The property is a first-floor, two-bedroom flat with an ensuite shower room and an off-road parking space, in a modern three-storey development in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. The tenancy began on 1 September 2023 and the rent was £1,000 per calendar month. In May 2026 the company landlord served a notice proposing £1,030 per month from 1 September 2026. The tenant referred the notice to the tribunal in June 2026. The tenant pays council tax, and the rent is exclusive of it.
Neither party asked for a hearing, so the tribunal decided the case on the papers. It considered the tenant's two comparables, advertised at £975 and £990, and two of the landlord's, agreed at £1,025 and £1,035. It discounted flats offering extra amenities such as a gym. It noted that the landlord's comparables appeared to be sitting tenants' agreed increases, while identical flats were advertised for significantly less. The tribunal set the rent at £990 per month, £10 below the existing rent and £40 below the proposed rent.
For a landlord planning a rent review, this case shows that rents agreed with sitting tenants may carry less weight than current advertised rents for identical properties. Before proposing an increase, check what similar units on the same scheme are being advertised at, including any the landlord's own agent is marketing. A modest proposed rise of £30 still ended in a lower rent, because the evidence pointed to a market rent below the existing figure.
What the tribunal relied on
- The tenant's two comparables were identical flats on the same development, advertised at £975 and £990 per month.
- The landlord's comparables, agreed at £1,025 and £1,035, appeared to be for sitting tenants and assumed to be agreed rent reviews.
- The landlord was advertising identical properties at significantly lower rents than its own comparables.
- Two flats advertised at £1,255 and £1,270 were discounted because they included significant extra building amenities.