Tenants told to 'flood' rent tribunals: a backdoor rent freeze that could backfire on Clapham and Battersea renters

Let me say it straight. Telling tenants to challenge every rent rise, fair or not, isn't tenant protection. It's gaming the system, and in Clapham and Battersea it's renters who'll end up paying for it.

What's actually happening?

Under the Renters' Rights Act, in force since May, landlords can raise the rent only once a year, and tenants can challenge the increase at the First-tier Tribunal for £47. While the case runs, the tenant keeps paying the old rent.

The Telegraph reported last week that renters' unions in Oxford, London and Manchester are urging tenants to challenge rises even when they can afford them. Oxford Renters Union says decisions are taking five to six months. The more people apply, it says, the longer everyone pays the lower rent.

The case campaigners love

In Manchester, a landlord asked to go from £1,650 to £1,700 a month. The tribunal looked at the market evidence and set £1,450 instead. That's £2,400 a year less, not £600 more. The housing minister shared it on X as an example of the system working.

And in a way, it was. If the evidence says the rent is too high, the tenant should win. Propertymark's research shows tribunals weigh floor areas and room sizes differently by region, and outstanding repairs count against the landlord. Tired flats at top-of-the-market rents deserve to be challenged.

Where I part company with the campaigners

A safeguard against silly rent hikes is one thing. Clogging it up on purpose to create a backdoor rent freeze is another. The NRLA calls it using "the frailty in the system", and that's exactly what it is.

Here's the local maths. In my experience, a typical two-bed in Clapham and Battersea rents for around £2,500 a month. Say a landlord proposes a modest £75 rise, 3%. If a tactical challenge drags on for six months, that's £450 they never get back, even if the rise was fair all along.

Some landlords will shrug. Others will sell. Supply around here is tight enough already, and every flat that leaves the rental market means more people chasing fewer homes. That's the real cost of flooding the tribunals, and it lands on the next renter, not the landlord.

There's another catch. A system jammed with tactical cases is slower for the tenant facing a genuinely unfair jump, the very person it was built for.

Who wins and who loses?

• Renters facing an above-market rise: challenge it. That's what the tribunal is for.
• Fair landlords with the place in good repair: little to fear, but expect delay.
• Landlords chasing top rents on tired flats: most exposed, and rightly so.

What I'd do now

1. Build an evidence file before you serve the notice: three or four genuinely comparable lets, same size, same condition, same area.
2. Fix any outstanding repairs first.
3. Talk to your tenant before the paperwork. A modest, explained rise is far less likely to be challenged.

The good news? The Tenancy Deposit Scheme found 50% of landlords kept rents unchanged over the past 12 months, up from 39%. Plenty already prefer keeping a good tenant to squeezing one.

Over to you

Fair play or an own goal? Landlord or renter, I'd genuinely like to hear your view. Drop me a line at jeroen@claphampropertyblog.com or call 07837 093554.

---------
07837 093 554

Sources: The Telegraph, Property118, Landlord Law Newsround, Propertymark, Tenancy Deposit Scheme via Letting Agent Today and Property Reporter.