VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair market rent for a property, considering comparable evidence and making adjustments for amenities provided by the tenant.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment that reflects the actual conditions of the property, including tenant-provided amenities.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, the tribunal will determine a fair market rent considering the conditions of the property, including any improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for a property based on comparable evidence and adjustments for tenant-provided amenities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £595 per month for a property, taking into account comparable evidence and adjustments for amenities provided by the tenant.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HH/MNR/2025/0688

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 House to [RESPONDENT] c/o [APPELLANT], 35 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 595.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 7 May 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 7 October 2017

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises 1 bedroom flat with Shower room.

[NAME] of Decision 21 July 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HH/MNR/2025/0688 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Miss [COUNSEL] :

None

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

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] J [NAME] of Application : 2nd May 2025 Date of Decision : 21st July 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £595 per calendar month with effect from 7th May 2025.

HAV/00HH/MNR/2025/0688

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 31st March 2025 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £625 per month in place of the existing rent of £500 per month to take effect from 7th May 2025.

2. On 2nd May 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 and the Landlord. 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 tenantable condition would be £625 per calendar month.

6. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings 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. The Tribunal has made the adjustments for the Tenant’s provision of curtains and some white goods.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £625 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of white goods

£20 Tenant’s provision of curtains

£10

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£595

HAV/00HH/MNR/2025/0688

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 £595 per month.

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 £595 per month should take effect from 7th 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 tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment that reflects the actual conditions of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the actual condition and amenities of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and local rental values.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value adjusted for the property's condition.
  • The Tribunal must determine the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and the condition of the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided on a fair market rent of £595 per month for the property.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered comparable evidence and adjusted the rent for amenities provided by the tenant.

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 need to adjust the rent based on the actual conditions of the property.

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 may also have their rent adjusted based on the actual conditions of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable evidence and documentation regarding the property's condition were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed according to the appeal provisions outlined in the judgment.

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.