First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy
📌 In brief
In this case, a tenant challenged their landlord's proposed rent increase of £950.00 pcm to £875.00 pcm, arguing it caused undue hardship. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) reviewed the comparables and local rental values, setting the new rent at £925.00 pcm effective from August 1st.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 if they believe a proposed increase causes undue hardship or is not fair.
📖 What the law says
This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period, which cannot start sooner than two months after the notice is served. There are additional conditions for different types of tenancies regarding when the rent increase can take effect.
A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to the appropriate tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. The tribunal then determines the open-market rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let by a willing landlord.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy based on comparables and local rental values.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent at £925.00 pcm based on comparables and local rental values, rejecting undue hardship claims.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference BIR/OOCW/MNR/2025/0741
Property [ADDRESS] WV14 OBD Tenant [NAME]
Tenant’s Representative
Landlord [NAME]) [APPELLANT] c/o [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Landlord’s [COMPANY] of Application 5th June 2025
Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] (Chairman) Deputy District Judge Naomi Candlin
Date of Decision
22nd April 2026
Rent Determined
£925.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 1st August 2025
2
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Background
1. On 4th June 2025, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £950.00 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £875.00 pcm to take effect from 1st August 2025.
2. On 5th June 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.
3. The assured tenancy commenced in June 2022. The rental period is monthly.
Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.
4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtains and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.
5. None.
Liability for Council Tax
6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.
Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.
7. None.
Inspection/Hearing
8. Neither party requested an inspection or oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise.
3
The Property
9. Based on the information provided to it the Tribunal understands that the Property is a first floor flat in a three-storey block offering the following accommodation:
Lounge, Kitchen, two bedrooms, one having an en-suite and a family bathroom.
Outside there is off street parking.
The Property is understood to have central heating and double glazing. Carpets, curtains and white goods are provided by the Landlord.
The Property is situated in a modern residential area with mixed type properties nearby.
Evidence
10. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms.
The Tenant.
The Tenant made the following comments:
a) Common parts were scruffy and smelt of local drug use.
b) Nearby apartments were let at lower rents.
c) Comparables were provided. It was noted by the Tribunal that flats quoted at £825.00-£835.00 had only one bathroom.
d) Comparables of two flats each having two bathrooms, one on [ADDRESS] was offered at £925.00 pcm and another on [ADDRESS] was offered at £900.00 pcm. The Landlord The Landlord submitted: a) Comparables of numerous flats at rentals ranging from £995.00-£1025.00 pcm.
Determination and Valuation
11. The Tribunal considered the comparables provided by the Landlord and Tenant. This property is situated in an attractive residential area.
4
12. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Landlord, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property would be in the order of £925.00 pcm. There is no evidence provided by the parties of any significant disrepair (except possibly to common areas). The Tribunal has not therefore made any further deduction to reflect disrepair to the property.
Undue hardship
13. The Tenant has completed the Hardship form but states that the rent of £875.00 is paid by Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. The Form also states that the proposed increase causes undue hardship because the rent started at £750.00 pcm and that the Tenant thinks the Landlord will be looking to charge £1025.00 pcm in the coming year.
14. In this case, the Tribunal has assessed the rent at a lower figure than the Landlord proposed. It also appears that the rent is largely paid by Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. Therefore, the Tribunal determines that there is no evidence that the tenant will suffer undue hardship in this case. The rent increase is therefore confirmed from 1st August 2025, being the date of the Landlord’s Notice.
Decision
Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £925.00 per calendar month with effect from 1st August 2025.
APPEAL PROVISIONS
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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy in Kibworth
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets fair rent of £618.75 pcm for Ipswich flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent at £1,100 PCM for Birmingham Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Property Disrepair and Licensing Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
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 rent should be set at a fair market value considering the property's condition and comparables.
- The proposed rent increase must be justified by comparable rental values.
- The rent adjustment should consider the property's condition and compliance with local licensing requirements.
- The rent should be assessed based on current market conditions and the physical state of the property.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The rent determination must be based solely on fair market rates without additional considerations.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The market rent for an assured tenancy was set at £925.00 per month.
Who was involved?
A tenant and their landlord were involved in the dispute over rent increase.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal reviewed comparables and local rental values to determine a fair market rent of £925.00 pcm.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in determining the rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The comparables and local rental values provided by both parties influenced the decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially against the tenant, as the rent increase was confirmed but at a lower rate than proposed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it through the First-tier Tribunal if they believe it causes undue hardship or is unfair.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparables of rental prices and local rental values were crucial in determining the market rent.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on points of law within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
