
First Rent Determination Under the Renters' Rights Act: What Pukahf v Ndifor tells us?
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 came into force on 1 May 2026, bringing the most significant changes to residential tenancies in nearly 40 years. Among them is a reformed process for challenging rent increases at the First-tier Tribunal. In Pukahf Co-Invest 1A LTD and Pukahf Co-Invest 1B LTD v Bill Selambi Ndifor (MAN/00BR/MRA/2026/0009), decided on 10 July 2026, we have one of the very first tribunal decisions applying these new rules in practice.
How do rent increases now work?
Under the new regime, all private rented sector rent increases for assured periodic tenancies must follow the statutory section 13 notice process, under the Housing Act 1988. Landlords serve a prescribed notice proposing a new rent, giving at least two months' notice. Rent can only be increased once per year, and rent review clauses in tenancy agreements can no longer be used.
If a tenant does not wish to accept the proposed increase, and believes the proposed rent exceeds the open market rate, they can refer the notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination. If a referral is made under the new rules, the Tribunal can only confirm or reduce the proposed rent. It cannot set a rent higher than what the landlord asked for.
The new rent takes effect from the beginning of the first rent period after the Tribunal's determination, rather than being backdated. Where the increase would cause undue hardship, the Tribunal can defer it by up to a further two months.
Tenants also have a new standalone right to challenge the initial level of rent within the first six months of a tenancy, even without a section 13 notice.
What happened in Pukahf v Ndifor?
The case concerned a modern three-bedroom semi-detached house at 3 Sussex Street, Salford. The tenancy began in August 2024 at a rent of £1,495 per calendar month (pcm). On 22 May 2026, the landlords served a section 13 notice proposing an increase to £1,535 pcm, to take effect from 30 August 2026. The tenant referred the landlord's notice to the Tribunal on 26 May 2026, arguing the increase was excessive.
In their application the tenant cited a neighbour allegedly paying £1,000 pcm (though no evidence was provided) and submitted three comparable properties advertised between £1,350 and £1,550 pcm. The landlord referred to properties on the market at around £1,550 pcm and suggested one of their similar properties had let for £1,600 pcm, but failed to provide supporting evidence.
The application was considered on the papers, with neither party requesting an oral hearing.
The Tribunal, drawing on the comparables and its own specialist knowledge, determined that the open market rent was £1,550 pcm. However, because the landlord's proposed rent of £1,535 pcm was lower than the Tribunal's assessed market rent, the new rules meant the rent was set at the landlord's proposed figure of £1,535 pcm. This is the new statutory cap in action: the Tribunal cannot award more than the landlord asked for.
The tenant also applied for a deferred start date on hardship grounds, citing health issues and medical costs following a car accident. The landlord did not respond to that application. However, the Tribunal considered the evidence but concluded that an increase of just £40 per month did not amount to undue hardship, and the new rent will take effect from 30 August 2026 (the beginning of the first new period of the tenancy after the date of the determination).
Why does this decision matter?
As one of the first rent determinations under the new rules, the case is interesting for several reasons. Notably:
The window between an application being filed (26 May 2026) and a determination being made (10 July) was relatively quick on this occasion.
There had been concerns that the Tribunal would struggle to turn rent determinations around quickly due to an anticipated influx of applications under the new regime. Those fears could still be realised, however, as more and applications make their way to the Tribunal.
The landlord does not appear to have been significantly disadvantaged in this case by failing to provide supporting evidence. Instead, it was the new statutory cap which proved to be their downfall.
The Tribunal was not sympathetic to an undue hardship application on this occasion. This is perhaps an indication that the Tribunal will be reluctant to delay increases from taking effect, unless there are specific and persuasive reasons for this.
How we can help?
We have a dedicated team at VWV within our Real Estate Department who have specialist knowledge on matters concerning the Renters' Rights Act, including in connection with dealing with rent increases.
For further advice, please get in touch with Georgina Little, Tom Davies or Sarah Outram.
Get in touch today
Are you looking for legal services?
Fill out our form to find out how our specialist lawyers can help you.
