VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent at £1,250 PCM

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal assessed the market rent for a property in Margate based on comparable properties and the condition of the house. The new rent was set at £1,250 per month starting from November 30, 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent assessed by the First-tier Tribunal based on current market conditions and the state of repair of the property.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent assessment

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to propose increases in rent under specific conditions. The notice proposing the new rent must specify a period starting at least two months after the notice is served. Additionally, if the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can only be proposed after a longer period, typically a year.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

Under this section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, there is an implied obligation for landlords to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, along with essential installations for utilities and heating, in good repair and working order. However, the landlord is not required to perform repairs that affect only common parts unless the tenant uses those parts as defined by law.

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

📖 Technical summary

Tribunal determined the market rent for a property based on comparable properties and condition of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a property based on comparable properties and condition of the property. The new rent was set at £1,250 per calendar month effective from November 30, 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

HAV/29UN/MNR/2025/0826

Property [ADDRESS] Kent [POSTCODE]

Tenant

Mr [COUNSEL] and Ms E [COUNSEL]

Tenant’s Representative

None

Landlord

Mr [COUNSEL]

Landlord’s Address

Landlord’s [NAME] of Application

24th November 2025

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

Tribunal Members [NAME] [NAME] of Decision

23rd March 2026

Rent Determined

£1,250 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

30th November 2025

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 8th October 2025, [NAME] served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,300 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,250 pcm to take effect from 30th November 2025.

2. On 24th November 2025, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenants referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 30th August 2023 for a term of 12 months at an initial rent of £1,200 pcm.. 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 curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. None

Liability for Council Tax

6. The Tenants are 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. A new rent of £1,250 pcm was agreed to take effect from 30th November 2024.

Inspection/Hearing

8. Neither party requested an 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.

The Property

3

9. The Property is stated to be a 3-storey semi-detached house with no garden or parking space, offering the following accommodation:

Living room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms, bathroom, additional small room.

The Property benefits from gas-fired central heating and double glazing.

The Property is situated in a residential area of Margate approximately ¼ mile from Margate Beach.

Evidence

10. Both the Tenant and [NAME] made submissions.

The Tenants.

11. The Tenants made the following comments:

a) The proposed rent is excessive considering the absence of any garden or parking, limited amenities in the CT9 postcode area, general condition and age.

b) The additional small room has a floor area of 5.16 square metres which is not large enough to be considered a bedroom; fixtures and fittings are dated; there is general wear and tear throughout and frequent mould issues. Internal photographs were provided in support of these assertions.

c) The Tenants refer to comparable properties advertised at £1,195 pcm and £1,300 pcm both of which have a garden and parking and suggest that the market rent should be £1,275 pcm.

d) The Tenants challenged the validity of the Notice of Rent increase based on it having been served less than 12 months from the date of the last rent increase.

[NAME]

a) [NAME] provided a form which stated that only carpets, net curtains and a cooker are provided. They also provided a link to a list of properties available to rent but not of actual rents achieved.

b) [NAME] had written to the Tenants on 20th October 2025 explaining that a notice to increase the rent can be served less than 12

4

months after the date of the last rent increase but the date specified for any new rent must not be less than 12 months from the date of the last actual increase in rent.

Determination and Valuation

12. The Tribunal first considered the Tenants’ assertion that the Notice of Rent Increase might be invalid. The Tenants had misunderstood the Government guidance note in this regard. The Tribunal determined that the Notice was valid.

13. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the submissions, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1,350 pcm. This is the rent we would expect the property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as the comparable properties including having white goods and curtains provided by the landlord.

14. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following:

a) The Tenants provision of some white goods. b) The Tenants provision of curtains. c) General wants of repair

The full valuation is shown below:

Starting Rent

£1,350 pcm

Less a) Items given under a) above

£20 b) Items given under b) above

£20

c) Items given under c) above

£60

£100 pcm

Market rent

£1,250 pcm

Undue hardship

12. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination. The Tenants made no representations in this respect.

5

Decision

13. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,250 per calendar month with effect from 30th November 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:

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

  • Rent should be assessed based on current market conditions.
  • Rent should reflect the actual condition of the property.
  • Rent increases must be justified by comparable rental values.
  • Landlord's proposal must consider any contributions made by the tenant.
  • Rent setting must account for environmental factors affecting the property's value.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The market rent for a property in Margate was determined to be £1,250 pcm effective from November 30, 2025.

Who was involved?

A tenant and the landlord's representative were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable properties and the condition of the property to determine a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in this case.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition and amenities of the property compared to comparable properties influenced the decision.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, setting a rent lower than initially proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants can challenge proposed rent increases through the First-tier Tribunal based on market conditions and property condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the property's condition and comparable rental listings were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on points of law within 28 days.

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

It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.