VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets £800/month Rent for Assured Tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on the fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the rent at £800 per month, effective from 14 September 2024, after reviewing comparable evidence and the condition of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for the condition of the property and any additional provisions made by the tenant, as seen in this case where the rent was adjusted due to the age and condition of the carpets and the tenant's provision of a fridge.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a rent of £800 per month after considering the condition of the property and the tenant's provision of a fridge.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a fair market rent of £800 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from 14 September 2024. The Tribunal considered comparable evidence and the condition of the property to reach this decision.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00MS/MNR/2024/0502

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] [COMPANY], 142 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 800.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 14 September 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per n/a

*4. Service charges are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 14 April 2017

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

9. Description of premises Second floor 1-bedroom flat with parking space

[NAME] of Decision 21 October 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00MS/MNR/2024/0502 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Landlord : Ms [COUNSEL] : [RESPONDENT] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 13th August 2024 Date of Summary Reasons :

21st October 2024

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £800 per calendar month with effect from 14th September 2024.

HAV/00MS/MNR/2024/0502

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 13th August 2024 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £850 per month in place of the existing rent of £725 per month to take effect from 14th September 2024.

2. On the same date 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 Parties. Determination and Valuation 5. 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 tenable condition would be in the region of £850 per calendar month.

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

7. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with white goods, carpets and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for Tenant’s provision of fridge and condition of carpets.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £850 Less deductions for:- Tenant’s provision of fridge

£10

Age and condition of carpets

£40

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£800

9. 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 £800 per month.

HAV/00MS/MNR/2024/0502

3 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £800 per month should take effect from 14th September 2024, 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. Ay 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 that the open market rent for the property in good condition would be £850 per month.
  • The Tribunal reduced the rent by £10 because the tenant provided the fridge.
  • The Tribunal reduced the rent by £40 due to the age and condition of the carpets.
  • The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the landlord's notice because the tenant did not claim hardship.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the monthly rent at £800 for an assured tenancy.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the appropriate rent for an assured tenancy, considering the condition of the property and the tenant's provision of a fridge.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £800 per month, taking into account the condition of the property and the tenant's provision of a fridge.

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 condition of the property and the tenant's provision of a fridge.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their rent to be adjusted based on the condition of the property and any tenant-provided amenities.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property and the tenant's provision of a fridge were the key factors considered by the court.

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.