The First Tier Tribunal Provides Welcome Reassurance for Landlords on Rent Determinations
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has issued what is likely to be one of the first decisions under the new processes under the Renters Rights Act 2025.
The decision in Mikhail Shebalkov & Kamil Safin v Get Living London EV N06 Limited (Case Reference LON/00BB/MRA/2026/0009) offers some welcome reassurance for landlords, not only because of the outcome itself, but also because of the speed with which the Tribunal has dealt with this application.
A decision before the new rent took effect
Perhaps the most striking feature of this case is the Tribunal’s timescale.
The landlord served a section 13 notice on 30 May 2026, proposing an increase in rent from £3,102.82 to £3,180 per calendar month, effective from 20 August 2026.
The tenants referred their notice to the Tribunal on 1 June 2026, and the Tribunal handed down its decision on 17 July 2026, more than a month before the proposed rent increase was due to take effect.
Many commentators, including ourselves, had anticipated that the First-tier Tribunal would face significant delays in determining rent disputes, particularly as the volume of applications is expected to increase following the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act. This decision suggests that, at least at the moment, the Tribunal is dealing with applications efficiently. That is encouraging news for landlords, who understandably require certainty when proposing lawful rent increases.
The Tribunal Service deserves credit for determining the application so promptly.
The Dispute
The property was a modern two-bedroom apartment within Get Living’s build-to-rent development at East Village, Stratford. The development benefits from extensive resident facilities, including:
- 24-hour concierge and security;
- communal gym;
- coworking spaces;
- gaming room;
- yoga and spin studios;
- private dining facilities; and
- resident coffee stations.
The tenants argued that the proposed rent was too high and suggested a market rent of £3,040 per month.
The tenants’ evidence relied primarily upon advertised asking rents for four similar two-bedroom properties within the same development, averaging approximately £3,042.50 per month.
The landlord, however, adopted a different approach.
Why the Landlord’s Evidence Succeeded
Rather than relying on advertised listings, the landlord produced evidence of nine recently agreed lettings within the same development. The landlord clearly benefitted from the fact that they manage the building and had clear access to comparative data.
These lettings had all completed between April and June 2026 and achieved rents ranging from £3,205 to £3,292.60 per month.
The Tribunal considered this evidence to be significantly stronger.
Importantly, it stated that greater weight should be given to actual agreed lettings rather than advertised asking rents. While advertised properties may indicate what a landlord hopes to achieve, they do not demonstrate what tenants are actually willing to pay in the market.
Although the tenant criticised the landlord’s comparables because they did not include information such as floor area and layout, the Tribunal was satisfied that the properties were sufficiently comparable, given that they were all within the same development and had been let very close to the valuation date.
Dynamic pricing also recognised
An interesting aspect of the decision is the Tribunal’s acknowledgement that this was a build-to-rent development operating dynamic pricing.
The Tribunal accepted that, in this context, recently achieved rents within the same scheme provided particularly persuasive evidence of market value.
That recognition may prove helpful in future cases involving institutional landlords and the professionally managed market where rents fluctuate according to demand.
The Tribunal’s approach to market rent
Having considered both parties’ evidence, together with its own specialist knowledge of local rental values, the Tribunal concluded that the landlord’s proposed rent of £3,180 per month represented the open market rent.
The Tribunal also observed that the proposed rent was below every one of the landlord’s comparable lettings, further reinforcing its conclusion that the increase was reasonable.
The tenant’s application was therefore unsuccessful, and the proposed rent took effect from 20 August 2026.
Practical lessons for Landlords
This decision provides several useful reminders for landlords considering a rent increase under the revised section 13 process.
First, recent completed lettings are likely to carry considerably more weight than advertised asking rents. Where possible, landlords should retain evidence of rents that have actually been agreed, particularly where those properties are genuinely comparable. A good agent is likely to be in a far better position to carry out this work than an individual landlord given their access to market comparables.
Secondly, the Tribunal will examine the evidence pragmatically. Perfect comparables rarely exist, but recent lettings within the same development or locality are likely to be persuasive.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, this case provides some welcome optimism about the Tribunal process itself. Concerns had been raised that rent determination applications might take many months to conclude, leaving both landlords and tenants in prolonged uncertainty and stuck with the lower rent until the application was concluded. In this case, however, the Tribunal reached its decision well before the proposed rent increase took effect.
Conclusion
While every case will turn on its own facts, this decision is encouraging for landlords. It demonstrates that the First-tier Tribunal is currently determining applications promptly and is prepared to give substantial weight to robust evidence of actual market transactions.
As rent determination applications become more and more common, this case offers an early indication of the Tribunal’s likely approach, with focus on real market evidence, not simply advertised rents, and assess each case by reference to what a willing tenant is actually paying in the open market.
For landlords, that should provide a measure of reassurance. Where a proposed increase is genuinely supported by current market evidence, there is every prospect that it will be upheld.