No More Back Doors: Delivering New Renters' Rights to Challenge Unfair Rent Increases
Published 1 May 2026
Rent increases in England
Unreasonable rent increases have long functioned as a form of informal or ‘backdoor’ eviction within England’s private rented sector.
For renters facing the ever‑present threat of section 21 eviction, a large or unaffordable rent increase has frequently been impossible to challenge, even where it bears little relation to market rent. In practice, this has meant that many renters – particularly those on low incomes – have had little choice but to accept increases they cannot afford or move out, often with serious consequences for financial security, health and housing stability.
The Renters’ Rights Act gives new powers to renters wishing to challenge unfair rent increases. Before then, the tribunal process was very rarely used, with just over 1,000 cases between 2024 and 2026, for over four million households currently in the private rented sector. Z2K’s report lays out how it operates and what it means for renters.
Renters who challenge their rent increases are on average £1,140 per year better off than they would have been had they accepted the landlord’s proposed increase.
Successful outcomes for renters
When used, the tribunal system is robust, and often results in lower rents than that proposed by landlords.
The research also shows that poor property conditions are widespread across the private rented sector and play a decisive role in tribunal outcomes, deducting £2,160/year on average.
Poorest renters still at risk
The tribunal has the power to delay increases where they are likely to cause hardship. However, this appears to be applied inconsistently, and does not remove the risk of homelessness for the most vulnerable renters.
Further risks for renters
- Introducing an upfront tribunal fee risks deterring renters from using the process, and weakening enforcement against unreasonable rent increases.
- Retaining powers to reintroduce the practice of backdating risks creating further barriers for renters. Reintroducing backdating would create an average immediate arrears liability of £395 for renters in tribunal cases where increases are granted.
The Renters’ Rights Act will not resolve all of the problems with this tribunal process. While the Act reduces the risks renters face in challenging rent increases, this alone will not guarantee effective take‑up. Poor awareness, and the intimidating and burdensome nature of formal legal processes, are likely to continue to deter many renters even where challenges are well‑founded. This strengthens the case for an alternative rent determination body that goes beyond basic triage and is instead focused on achieving the Act’s objective of tackling unreasonable rent increases.
Our principles for future reform
- Retain robust mechanisms for assessing property condition, which our analysis shows is central to fair rent determinations and particularly important for renters in poorer‑quality homes.
- Explore introducing an element of proactive enforcement, given the limits of complaint‑based systems in preventing widespread excessive rent increases.
- Review how hardship is approached, including the absence of a clear legal threshold and whether the process meaningfully mitigates financial distress and the risk of homelessness for renters on low incomes or means‑tested benefits.
By reducing the risks associated with challenging rent increases, the Renters’ Rights Act strengthens the tribunal’s role as an effective safeguard and provides a sound foundation for a more accessible rent determination system. It is important to be clear about the limits of these reforms: an effective rent determination framework is unlikely to resolve the wider affordability pressures facing private renters, where rents absorb a persistently high proportion of incomes. Nonetheless, within their intended remit, these changes have the potential to materially improve fairness, security and accountability in the private rented sector.