VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Fair Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent of £850 per month for an assured periodic tenancy after considering comparable evidence and local rental values. The decision took effect from May 1, 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent determination based on comparable evidence and local rental values.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancyfair rent

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can also challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market, taking into account the periodic nature of the tenancy and excluding certain factors like improvements made by the tenant.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and local rental values.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a fair rent of £850 per month for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and local rental values, effective from May 1, 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/23UB/MNR/2025/0677

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [NAME], 15 Clarence Parade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 850.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 May 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 November 2021

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises 2-bedroom first floor flat.

[NAME] of Decision 16 June 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/23UB/MNR/2025/0677 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : [NAME] of Application :

Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 21st April 2025

Date of Decision : 16th June 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £850 per calendar month with effect from 1st May 2025.

SUMMARY REASONS

HAV/23UB/MNR/2025/0677

Background 1. On 28th February 2025 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £875 per month in place of the existing rent of £575 per month to take effect from 1st May 2025.

2. On 21st April 2025 under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant. There were no written submissions from the Landlord.

5. The tenancy commenced on 1st November 2021 at a rent of £575 which has not been previously increased. Determination and Valuation 6. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be £900 per calendar month.

7. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings to all be provided by the Landlord.

8. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with white goods all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary.

9. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £900 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of white goods

£30 Disrepair

£20

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£850

10. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £850 per month.

HAV/23UB/MNR/2025/0677

11. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship. 12. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £850 per month should take effect from 1st May 2025 this being the date specified in the notice.

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tribunal determined the open market rent for the property in good condition was £900 per month.
  • The tenant's provision of white goods reduced the total rent payable.
  • The new rent was set to take effect from the date specified in the landlord's notice.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed new rent of £875 per month was not accepted by the tribunal.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision determined a fair rent of £850 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable evidence and local rental values, ensuring a fair rent determination.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of rental values in the area.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect a fair rent determination based on comparable evidence and local rental values.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable evidence and local rental values were important in making the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed within a month of the decision.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determination.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.