Section 13 rent reviews after the RRA: what changed, what stayed, and what the tribunal can (and can't) do
Short answer: under section 6 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025, Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 is now the only mechanism by which a landlord can lawfully increase the rent on an assured periodic tenancy. The landlord may propose one increase per twelve-month period using prescribed Form 4A, with two months' notice. The tenant may refer the proposal to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal may set the rent at the open market figure or at the landlord's proposed figure — whichever is lower. It cannot set a higher figure than the landlord proposed. That last sentence is the most consequential operational change in the new regime.
This post sets out what the post-RRA Section 13 process actually looks like, what the tribunal can and cannot do, and how Harvey W James runs the anniversary review for managed tenancies.
What changed on 1 May 2026
Three changes to Section 13 took effect, all introduced by section 6 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025.
The first change is the abolition of contractual rent review clauses. Pre-RRA, an assured tenancy agreement could contain a clause specifying how the rent would rise — annual RPI uplift, fixed step-up, market-review clause. Those clauses are now of no effect. Section 13 is the only route.
The second change is the tribunal's powers. Pre-RRA, Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 directed the tribunal to determine the open market rent for the property. If the market figure was higher than the landlord's proposed figure, the tribunal was permitted to award the higher amount. Section 7 of the Renters' Rights Act has now amended Section 14 to cap the tribunal's award at the landlord's proposed figure: the tribunal may award the proposed rent, or any lower figure it considers market, but never more. There is no upside to over-proposing.
The third change is the timing. The proposed effective date of the increase must now be at least two months after the date the notice is served, and no earlier than twelve months after the previous rent increase (or, if none, twelve months after the tenancy started). The tribunal can also defer the effective date by up to two months if the tenant has made a referral and would face undue hardship from the immediate change.
What did not change is also worth saying clearly. Section 13 is not retrospective: it cannot recover under-payment from past months. The mechanism is forward-looking only. And the rent the landlord proposes must be a genuine attempt to set an open market rent. The Act does not bar a landlord from proposing aggressively, but it does mean an aggressive proposal can be tested by the tenant at no risk to themselves.
How the tribunal actually decides
If the tenant refers the proposed rent to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), three things happen.
The tribunal asks the parties for evidence of comparable open market rents at the time the proposal was served. In practice this means actual lettings of similar properties in the same micro-market, ideally with executed tenancy agreements or agent confirmation, dated within the three months either side of the notice.
The tribunal applies an open market test: what would this property let for today, on the open market, to a hypothetical willing tenant. Vacant possession is assumed. The tribunal disregards any improvements the tenant has paid for and any disrepair the tenant has caused.
The tribunal then sets the new rent at the lower of (i) the open market figure it has determined and (ii) the figure the landlord proposed on Form 4A. If the landlord proposed £2,750 and the tribunal's open market figure is £2,800, the rent is set at £2,750. If the landlord proposed £2,750 and the tribunal's figure is £2,600, the rent is set at £2,600. The landlord cannot win more than they asked for, but they can be reduced — and there is no floor at the rent already being paid. Section 14ZB(5) fixes the new rent at the open-market figure whenever that is lower than the notice figure, whether or not it is also lower than the existing rent. The first published decisions under the new regime show it happening: in a London case reported on 16 September 2026, a tenant paying £2,066 a month was served a notice for £2,475 and the tribunal determined £1,950. Of the 25 decisions reviewed by David Smith of Bishop & Sewell, half gave the landlord the full increase, the median award was 92.4% of the proposed uplift, six landlords got 25% or less, ten had filed no comparable evidence at all, and the only two who produced dated achieved-rent evidence got their notice figure in full.
The asymmetry matters in two ways. It removes the incentive to over-propose: there is no upside, and a tenant who sees an aggressive proposal is more likely to refer it to the tribunal. It also rewards landlords who propose accurately on the basis of defensible comparable evidence. A tribunal-tested proposal that comes back unchanged is as close to a market-confirmed rent as the new regime offers.
Can the tribunal reduce my existing rent?
Short answer: yes, by two routes, and one of them is the landlord's own doing.
Route one: the tenant challenges the rent they are already paying. Since 1 May 2026 a tenant under an assured tenancy may apply to the First-tier Tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy — Housing Act 1988 section 14(A1), inserted by section 7 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 — but only within the first six months of the tenancy, and not where a tribunal has already set the rent (section 14(A2)). The tribunal determines the open-market rent; if that is lower than the rent being paid, the rent falls to it, and if it is not, the rent stays exactly where it was — it cannot go up (section 14ZA(4)). The new figure runs from a date the tribunal directs, no earlier than the application (section 14ZA(5)). There is no transitional carve-out for tenancies that began before 1 May 2026: the six months run from the tenancy's original start, so for an established tenant this route is closed. The application fee is £47 (First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026, fee 1.7).
Route two: the landlord serves a section 13 notice and the tenant challenges it. This is the one that catches landlords out. On a challenge under section 14(A3), the tribunal sets the new rent at the open-market figure whenever that is lower than the figure in the notice (section 14ZB(5)) — and nothing in the section stops the open-market figure sitting below the rent the tenant already pays. In the Wickford Way case in London, a tenant on £2,066.64 a month was served a notice for £2,475 (a replacement — the landlord's first notice, dated 20 May 2026, had been accepted as invalid by both sides) and the tribunal determined £1,950. The landlord asked for £409 more and finished £116 lower. David Smith, the property lawyer who reviewed the decisions, puts it plainly: the tribunal "is entirely willing to determine a lower rent than the original rent starting point where the evidence supports it". The same £47 fee applies, and the tenant must apply before the notice's start date.
What the first decisions show. In the first published RRA determination, Pukahf Co-Invest v Ndifor (Manchester, 10 July 2026), the landlord proposed £1,535 on a rent of £1,495, the tribunal put the open-market figure at £1,550 and, capped at the notice, awarded the £1,535 in full — the tenant's hardship plea was refused. Across the 25 published decisions on notices served on or after 1 May 2026 (decided between 24 June and 2 September, reviewed by David Smith of Bishop & Sewell), the median uplift awarded was 6.9% and the range ran from a 5.6% cut to a 26.2% rise. Half the landlords received the full increase, the median award was 92.4% of the proposed uplift — but the mean was 67.1%, because six landlords got 25% or less and two got nothing above the existing rent. "There is not much middle ground." Ten landlords filed no rent evidence at all; fifteen relied on portal listings, and only three of those said which portal, which drew the observation that the evidence was of limited weight. The only two who produced achieved-rent evidence — Bower Fold and Fenman Mews in Greater Manchester, both apparently institutional operators putting their own portfolio lettings in front of the tribunal — got their notice figure in full. Fourteen tenants pleaded undue hardship; two succeeded, the other twelve dismissed as boilerplate. A Sheffield notice that gave less than two months was struck out before the rent was even considered.
So the decision is not "how much can I ask for" but "should I serve at all". A notice on a flat already let at or above market is an invitation to a determination below today's rent. A notice pitched at a defensible open-market figure, with dated evidence of rents actually achieved on comparable homes, is being accepted in full — and in this sample the only landlords who had that evidence were operators with portfolios of their own lettings. That is what our own letting data is for: before any anniversary notice on a managed home we check the proposed figure against rents achieved on the homes we let, and where the honest answer is "leave it where it is", that is the advice.
One thing to watch: on 9 September 2026 the government said rent challenges will in future be decided by the Valuation Office Agency rather than the tribunal. No date or procedure has been published and further legislation is expected; until it lands, the tribunal decides and everything above applies.
How Harvey W James runs the anniversary review
We run the anniversary review as a discussion first and a notice second.
Approximately two months before the anniversary of the tenancy commencement date, we contact the tenant in writing to open a Section 13 conversation. The contact is explicit that it is not a notice. It is the start of a discussion. We share the open market rent we have modelled for the property using comparable evidence from the previous quarter, drawn from our portfolio and from Rightmove and Zoopla listings in the same micro-market and unit type.
If the tenant accepts the proposed figure in principle, we serve the formal Form 4A immediately, with the agreed effective date. The notice runs for the statutory two months, the rent changes on the effective date, and the tenancy continues.
If the tenant disagrees, we have two options to put to the landlord. Either we negotiate a lower agreed figure that both parties accept and serve the notice at that figure, or we serve the notice at the landlord's preferred figure and accept that the tenant may refer it to the tribunal. In the second case, our documented comparable evidence is what we will rely on at the tribunal hearing — which is why our Section 13 proposals are always priced on the open market, never above it.
If the tenant takes no action within the statutory window — neither agreeing in writing nor referring to the tribunal — the proposed rent takes effect automatically on the effective date specified in the notice.
What landlords should do six months before the anniversary
Two things.
First, plan the figure in writing before the conversation. The increase needs to be defensible on comparable evidence at tribunal level. That is the new bar, not the old bar of "what feels reasonable". If you cannot produce three to five recent comparable lettings of similar units in the same micro-market, your proposal is exposed to a tribunal reduction. The comparable evidence Harvey W James assembles for every managed-property anniversary review is the operational answer to that exposure.
Second, take the tribunal cap seriously when deciding the proposed figure. Pre-RRA, you could propose aggressively in the knowledge that the tribunal might set a higher figure than you asked for. Post-RRA, the tribunal can only confirm or reduce. Proposing 5% above the open market figure with the expectation of "the tribunal might award the full market value" is no longer a workable strategy. It produces a referral, a tribunal hearing, and a reduction. The right number to propose is the open market figure, supported by evidence, every time.
For landlords whose tenancies are coming up for their first post-RRA anniversary, the practical implication is that the rent review is now a documented analytical process, not a negotiation. Speak to your agent six months out, not six weeks.
Where to look next
Section 13 is one of five RRA provisions that together lock in the day-one asking rent for the life of the tenancy. See our analysis of the day-one pricing decision for the full picture, and the bidding ban explainer for the related rule that prevents post-listing rent corrections. The valuation methodology behind a defensible Section 13 proposal is set out in why we won't take instructions at the wrong price. For the operational position on rent collection, arrears, and tribunal-route rent challenges, see Rent Protection and Landlords.
Sources
- Renters' Rights Act 2025, sections 6 and 7 — legislation.gov.uk
- Housing Act 1988, sections 13 and 14 (as amended) — legislation.gov.uk
- MHCLG, "Form 4A: Landlord's notice proposing a new rent under section 13" (1 May 2026)
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), procedure rules and practice directions
- Harvey W James, Essential Terms and Charges v2.4.0: §41 [RENT-003], §41.1 [RENT-003-A]
- Housing Act 1988, sections 14(A1)–(A3), 14ZA and 14ZB (inserted by Renters' Rights Act 2025 s.7) — legislation.gov.uk data.xml as at 1 May 2026, read 15 September 2026; Renters' Rights Act 2025 Schedule 6 (transitional provision) — no carve-out for the six-month window
- The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026, SI 2026/485, fee 1.7 (£47 on an application under s.14(A1) or 14(A3)) — legislation.gov.uk
- Pukahf Co-Invest 1A Ltd and 1B Ltd v Ndifor, FTT (Property Chamber) MAN/00BR/MRA/2026/0009, 10 July 2026 — as reported by VWV, 15 September 2026
- David Smith (Bishop & Sewell), "First-tier Tribunal rent determinations after 1 May 2026", LinkedIn, 15 September 2026 — the 25 decisions of 24 June to 2 September 2026 on notices served from 1 May; Wickford Way (London), Bower Fold and Fenman Mews (Greater Manchester), Penthorpe Close (Sheffield)
- Property118, "Tribunal cuts landlord's existing rent after rise challenge", 16 September 2026; Property118, "Rent increase challenges are moving to the Valuation Office", 16 September 2026
This page reflects Harvey W James' operational understanding of Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 as amended by section 6 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025. It is not legal advice. For the published statute text refer to legislation.gov.uk; for your specific situation seek independent legal advice. Last reviewed against Essential Terms and Charges v2.4.0 (6 October 2026).