Across 21 recorded conversations, the rent-review pain points letting agents raise most are manual workload, tools that do not connect to their CRM, tribunal delay, and thin comparable evidence. Most trace back to the change in force since 1 May 2026, which made every rent increase in England's private rented sector a statutory, annual, evidence-based process.

We have spoken with letting agents of all sizes across England. In 21 recorded conversations with 20 agencies, the same 13 problems kept coming up. What follows is how those concerns rank, by the number of agencies that raised each. No agency is named and every quote is anonymised.

One caveat on the sample: these were agencies looking at rent-review software, so read the counts as a ranking of concerns, not a market-wide survey.

The 13 pain points, ranked

  1. Manual rent-review workload eating staff capacity (10 of 20 agencies)
  2. Rent-review tooling that does not connect to the agency's CRM (9)
  3. Tribunal delay and exposure making reviews feel risky (8)
  4. Thin comparable evidence from their own portfolio (8)
  5. Statutory rent and tenancy dates not held in the CRM (7)
  6. Justifying the rent-review fee to landlords (6)
  7. Getting the prescribed Section 13 form right (6)
  8. Comparables going stale (6)
  9. Uncertainty about what is correct under the new regime (5)
  10. Tenants not responding to notices (4)
  11. Keeping a written record alongside phone conversations (3)
  12. Landlords selling up (2)
  13. Comparable addresses exposing rents in shared blocks (1)
Bar chart ranking the 13 rent-review pain themes by the number of agencies raising each, from manual workload (10 of 20 agencies) down to comparable privacy in shared blocks (1)

Grouped, they tell one story: the work, the data, and the risk.

The work: every review is now a statutory process

Workload is the heaviest theme. Reviews and Section 13 notices done by hand eat staff time and pull property managers off their portfolios. One agency put it plainly:

I need it to get to a point where I could go on holiday, leave it for any of the team to do.

The law explains why. Since 1 May 2026, every private assured tenancy in England is periodic, and the only lawful way to raise the rent is a Section 13 notice on Form 4A, served at least two months ahead, no more than once a year, starting on the first day of a rent period.[1][2][3] Rent review clauses no longer have effect and fixed terms are gone. With no renewal moment to absorb the negotiation, the annual Section 13 cycle now carries the whole managed book.[3]

Six agencies worried about getting the form right, with reason. Form 4A is prescribed. A letter will not do, and the current version lives on GOV.UK.[4] It asks for more than most templates produce: every tenant's name, the dates behind the 52-week timing calculation and the anti-drift check that can push it to 53, and a table of any charges in the rent.[2] Three agencies wanted phone negotiations captured in writing. The statute leans the same way. Any post-notice agreement to change or delay the increase must be in writing, and the form's guidance requires evidence that you served the notice.[1][2]

The data: what your systems hold, and what they don't

Nine agencies said rent-review tools have to connect to the CRM that already holds their portfolio, or they just create double work. Seven went further. The data a valid notice depends on, the tenancy start date and the dates of past increases, is often not in their CRM at all. These are not optional fields. Form 4A asks for them because they drive the statutory timing rules.[2]

The other data problem is evidence. The statutory benchmark is the open market rent: the rent the property might reasonably be expected to be let for in the open market by a willing landlord.[5] Government guidance tells challenging tenants to gather evidence from similar nearby properties,[6] so expect a challenged figure to be tested against comparables.

Three findings sit under that heading:

  • Eight agencies said a small or scattered portfolio cannot build a convincing range on its own.
  • Six said stored comparables only feel reliable for about a month.
  • One raised a quieter problem: flat-level comparable addresses in a tenant-facing pack can show neighbours each other's rents. Worth a policy before it comes up.

The risk: delay, silence, and untested rules

Eight agencies described the tribunal as the thing that makes reviews feel futile: long waits and lost income while a referral sits in the queue. The mechanics changed on 1 May 2026:

  • A tenant can refer the proposed figure to the First-tier Tribunal for £47, and must do so before the start date on the notice.[6]
  • The tribunal cannot set the rent above the figure on your notice.[7]
  • The increase is never backdated.
  • Where the decision comes after the proposed start date, the existing rent stays payable until the first rent period on or after the decision.[7][2]

The real exposure is time. In the old regime's published record, the median wait from application to decision was 124 days (MarketRent analysis of published First-tier Tribunal decisions, n=604 with an application date).[8] Our analysis of 1,000+ tribunal rent decisions unpacks what that record can and cannot tell you.

Five agencies voiced a broader unease. As one put it: "None of us really know what's correct because it's not been tried in a court of law." On outcomes under the new Act, that is fair. Too few new-regime decisions have been published to show a pattern, and we make no claims about them.[8] The process is another matter. The form, the dates, and the service requirements are all prescribed in detail.[1][2] You control a valid notice and an evidenced figure. The rest is the queue.

Tenant silence, raised by four agencies, is the everyday case, and the statute answers it. A valid notice takes effect on its start date unless the tenant refers it to the tribunal or agrees a change in writing.[1][2]

Six agencies struggle to justify the review fee to landlords. Those who charge separately told us £100 to £200 per review is typical; others fold it into the management fee. Two pointed at landlords selling up. The strongest answer to both is the work made visible: an evidenced figure, a correctly served notice, and a documented outcome.

What does this mean for your process?

Thirteen themes, one diagnosis: a statutory, annual, evidence-based process running on tools built for a different regime. That is the gap MarketRent closes. It checks the statutory date rules on every Section 13 notice and blocks invalid dates, builds an evidence pack that sets comparables alongside ONS-based indexation context, and documents every review from proposal to outcome.

The complete guide to rent reviews under the Renters' Rights Act covers the statutory process end to end, what evidence supports a rent increase covers the evidence discipline, and the Free Rent Indexation Tool gives an instant indexed reference point from published ONS data, no account needed.

This article is general information for letting agents in England, not legal advice.

Sources

  1. Housing Act 1988, section 13, as amended (rent increase notices)
  2. Form 4A, landlord's notice proposing a new rent for private rented sector tenancies (GOV.UK, version 05.26)
  3. Guide to the Renters' Rights Act (MHCLG, GOV.UK)
  4. Assured tenancy forms (GOV.UK)
  5. Housing Act 1988, section 14, as amended (determination of rent by tribunal)
  6. Apply for an open market rent determination (GOV.UK guidance)
  7. Renters' Rights Act 2025, section 7 (challenging amount or increase of rent)
  8. MarketRent analysis of published First-tier Tribunal decisions, July 2026 (decisions corpus on GOV.UK)