A Conservative Peer and former Housing Minister has raised concerns over the government’s plan to introduce rent tribunals, arguing that it won’t effectively address rising rent issues.
Lord Young of Cookham criticised the proposal to let tenants challenge unreasonable rent increases at the First-Tier Tribunal, saying the system is “ill-equipped” to deal with the complexity of the issue.
He believes that relying solely on tribunals to settle disputes will not offer long-term relief to renters facing steadily increasing costs.
Instead, Lord Young has thrown his support behind an amendment tabled by Lord Best within the Renters’ Rights Bill.
This amendment proposes to restrict landlords from raising rents more than once every four years, aiming to provide tenants with greater financial stability.
Under the plan, rent increases during those four years would be capped in line with either average wage growth or inflation, whichever is lower.
After this four-year period, landlords could then adjust rents back to current market rates, helping to balance the interests of both tenants and property owners.
Lord Young argues this approach would bring predictability to tenants who often face yearly rent rises that can make budgeting increasingly difficult.
He also believes it would discourage landlords from imposing sudden, steep rent hikes simply to test what tenants might be willing to accept.
By linking increases to clear economic measures such as wage growth and inflation, the amendment hopes to avoid the uncertainty and potential conflict that tribunal appeals might cause.
Supporters of the proposal say it strikes a fairer balance between landlords’ need to keep up with costs and tenants’ need for stability in an unpredictable market.
Critics of the current tribunal system argue that it can be slow, intimidating, and confusing for many renters, limiting its effectiveness as a real safeguard against unreasonable rent rises.
Lord Young’s backing of the amendment highlights growing concern, even within government circles, about whether existing measures will truly protect renters.
As debate on the Renters’ Rights Bill continues, these alternative ideas may shape how rental policy evolves in the months ahead.
For now, the call from Lord Young and Lord Best serves as a reminder that many believe rent reform should go further to give tenants genuine peace of mind.
Wildly inconsistent decision-making
In a recent article published by The Times, Lord Cookham made it clear that while he does support the abolition of Section 21, he believes the government is making a “big mistake” with a key part of the proposed Renters’ Rights Bill.
Lord Cookham explains that once Section 21 is removed, the way rent increases are handled during a tenancy will become even more critical. Without the option to evict tenants who refuse higher rents, landlords and tenants will need a fairer system to manage disagreements.
He argues that a balanced approach is needed—one that protects tenants from steep, unexpected rises but also respects landlords’ rights to keep rents in line with costs and the wider market.
In the article, Lord Cookham directs his criticism at the government’s plan to allow renters to appeal what they see as “unreasonable” rent increases to a first-tier tribunal.
He points out worrying signs that tribunals are inconsistent in how they make decisions. Some have been known to approve large rent hikes without carrying out proper inspections.
Lord Cookham tells The Times: “A thorough scan of tribunal decisions shows wildly inconsistent decision-making.”
He highlights specific examples where tribunals did not even visit the property but instead used online tools. In one case from December 2023, a tribunal relied on a year-old Google Street View image of the outside of a property to approve a rent increase of 41%.
On another occasion, a tribunal based its decision purely on the members’ “own general knowledge” of local rent prices, without robust evidence.
These cases, Lord Cookham fears, reveal how poorly equipped the tribunals are to handle rent disputes fairly for England’s 12 million private tenants.
He argues that decisions made without detailed, on-the-ground understanding risk harming both tenants and landlords by undermining trust in the process.
Lord Cookham believes that, instead of relying on an unreliable tribunal system, there should be a clearer and fairer mechanism in place.
Such a system, he suggests, should take proper account of property conditions, local market trends, and tenants’ ability to pay, rather than guesswork or quick online checks.
The peer’s comments underline a wider concern that simply abolishing Section 21, without carefully planning how rent increases will be managed, could leave both landlords and tenants facing new uncertainties.
While Lord Cookham still supports the core idea of giving tenants greater security, he warns that badly designed systems could backfire and create fresh problems.
As the debate over the Renters’ Rights Bill continues, his call for a fairer, more practical solution adds an important perspective to the discussion.
It also highlights the need for government reforms to be backed by processes that are consistent, transparent and genuinely protect everyone involved in the private rented sector.
Replace private landlord who is now selling up
Lord Cookham has highlighted the growing significance of the build-to-rent sector, particularly as more small private landlords begin to leave the market.
Speaking to The Times, he argues that long-term institutional investment in rental housing is now essential to fill the gap left by departing private landlords.
According to Lord Cookham, large institutional landlords bring an important advantage: they generally prefer tenants to stay for as long as they choose, removing the uncertainty often associated with short-term renting.
He explains: “What is needed now is the encouragement of long-term institutional investment in property for rent to replace the private landlord who is now selling up. Such institutions won’t need to give notice because they will want tenants to stay as long as the tenant wishes.”
However, he also warns that these larger landlords require a stable and predictable rental market to operate effectively.
Lord Cookham raises concerns about the government’s current plan for individual rent tribunals, which could allow tenants to appeal against rent increases.
He argues that relying on these tribunals, which may base decisions on inconsistent or unclear criteria, risks creating uncertainty for landlords managing large portfolios.
He explains further: “These landlords will need a functioning renting market giving certainty, not individual tribunals agreeing or rejecting rent increases based on opaque criteria.”
For institutional landlords managing hundreds or even thousands of rental properties, the administrative impact could be considerable.
Lord Cookham points out that if even a relatively small proportion of tenants regularly challenged rent increases through the tribunal process, it could tie up valuable staff time and increase operational costs.
He warns this scenario might discourage further investment from institutional landlords into the build-to-rent market – at a time when more supply is urgently needed to address housing shortages.
Lord Cookham sees this as a potential threat to the expansion of the build-to-rent sector, which he believes could play a vital role in offering longer-term tenancies and higher quality accommodation.
Despite his support for institutional investment, critics have noted an important limitation of the build-to-rent model.
For many renters, especially those on low or average incomes, the monthly costs of build-to-rent homes remain well beyond reach.
As an example, some recent developments in London have been criticised for pricing studio flats at around £2,600 per month, while three-bedroom flats can cost as much as £4,600 per month.
This raises concerns that, while build-to-rent may increase supply and offer longer-term stability for some, it might do little to help households struggling the most with affordability.
It also underlines the wider challenge of ensuring any new rental policies or investment strategies truly benefit a broad range of tenants, not just those able to pay premium rents.
Limit rent increases to wage growth or inflation for four years
Lord Cookham has voiced fresh criticism of what he describes as a “complicated tribunal system,” arguing that it will do little to benefit either landlords or tenants in the long run.
In response, he is urging fellow peers in the House of Lords to support an alternative proposal put forward by Lord Best.
Speaking to The Times, Lord Cookham explains his support for an amendment which would cap rent increases to once every four years.
The proposed cap would tie rent rises to wage growth or inflation over that period, helping to keep increases fair and predictable.
After each four-year period, landlords would then be able to raise rents to match current market levels, ensuring they are not left behind by broader market trends.
Lord Cookham believes this approach strikes a better balance between giving landlords certainty and providing tenants with more stable housing costs, especially in the early years of their tenancy.
He elaborates: “This would give landlords the certainty of modest annual rent increases, and tenants more security in their homes in the early years of a tenancy, before a ‘release valve’ every four years prevents rents from diverging too far from the market rate.”
According to Lord Cookham, this model could avoid the pitfalls of inconsistent tribunal rulings while ensuring rental prices remain reasonably in line with economic conditions.
He also suggests that this system would reduce disputes, lower administrative burdens for landlords, and give tenants greater confidence in budgeting for the years ahead.
Lord Cookham adds that if the government does not consider this amendment now, the problem may resurface sooner than ministers expect.
He warns: “I hope the government will consider it. If not, I fear the issue will be back on ministers’ desks before long.”
The amendment comes amid wider debates on the Renters’ Rights Bill and how best to balance tenant protection with a sustainable and predictable rental market for landlords.
Lord Best, who tabled the amendment, previously chaired the Affordable Housing Commission and has long advocated for policies that aim to stabilise the rental market.
Supporters of the amendment argue it would help avoid sudden and steep rent hikes that can push tenants into financial hardship or force them to move.
They also claim it could encourage longer-term tenancies, giving families and individuals greater security in where they live.
While the amendment has gained backing from some members of the Lords, it remains to be seen whether it will be accepted into the final legislation.
Lord Cookham’s full comments, along with further details of his argument, are available in his article in The Times, although readers should note it may be behind a paywall for some users.
This ongoing debate highlights the wider question of how to make renting fairer and more predictable, without discouraging investment in the private rented sector.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property