What evidence wins at the rent tribunal? Data from 3,158 real cases

When we analysed 5,779 published rent tribunal decisions, one question kept coming back: the tenants who won — what did they actually submit? Tribunal decisions describe the evidence each side provided before giving the determination, so we read the full text of all 3,158 open-market rent cases and coded what the winning cases had in common.

The answer is unusually clear, and it's good news: the evidence that moves the outcome is exactly the evidence any tenant can gather in an afternoon.

The pattern in the data

Across 1,358 measured cases (where both the landlord's proposed rent and the tribunal's determined rent could be extracted), 61.8% ended with the rent set below the landlord's ask. But that headline hides big swings by evidence:

Every percentage describes the measured subset of published decisions — see the methodology and caveats before quoting these as guarantees. They are patterns, not promises.

Comparables: the biggest lever you control

Tenants who put their own comparable rents in front of the panel won 72.5% of measured cases; tenants who provided none won 60.4%. That 12-point gap is the largest evidence effect in the dataset — and it makes sense once you remember what the tribunal is: a panel of valuers answering one question, what would this property let for on the open market? If the only rental evidence in the bundle is the landlord's, the valuation starts from their numbers.

The decisions also show what bad comparables look like. In one Haringey case the landlord submitted five comparables — all two-bedroom flats, for a one-bedroom property. The tenant submitted none, but pointed out the mismatch; the panel discounted the landlord's list and set the rent 4% below the proposal. Three genuinely similar properties beat five flattering ones.

Condition evidence — and why inspections produce the biggest cuts

Cases where condition issues (damp, mould, disrepair, dated fittings) appear in the decision saw the rent reduced 67.3% of the time, against 52.9% where no condition issues were raised — and the median cut was a third larger. Panels deduct for condition explicitly: decisions routinely start from a good-condition market figure and knock off percentages for damp patches, worn carpets, missing white goods or an ageing kitchen.

The multiplier is getting the panel to see it. Where the tribunal inspected the property, the median cut jumped to 16.6% — nearly double the overall median — with a 72.2% reduction rate. Oral hearings show the same shape: rare (75 measured cases), but a median cut of 19% when the tenant won. Serious condition cases pull in both directions — they justify the inspection, and the inspection justifies the deduction.

What happens if you do nothing

Here's the surprise: tenants who never responded to the tribunal's directions still saw the rent reduced in 57.3% of measured cases — because the panel values the property independently rather than rubber-stamping the landlord's figure. The floor is high. But not engaging surrenders the two levers above, and it shows in the gap to the comparables group (72.5%). Returning the reply form and attaching your evidence is the difference between the floor and the ceiling.

What landlords ask for vs what they get

In the 1,069 cases where the decision states the old rent, the proposed rent and the determined rent, landlords asked for a median increase of 17.9% — and the tribunal granted a median of 10.5%. In other words, panels roughly halved the proposed increase. If your Section 13 notice proposes a double-digit percentage jump, the published record says that figure is negotiable.

Timing, from the same texts: in the 544 cases stating an application date, the median wait from application to decision was 75 days — about 11 weeks — and you keep paying the old rent until the decision.

The evidence checklist to copy

Based on what the winning cases contained:

1. Three or more comparables, genuinely similar. Same bedroom count, same property type, same area. Current listings or recent lets, with the source and date noted. Similar beats flattering.
2. Dated photos of every condition issue — damp, mould, worn or dated fittings, anything that doesn't work — plus any repair requests you've sent and the landlord's responses.
3. The paperwork: your Section 13 notice and tenancy agreement.
4. A one-page statement connecting it: what the property is, what the landlord proposed, what your comparables show, and what condition the property is actually in.
5. Return the reply form on time — and if condition is your strongest card, ask for an inspection so the panel sees it.

Our free rent check builds most of this for you — local comparable data, a reasoned assessment, and a printable evidence pack in the format panels are used to reading. Then the tribunal finder gives you your regional office, Form MR1 and the deadline that matters.

Methodology and caveats

• Source: the full decision texts of all 3,158 open-market rent (assured shorthold tenancy) cases published on gov.uk's tribunal decisions finder (December 2018 – 8 August 2026). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
• Coding: evidence features were extracted from the decision text by pattern-matching the tribunal's own descriptions ("the Tenant did not provide any comparables", "the Tribunal carried out an inspection"). Coverage varies by feature because decision templates differ by region and year.
• Outcomes are computed on the 1,358 cases where both proposed and determined rents could be extracted; weekly figures normalised to calendar months.
• These are correlations, not causes. Cases with strong condition evidence may simply be the cases with genuinely worse properties. What the data supports: the tribunal engages seriously with the evidence tenants submit, and the features above consistently accompany better tenant outcomes.
• Want the underlying data for reporting or research? Get in touch.

Frequently asked questions