Why we won't take your instruction at the wrong asking price
Short answer: because under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 a mispriced asking rent is no longer recoverable, and accepting an instruction at a price our data does not support would lose the landlord more money in tenancy years two and three than we would earn in commission over the same period. We will tell you what our data says and why. If our recommended figure is one you do not want to accept, the right answer is for both parties to walk away — not for us to take the listing at the wrong number and absorb the consequences on your portfolio.
This post is the operational answer to a question landlords ask us frequently: "every other agent agreed with my price. Why won't you?"
What other agents are doing — and why
A common pattern in the London letting market is for agents to compete for an instruction by quoting back to the landlord whatever figure the landlord seems to want to hear. The Lettings Valuation Guide we issue to every prospective client (§1.1) names this openly: "the initial asking price an agent recommends might be over-inflated because of the desire to win an instruction."
The reverse also happens. An agent on a percentage commission paid on first-let rent has more to gain from a quick let at a lower figure than from a slower let at a higher one. Either error suits the agent in the short term. Neither error suits the landlord at any horizon.
We are not interested in either side of that arithmetic. Our 10% management fee compounds across the life of the tenancy; the landlord's rental yield does the same. The two interests align only when the figure we recommend is the figure the open market will actually pay.
The pre-RRA forgiveness, and why it no longer exists
For thirty years, a misjudged asking rent was recoverable. List too low and the bidding war among applicants would pull the rent up to market. List too high and a Section 21 notice at the end of the fixed term let you re-let at the right figure twelve months later.
Both recovery mechanisms are gone. The rental bidding ban under section 56 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 caps the achievable rent at the advertised figure. Once you list at £2,400, you cannot lawfully accept £2,650 from a competing applicant, even if both want the property. The abolition of Section 21 means a paying tenant cannot be removed for the landlord's commercial convenience, so a quick re-let at a corrected figure is no longer available either.
The consequence is that the asking rent you set on day one is now the rent for at least the first twelve months of the tenancy and, in practice, often considerably longer. Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by section 6 of the Renters' Rights Act) allows one annual rent review, with the tribunal able to confirm or reduce the landlord's proposed figure but never raise it. Under-pricing by £200 a month is now a deficit of £2,400 in year one, another £2,400 in year two, and at best £1,800 to £2,000 of that deficit closes at the first review. The arithmetic compounds, and there is no escape mechanism left in the Act.
How we actually arrive at a recommended rent
The Lettings Valuation Guide §1.3 sets out the method: the Comparable Rental Method, sometimes called Inferred Analysis. The recommended rent is derived from the prices of similar properties actually let in similar locations within a recent period — not from listing prices, which are aspirational, but from completed lets.
For each instruction we model three things. We compile a comparable set of recent lets, ideally three to five completed tenancies of similar units in the same micro-market within the previous quarter. We cross-reference click-through-rate and enquiries-per-listing data from comparable Rightmove and Zoopla listings in the same period — the proof that the comparable rents we are pulling are actually achievable on the current portal market, not just historical figures. And we factor in property-specific variables: condition, professional photography, furnishing decision, communal amenities, and for new-build units the developer's first-let pricing strategy and the unsold-unit inventory across the rest of the block.
The output is a recommended figure with a defended range. We will tell you the range explicitly. We will not list inside the range; section 56 prohibits range pricing on the published advert. The listing goes out at the single figure we recommend within the range, and that figure is the figure we will defend at a Section 13 review twelve months later.
When we walk away from an instruction
We turn down instructions in three situations.
The first is where the landlord insists on an asking rent above the top of our defended range. Pre-RRA, taking that instruction would have cost the landlord some void weeks while the rent corrected. Post-RRA, taking it would either produce a long void with eventual re-list at our recommended figure (in which case we have wasted everyone's marketing budget) or, worse, an under-qualified applicant who agrees to the high figure and then defaults or serves the statutory two-month notice within months. Neither outcome is acceptable to us.
The second is where the landlord insists on an asking rent below the bottom of our defended range. The Lettings Valuation Guide §1.1 calls this out specifically as the agent's incentive to "encourage a Landlord to accept a below-market offer in order to secure a quick tenant." It is the more financially damaging of the two errors under the new regime, because under-pricing is structurally locked in by the bidding ban. There is no Section 13 review that can close the gap inside year one, and the deficit compounds.
The third is where the property's condition or compliance state does not support a credible listing at any price within a defensible range — older units that have not had basic decoration since the prior tenancy, communal areas in obvious disrepair, missing EPC or gas safety certification. We will tell you what needs to happen for the property to come to market well. If those things cannot be done, the property is not ready and we will not list it.
What we ask landlords to expect
Three commitments in both directions.
We will explain the figure. Every recommended rent comes with the comparable evidence behind it, in writing, before you decide whether to instruct. If you want to push back on the evidence, that is a conversation we welcome, and one we expect to have, because it tests our analysis.
We will not chase. If our recommended figure is one you do not want to accept and another agent has quoted higher, we will not lower our number to win the instruction. The number is the number. We would rather lose the instruction than take it at the wrong price and lose you more money over three years than the commission would have earned us.
And we will defend the figure for the life of the tenancy. The Section 13 review twelve months later, the re-let cycle eighteen to twenty-four months after that, the Tribunal hearing if one arises. All of them rely on the comparable evidence we built when we first valued the property. The figure we recommend on day one is the figure we are committing to defend on day four hundred.
Where to look next
The full operational case for why day-one pricing is permanent under the new regime is in our analysis of the day-one pricing decision. The two RRA provisions that lock the price in are covered in the bidding ban explainer and Section 13 rent reviews after the RRA. The timing rule that determines when an asking rent goes live is in the Four Week Rule. For the operational position, see Landlords; for the niche where mispricing is most damaging, see New-Build Specialists.
Sources
- Harvey W James, Lettings Valuation Guide v2.0 (RRA-aligned): §1.1, §1.3, §5.2, §5.4.2
- Harvey W James, Essential Terms and Charges v2.1.5: §22 [BIDDING-001], §41 [RENT-003]
- Renters' Rights Act 2025, sections 6 and 56 — legislation.gov.uk
- Housing Act 1988, sections 13 and 14 (as amended) — legislation.gov.uk