First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
📌 In brief
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set the rent at £595 per month for an assured periodic tenancy after reviewing documents submitted by both the tenant and landlord. No hearing was held as neither party requested one.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at what a a person might reasonably expect in the open market, excluding service charges and considering the terms of the existing tenancy.
📖 What the law says
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. The tribunal will determine the rent that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This determination considers the property's condition and rental values in the area, such as Gillingham.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on written submissions without holding a hearing.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent of £595 per month for an assured periodic tenancy based on written submissions from both parties without holding a hearing. The tribunal considered the property's condition and rental values in Gillingham.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/00LC/MNR/2023/0171
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] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [NAME] [RESPONDENT] 16 [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: 27 July 2023
3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 27 December 2020
5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly
6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord
7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord
8. Description of premises A single room with ensuite within an HMO. Rent includes energy, council tax and internet access.
[NAME] of Decision 21 August 2023
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/00LC/MNR/2023/0171 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicant Tenant : Ms [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] Mr [NAME] of Inspection : None. Paper determination Date of Decision :
21st August 2023
DECISION
CHI/29UE/MNR/2023/0162
2
Summary of Decision
1. On 21st August 2023 Tribunal determined a market rent of ££595 per month to take effect from 27th July 2023.
Background 2. The case concerned the determination of a market rent for the subject property following a referral of the Landlord’s notice of increase of rent by the Tenant pursuant to sections 13 and 14 Housing Act 1988.
3. On 8th June 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £595 per month in place of the existing rent of £550 per month to take effect from 27th July 2023. The notice complied with the legal requirements.
4. On 6th July 2023 the Tenant applied to the Tribunal under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.
5. The Tribunal does not consider it necessary and proportionate in cases of this nature to undertake inspections or hold Tribunal hearings unless either are specifically requested by either party or a particular point arises which merits such an inspection and/or hearing.
6. The Tribunal issued directions on 14th July 2023 informing the parties that, unless either party objected, the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on written representations. The parties were invited to make submissions which could include photographs or videos.
7. The Landlord submitted papers by the specified date which were copied to the Tenant. The Tenant made no further representation after her application form.
8. Neither party objected to the matter being determined without an oral hearing, so the Tribunal determined the case on 21st August 2023 based on the written representations received. The Property 9. From the information given in the papers and available on the internet, the property comprises a single room with ensuite bathroom on the first floor of a three-storey inner-terraced house within a House in Multiple Occupation (“HMO”). There is also access to shared facilities including a kitchen.
10. The main building appears to be of solid masonry construction, itself within a residential area on the northeast side of Gillingham. All main amenities are available within the town.
11. The building has been converted into an HMO with five letting rooms. A licence for use as an HMO for a maximum of 5 persons, 5 households was issued by Medway Council on 17th March 2021. The Energy Performance rating for the whole building is ‘D’.
CHI/29UE/MNR/2023/0162
3 12. The property has gas-fired central heating and double-glazed windows. Carpets, curtains and white goods are provided as are charges for electricity, gas, water and sewage, council tax and internet. Limited furniture is also provided. On road parking is permit controlled and there is a communal garden. Submissions 13. The initial tenancy began on 27th December 2020.
14. The Landlord states that they have let rooms 2 and 3 in the building this year for rents of £595 per month.
15. The Tenant says that the property is in poor repair, that the fridge is small and has to be shared between 4 people, the kitchen is mouldy, and she has purchased two small electric appliances which were advertised as being included. The Tenant also says that the property was originally advertised as having a social living room with TV but there is no such facility. The Law
S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal
(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy-
(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.
(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded-
(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his [NAME], or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his [NAME] being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement
CHI/29UE/MNR/2023/0162
4 concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates, or the following conditions are satisfied, namely-
(a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling- house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit.
(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation.
Consideration and Valuation
16. The Tribunal first considered whether it felt able to reasonably and fairly decide this case based on the papers submitted only with no oral hearing. Having read and considered the papers it decided that it could do so.
17. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the Tenant are not relevant to this issue.
18. Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and associated correspondence and using its own judgement and knowledge of rental values in Gillingham the Tribunal decided that the market rent for the subject property is £595 per month.
19. 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. Determination 20. 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 [NAME] under the terms of this assured tenancy was £595 per month.
CHI/29UE/MNR/2023/0162
5 21. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £595 per month should take effect from 27th July 2023, this being the date specified in the notice.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Market Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Assured Tenancy Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property in Poor Condition
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 adjusted based on the property's condition.
- The rent should reflect the fair market value.
- Improvements made by the tenant can affect the rent adjustment.
- Rent adjustments should consider the terms of the existing tenancy.
- The tribunal should determine if the proposed rent increase is fair.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to challenge the proposed rent increase.
- The request was dismissed due to procedural issues.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The market rent of £595 per month was set for an assured periodic tenancy.
Who was involved?
A tenant and a landlord were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on written submissions from both parties without holding a hearing as it deemed it unnecessary.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied to determine the rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The condition of the property and rental values in Gillingham were key factors.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant as the rent increased from £550 to £595 per month.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a rent increase can apply to the First-tier Tribunal if they disagree with the landlord's proposed rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs, videos, and written representations from both parties were considered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the decision.
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.
