Westminster Policy News & Legislative Analysis

Property Chamber Fees Order Starts Renters’ Rights Cases

From 1 May 2026, the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal has a live fee regime for new and amended case types created by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The Ministry of Justice presents the Order as the first operational stage of a wider reform of Property Chamber charging, intended to make fees more consistent and recover a larger share of running costs while keeping lower charges where access to justice is more sensitive. (commonsbusiness.parliament.uk)

The change does not create a separate tribunal. It amends the existing First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees Order 2013 and applies in practice to Property Chamber proceedings relating to property in England. The Explanatory Memorandum says the instrument had to proceed by affirmative resolution because it introduces fees for routes that were previously free or did not yet exist. (commonsbusiness.parliament.uk)

The most immediate effect for tenants is on rent challenges. The Ministry of Justice says that applications under new sections 14(A1) and 14(A3) of the Housing Act 1988, covering first-six-month rent determinations and challenges to proposed rent increases in the private rented sector, now carry a £47 application fee and no hearing fee. It also states that where a landlord proposed the increase before 1 May 2026, the appeal remains fee-free even if the case reaches the tribunal after that date. (commonsbusiness.parliament.uk)

The same low-fee model has been applied to challenges over the terms of an assured periodic tenancy that succeeds from a regulated tenancy under the Rent Act 1977. In policy terms, the department says these cases were placed in the lowest tier because affordability and housing stability are more acute than in many other tribunal claims. (commonsbusiness.parliament.uk)

A different charging model applies where a landlord or letting agent appeals a new civil financial penalty created by the Renters’ Rights Act. The Explanatory Memorandum and ministers told Parliament that appeals linked to new duties in the assured periodic tenancy regime, discrimination against tenants with children or in receipt of benefits, rent advertisement rules, and unlawful eviction or harassment will attract a £200 application fee and a £300 hearing fee. A further penalty appeal route tied to section 6A of the Housing Act 2004 is in the scheme, but will only take effect once that provision is fully commenced. (commonsbusiness.parliament.uk)

The Order also brings the Act’s new rent repayment order routes into the existing lower band rather than moving them to the standard rate. That leaves these cases at £114 to apply and £227 for a hearing, even as the list of qualifying offences expands to include misuse of possession grounds, reletting or remarketing during the restricted period after using those grounds, and continuing breaches of tenancy reform duties. (commonsbusiness.parliament.uk)

In parliamentary and departmental material, the policy case is cost recovery rather than full user funding. The Ministry of Justice says only 145 of around 250 Property Chamber application types currently attract any fee, while the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee records an estimate that the broader standard-fee reset would raise recovery from about 12% of costs to about 21%. Ministers also said the average cost to the taxpayer of a Property Chamber case is more than £900, and that some public subsidy will remain. (publications.parliament.uk)

For housing advisers, the practical distinction is now sharper. Tenant rent challenges remain intentionally cheap, landlord penalty appeals sit on the standard fee track, and rent repayment cases stay on the lower existing band. The Help with Fees remission scheme remains available, exemptions remain for urgent safety cases, later phases of the wider reform are planned for July 2026 and January 2027 subject to ministerial decisions, and the Ministry of Justice did not prepare a full impact assessment because it judged the financial effect of this instrument to be minimal. (hansard.parliament.uk)