Rent under the Renters’ Rights Act – a new framework, not rent control

While the abolition of Section 21 has understandably attracted most attention, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 also introduces far‑reaching changes to the way rent is set, reviewed and challenged in the private rented sector. For landlords and managing agents, these changes are likely to be among the most significant practical consequences of the new regime.

Historically, rent increases were achieved through a variety of routes. Rent review clauses, renewal negotiations at the end of fixed terms and informal mid‑tenancy agreements were all commonplace, with the statutory Section 13 process often treated as a fallback rather than the norm. That flexibility disappears from 1 May 2026.

Under the reforms, qualifying tenancies operate as assured periodic tenancies and the only lawful mechanism for increasing rent is the Section 13 process. Contractual rent review clauses and automatic uplifts at renewal cease to have effect. From this point onwards, rent increases become a regulated statutory process rather than a matter of custom or negotiation.

Once a Section 13 notice is served, there are three possible outcomes. The tenant may accept the proposed increase, or take no action, in which case the rent will increase on the date specified in the notice provided it is valid. The parties may instead negotiate and agree a different rent, often at a lower figure. Alternatively, the tenant may apply to the First‑tier Tribunal for a determination.

From a practical perspective, the Tribunal route becomes significantly more attractive to tenants under the new framework. Where a challenge is made, the Tribunal will determine the rent at which the property could reasonably be expected to be let on the open market. Crucially, however, the Tribunal can no longer impose a rent higher than the landlord’s proposed figure, even if it considers that true market rent to be higher. This removes the risk that previously discouraged tenants from challenging rent increases.

Timing is also critical. If the Tribunal’s decision is issued after the date specified in the Section 13 notice, the new rent will only take effect from the next rent period, with no backdating. Any increase is therefore delayed without the tenant facing retrospective liability. Although the Act introduces a £47 application fee for Tribunal challenges, this is modest and is unlikely, on its own, to deter applications.

The Act also introduces a new right for tenants to challenge the initial rent within the first six months of a tenancy. That is a notable shift. It means that rent setting at the outset now carries legal risk if it cannot be justified by reference to market evidence. High demand, competitive interest or informal bidding will not justify an inflated starting rent if it falls outside what the Tribunal considers to be the open market level.

These reforms do not amount to rent control, but they do materially change the commercial dynamics of rent increases. The process is more structured, more transparent, and far easier for tenants to challenge. In that environment, assumption‑based increases or habitual renewal uplifts are far less likely to withstand scrutiny.

For landlords and agents, the message is clear: rent practices need redesigning. Market evidence should be assembled before notices are served, not after they are challenged. Timing needs careful thought, particularly where Tribunal proceedings may delay increases taking effect. Clear and early communication with tenants becomes more important, as negotiated outcomes may avoid unnecessary delay and cost.

In my view, these reforms are intended to professionalise rent setting rather than cap returns. Landlords who understand their local market, price sensibly and document their decisions carefully should still be able to increase rent where justified. Those who rely on historic habits or informal practices are likely to encounter both challenge and delay.

This article forms part of a wider series on the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and its practical implications for landlords, agents and property professionals. The next article in the series will focus on possession under the new regime, including how the revised statutory grounds operate in practice, the evidential expectations placed on landlords and agents, and the risks associated with misusing those grounds once Section 21 has gone.

If you would like advice on how the Renters’ Rights Act affects your property, portfolio or management practices, or you would like bespoke training on operating under the new regime, please contact Daniel Dickson, Senior Associate Solicitor in the Property Litigation team at Dean Wilson LLP. Daniel leads on the firm’s Renters’ Rights Act work and regularly advises landlords, agents and referrers on navigating the reforms and managing risk under the new framework.