VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a property in London, considering factors such as the condition of the property and disregarding any improvements made by the tenant.

⚖️ Legal holding

The tribunal must determine the rent at which a property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market by a willing landlord. When determining this rent, the tribunal must ignore any increase in value due to improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined the market rent for a property in London.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal determined the market rent for a property in London, taking into account the condition of the property and ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant's improvements.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AP/MNR/2019/0083

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]

Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT]

[APPELLANT] 361 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1150.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 20 September 2019

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/A Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 11 June 2018

6. Length of the term or rental period Yearly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11 Landlord & Tenant Act (1985)

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Fitted items, white goods and a bed.

9. Description of premises Small one bed flat with kitchen-diner, above parade of shops. Busy road but some parking available. Heating from electric wall heaters.

Chairman Mr [NAME] of Decision 20th September 2019

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2016

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : KA/LON/00AP/MNR/2019/0078 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord : [APPELLANT] Tenant : Mr [APPELLANT] of application :

Market rent determination in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal members : Judge P. Korn (Chairman) [NAME] of decision : 20th September 2019 Date of Reasons : 24th October 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 Decision of the tribunal

The FTT determines the rent to be £1,150.00 per calendar month, with effect from 20th September 2019. Background 1. On 15th July 2019 the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) received an application from the Tenant referring a notice proposing a new rent under his assured periodic tenancy of the Property.

2. The notice, which was served under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) and was dated 8th July 2019, proposed a rent of £1,150.00 per month with effect from 11th August 2019.

3. The Tenant sent written representations to the FTT. Neither party requested an oral hearing.

4. The Tenant has an assured periodic tenancy of the Property, and the tenancy is dated 11th June 2018. Inspection 5. The FTT inspected the Property on 20th September 2019 in the presence of the Tenant. The Property is a small one-bedroom first flat with a kitchen-diner above a parade of shops and opposite a school. It is on a busy road but there is some parking available.

6. The FTT found the common areas leading to the Property to be in poor decorative condition, but the interior of the Property itself was in good condition. Heating was from electric wall heaters. The white goods in the kitchen apart from the fridge belonged to the Landlord. The Law

7. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Act, the FTT 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. The FTT is also required to take into account the condition of the Property, save to the extent that any disrepair is due to the Tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

3 Valuation 8. The starting point is to determine the rent which the Landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the Property in the open market in the condition considered usual for a modern letting (“the initial valuation”). As the parties had not offered their own evidence on this point, the FTT used its general knowledge of property values in the area of N15.

9. Using its general knowledge of market rental levels for comparable properties in the area of N15, the FTT arrived at an initial valuation of £1,200.00 per month.

10. Adjustments then needed to be made to this initial valuation to take into account the actual condition of the Property.

11. Applying these principles to the Property, the FTT considered that it was appropriate to deduct £50.00 per month to reflect the lack of formal central heating but that otherwise no deductions were needed.

12.

Accordingly, the current market rent for the Property is £1,150.00 per calendar month.

Name: Judge P Korn Date: 24th October 2019

📊 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 the rent based on its general knowledge of property values in the area.
  • The tribunal deducted £50 per month from the initial valuation due to the lack of formal central heating.
  • The interior of the property was in good condition, which supported the rent determination.
  • The landlord provided fitted items, white goods, and a bed, which influenced the rent.

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 in London.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenant were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the condition of the property and disregarded any improvements made by the tenant.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property was a crucial factor in determining the market rent.

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 should consider the condition of their property when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property and the terms of the tenancy agreement were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is 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.