A System in Turmoil
Since the Renters’ Rights Act came into force in May, tenants across England have been eager to challenge what they see as unfair hikes. The legislation was meant to make the process easier and less risky, yet the reality on the ground feels far from reassuring. Data compiled by the London Renters Union (LRU) between May and October reveals a stark picture: eight out of ten tenants who took their cases to the rent tribunal saw their rent rise, with the average increase topping £1,200 per year. In many instances the rise was lower than the landlord’s original request, but the pattern is unmistakable.
The tribunal’s workload has surged, and the system is struggling to keep pace. Tenants report waiting months for a hearing, while landlords complain of a lack of consistency in how “fair market rent” is assessed. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government insists the reforms are delivering results, pointing to cases where tribunals have slashed rents by hundreds of pounds each month. Yet the lived experience of those caught in the process tells a different story.
Real Stories of Struggle
In Dagenham, a tenant receiving housing benefit saw his monthly rent leap from £1,200 to £2,250 after a tribunal approved an 88% increase. He had argued that the rise would cause “undue hardship”, but the decision went against him. The case highlights how even the most vulnerable can find themselves priced out of their homes, despite the new safeguards.
Another case involved a modest £17-a-month increase. The tenant, aware of the new act’s protections, took the matter to tribunal. The outcome was unexpected: rather than the small hike, the tribunal ruled the rent was already excessive and ordered a £200 reduction. It is a rare victory, but one that underscores the potential for the system to work when it is applied fairly.
These individual experiences are echoed in the broader statistics. In 36% of tribunal decisions, the landlord’s full request was granted; in 42% the increase was trimmed; in 16% the rise was cancelled; and in 6% the rent was actually lowered. For many, the process feels like a gamble, with the odds heavily stacked against them.
Voices from Both Sides
Jae Vail, a representative of the London Renters Union, said: “The system is just clearly not doing what Labour said it would do in their manifesto, which was helping people challenge unreasonable rent increases. What could be a better definition of an unreasonable rent increase than 40% or 80%?” He added that renters are beginning to face long delays, with some London cases being heard in the Midlands due to backlogs.
The National Residential Landlords Association’s chief policy officer, Chris Norris, echoed concerns but from a different angle. “It’s very difficult for landlords to trust and have faith in the system,” he observed. “There hasn’t been any more capacity or resource put into the tribunal system by the government to make sure this works, and only just over 30 [full‑time] judges across the country are working on this.” He warned that some decisions appear to be based on a cursory glance at Rightmove listings, which does little to reflect true market conditions.
Norris also criticised what he described as an “abuse of the system” by tenants’ unions that encourage members to challenge every rent increase. The Oxford Renters Union, for example, has urged its members to say no to any rise by heading to tribunal, aiming to “freeze rents and lower the market rate for all Oxford renters”.
Unions, however, push back on the notion of a flood of cases. Nye Jones from Generation Rent argued that the tribunal has been functioning well since May, but more fundamental changes are needed. “It is based on what’s deemed a fair market rent in the current market. But we know that in many places, renters are already paying way, way more than they can afford on rent. We need to look at how we can reduce the relative cost of rent over time,” he said.
What Needs to Change
The Renters’ Rights Act removed the possibility of “no‑fault” evictions and stopped tribunals from increasing rent beyond what a landlord had requested. It also abolished backdating rent rises to before a tribunal decision. Yet the system is still overwhelmed.
Delays are a major issue. Tenants report being asked to travel to hearings in the Midlands while landlords struggle to secure timely resolutions. The cost of applying—£47—remains a barrier for some, even if lower than before.
Both sides agree that the tribunal’s capacity is stretched. Adding more judges and administrative support could help, but there is also a call for clearer guidelines on what constitutes a “fair market rent”. In areas where property prices are soaring, a blanket increase may look reasonable on paper but devastate household budgets.
Policy makers are being urged to consider broader rent controls rather than a case‑by‑case approach. Jae Vail summarised the desire: “What we’re seeing right now is a really inefficient case‑by‑case form of rent control. So why not have the version that would actually protect everyone?”
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government maintains that the act is delivering results, citing instances where tribunals have slashed rents by hundreds of pounds each month. Yet the lived reality for many tenants remains a daily struggle with rising costs and a system that feels distant from their needs.
Why it Matters
The current rent tribunal system is at a crossroads. While the Renters’ Rights Act was intended to give tenants a fair chance to contest unreasonable hikes, the reality is a patchwork of delays, inconsistent rulings, and mounting pressure on both renters and landlords. The human cost is clear: families are being priced out of their homes, and the confidence in a system meant to protect them is eroding. If the government does not act swiftly to increase capacity, clarify fair‑rent criteria, and potentially introduce broader rent controls, the promise of secure, affordable renting will remain out of reach for many, undermining the very foundations of housing stability in England.