Welsh tribunal strikes out rent challenge – but not before inspecting the property
Insight from Director of Operations and Compliance Expert, Nikki Lewis.
A recent decision made by the Rent Assessment Committee at the Residential Property Tribunal is a useful reminder of where the law currently stands on rent increases under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (RHWA) – and raises a few eyebrows too.
As the Tribunal ultimately confirmed, the occupier had no legal right to ask the Committee to review the landlord’s rent increase.
And yet, despite striking the application out for lack of jurisdiction, the Committee still:
- attended and inspected the property, and
- went on to comment that they would have sided with the tenant had they had the power to do so.
The decision is therefore worth reading – not because it changes the law (it doesn’t), but because it clearly illustrates how rent increase challenges are being approached in practice, and where things may be heading.
The full details
The case concerned a property in Bridgend, where the contract-holder moved into the property in February 2023, after the RHWA came into force on 1 December 2022. The landlord later served a rent increase notice proposing an increase from £695 to £720 per calendar month.
Despite the occupier not having lived in the property before RHWA, an application was made to the Rent Assessment Committee asking it to review the proposed rent.
The Tribunal’s decision is clear: because this was a new standard occupation contract (i.e. not a converted contract from before RHWA), the Committee had no jurisdiction to determine the rent. The application was therefore struck out.
That aligns with the current legal position:
- Only contract-holders who occupied a property before 1 December 2022 (and whose tenancies converted under RHWA) have a statutory right to challenge a rent increase via the Rent Assessment Committee.
- Contract-holders who moved in after RHWA do not currently have that right (though Welsh Government are looking to change this – see below).
Despite having no power to determine the rent, the Committee still inspected the property and went on to comment that had they had jurisdiction, they would have found the proposed increase unreasonable due to the condition of the property.
It’s also worth noting that the Tribunal itself acknowledged that the Welsh Government is actively considering extending rent-challenge rights to contract-holders on new standard occupation contracts. That change has not happened yet, but this decision gives a clear indication of the direction of travel.
My view
From my perspective, this decision underlines two important points.
First, while the legal position on rent challenges for post-RHWA occupiers is currently clear, it’s evident that rent increases are being looked at through a broader lens than just strict jurisdiction. Even where an application has no legal footing, landlords should assume that the reasonableness of an increase – and the condition of the property – may still come under scrutiny.
Secondly, the fact that the Committee inspected the property and expressed a view on the proposed rent, despite having no power to determine it, is telling. It suggests a regulatory environment that is becoming more interventionist, and one where future changes are likely to expand tenants’ ability to challenge rent increases.
To pose a rhetorical question we all know the answer to: who is ultimately paying for the Tribunal’s time and the surveyor’s inspection here?
For landlords, the takeaway is not that rent increases shouldn’t be pursued – but that they should be approached carefully, supported by market evidence, and aligned with the condition of the property. Preparing proper comparables and a clear rationale is increasingly important.
As managing agents, this is exactly where we add value. We advise on appropriate rental levels, prepare supporting evidence, and, where needed, assist landlords through tribunal processes so that decisions are defensible and compliant – both now and as the landscape continues to evolve.
Further reading
The information contained within this article was correct at the date of publishing and is not guaranteed to remain correct in the present day.
