribunal get their sums right, the rent will be set at market level, give or take a small amount. That means that the tenant should be able to find a comparable property at a similar rent. Likewise, the landlord should be able to get a new tenant at close to the rent set by the tribunal.  

So, it’s hardly worth fighting in court about continuing the present tenancy. Particularly, as at the end of the hearing, one or both of the parties will be unhappy. 

Speaking as someone who is half way through an extended house move, I think that there are very significant benefits to tenants if they can stay in their current property at a fair rent, rather than having to move house. Hence, while it won't affect me directly, I can see it being very worthwhile for a tenant to fight in court. 

Yes, I agree that it's costly for the tenant to move. And, I agree that a change of tenant means more costs for the LL, and very probably a void period. So, it's bad for both of them if the tenancy ends.

Hence, it makes perfect sense for them to negotiate and hopefully reach a fair agreement. If they can't manage to do that, you have to wonder why not? 

I think my point above still stands. Landlords and tenants can have very different views on what other properties (and hence rents) the property in question should be compared to. And hence they can easily both believe they are right and fail to come to agreement. 

In any potential disagreement, it only requires one side to be unreasonable for there to be a disagreement that cannot be solved. 

In the cases I read the detailed reasons for, I would say there are cases of tenants not being aware of what market rents are, or objecting to rises well above inflation. And, there are cases where the landlord is price gouging. At least by my personal definition of 'price gouging', as the UK I believe has no official definition. 

The tribunal will discount rents for 'scarcity value' if there are few similar properties available in the area. I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I believe this is unlikely to be considered by landlords, or they may believe that they can increase asking rents due to scarcity. This could be another way in which landlords and tenants (and the tribunal) may not agree. 

One thing I've just remembered which is a general comment into the thread and not a response to @GBD2222's post. If the tribunal decides a higher rent for the property, then unless a case for hardship can be made and accepted, then the higher rent may be backdated to the time the S13 was issued. This could be a significant risk for tenants as it will take around 10 weeks for the case to be decided, so more than two months of rent increase to pay. Citizens Advice recommend that any tenants who are challenging a rent increase put aside the money needed to pay the rent increase from the date of the S13. 

BobT36

^ Still, it sounds a good idea that either the landlord or tenant gets a wake-up call on what "fair" actually is. 
And from the other user's stats, 70% of the time it doesn't go as high (or higher) as the landlord wants, so the tenant benefits. 
WELL worth doing in that case, as long as done the minimum research to make sure you're not one of those 30% where it goes even higher. 

But of course it would be nice if that was just a last resort, of course. 

RHemmings

I think it's also possible that there may be some tenants where the rent tribunal may be their last chance - because rents have risen so much that there is no suitable accommodation suitable for their family that they can afford. In situations like that, I can't bring myself to blame people who may be doing what they can to keep a roof over their heads.