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 the fair market rent for a property in Hemel Hempstead, considering minor issues and the absence of gas heating. The rent was set at £1375 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property, adjusted for any deficiencies or improvements.

Topics

rent determinationassured shorthold tenancyproperty valuation

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section 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 the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Hemel Hempstead, considering minor defects and the lack of gas-fired central heating.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Hemel Hempstead, taking into account minor defects and the lack of gas-fired central heating, setting the rent at £1375 per calendar month.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/26UC/MNR/2024/0057 Property : 36 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative : None Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 13 May 2024 (on Papers) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 13 May 2024

REASONS FOR

DECISION Background 1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 14 March 2024 from the tenant of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent, served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act). 2 The notice, dated 27 February 2024, proposed a new rent of £1350 per calendar month with effect from and including 2 April 2024. The passing rent was stated in the notice, as £1150 per calendar month from an earlier unspecified date.

2 3 The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy. A copy of the tenancy and of the landlord’s Notice was provided. Inspection 4 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property internally but viewed the exterior from a [ADDRESS] image of the Property as seen from the public road (taken @ November 2022). The Property is a two bedroom purpose built flat in a modern, perhaps 1990’s, large 5/ 6 level block of similar flats. This block is located above a 3 layer multi storey car park for residents parking. The flat and the block in which it is located forms part of a larger established modern high density residential estate from the same period. The block within which the Property is located fronts on to an extremely large and busy multi lane traffic roundabout serving mainly local traffic, not far north of Hemel Hempstead town centre. 5 The external face of the walls appear to be mainly of brick finish. The roof to the block appears to low monopitch or flat. The windows are double glazed and there is electrical storage heating. There are communal areas to and around the block. The parking provision is within the car park under the block. There is a lift to all levels. 6 The Property accommodation is on one level on the fifth floor: 2 bedrooms, bathroom wc, living room, kitchen, open private balcony. There are no stated tenants improvements or additions. 7 The Property was said to be let with carpets, curtains, and white goods and included the following initial furniture provision: double bed frame and mattress, wardrobe, dining table and 4 chairs, 2 person sofa, nest of tables, sideboard. Representations 8 Directions, dated 18 March 2024, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [APPELLANT]. Neither party requested a hearing. The tenant filed a standard Reply Form together with details supplied in their initial application form and made reference to repairs issues. The landlord also completed the standard Reply Form and made reference to local lettings. 9 The tenant supplied the standard completed Reply Form with details of a series of issues within the interior of the flat. Many of these appeared to be historic from 2020 – 2022 and then onwards into 2023. They related to minor service failings and furniture deficiencies. 10 The tenant referred variously in their statement, to minor defects of 2020 and early 2021. Then to later ones; including: 10.9.21: “…fridge freezer not working properly”. 17.10.21: “…ceiling light in the lounge is not working at all.” 27.12.21: “two light bulbs have already burned out from the new ceiling light in the lounge… no further action has

3 been taken by the landlord” 24.5.22: “There seems to be a problem with the washing machine… the landlord replaced the washing machine.” 23.8.22: “The toilet cistern is leaking. It was fixed but the plumber had to break a large tile.” 4.10.22 “no action has been taken regarding replacing the tile.” 11,2,23: “Kitchen tap leaking. The landlord replaced it.” 11 Then May 2023 “the lift near the flat broke down in May 2023 and it is still out of order.” And more recently: 27 November 2023 “The plumber came on Saturday. He said he was going to recommend a complete replacement of the immersion heater… there was significant damage to the carpet…The immersion heater was replaced. No action taken regarding the damaged carpet in the immersive heater room and in front of it.” 12 The landlord responded to repairs issues raised, including copies of some works invoices showing that remedial work or replacement items had been arranged at the Property over the years. 13 The landlord also included the following representations as to the new rent and local lettings. “Please find enclosed report from Rightmove.co.uk showing similar properties marketed and let agreed in the same area and within 0.25 miles of this property. These properties have been marketed and let by various agents in the area.. The lowest rent showing is £1400 pcm. The rent asked from the tenant is £1350 pcm.” 14 The Tribunal is grateful for and has carefully considered such written representations as it received, from parties. Law 15 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that it is in a reasonable internal decorative condition. Decision 16 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Hemel Hempstead, it determines that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1450 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order at the valuation date April 2024. 17 Although there have been some minor defects to the Property these were over an extended letting period and are nothing out of the

4 ordinary for a let flat. There was no major issue affecting the enjoyment of the space at or around the valuation date. 18 However the property lacked landlords gas fired central heating, being served instead by electrical storage heaters. The Tribunal therefore makes a modest deduction of £75 pcm to reflect this, leaving the new market rent at £1375 per calendar month. 19 The new rent of £1375 pcm is payable from and including the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice, 2 April 2024. The landlord may charge any rent up to and including £1375 pcm but is not obliged to. It may not charge a rent in excess of this figure. [NAME] 13 May 2024 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013). If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 a market rent of £1450 per calendar month for the property, assuming it was fully fitted and in good order.
  • The property's lack of gas-fired central heating, relying instead on electrical storage heaters, justified a rent reduction.
  • A modest deduction of £75 per calendar month was applied to the market rent due to the electrical storage heating.
  • The new market rent was set at £1375 per calendar month, payable from April 2, 2024.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the market rent for a property at £1375 per month, after considering minor defects and the lack of gas heating.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the market conditions and the condition of the property, adjusting for minor defects and the lack of gas heating.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied to determine the fair market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and its comparability to similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant, as the rent was set lower than initially proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and compare it to similar properties in the area.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of minor defects and the condition of the property, along with comparable rental prices, were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if they disagree with the ruling.

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

It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent disputes.

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.