First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a property in its current condition, considering factors like disrepair and comparable rents in the area.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the condition of the property.
📖 What the law says
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 open-market rent based on various factors including the terms of the existing tenancy and any 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 its current condition.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in its current condition, taking into account the condition of the property and comparable rents in the area.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. JM/LON/00AJ/MNR/2022/0057
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 170 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tribunal Judge Hamilton-Farey
Landlord Mears [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [NAME]
1. The rent is: £ 270.41 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 04 April 2022
*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 May 2017
6. Length of the term or rental period 12 Months
7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Carpets, curtains and white goods provided at the start of the tenancy.
9. Description of premises Two-bedroomed first floor flat, close to local amenities and transport. Not modernised since the start of the tenancy.
Chairman Tribunal Judge Aileen Hamilton-Farey Date of Decision 10 June 2022
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : JM/LON/00AJ/MNR/2022/0057 HMCTS CODE ; P:Paper Determination. Property : 170 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. Applicant : [redacted] Representative : In person. Respondent : [redacted] (First Project) [COMPANY]. Representative : In person. Type of [NAME] : Decision under S.13 Housing Act 1988. Tribunal member(s) : Tribunal Judge Aileen Hamilton- Farey. Date of decision : 10 June 2022. Reasons dated 13 June 2022.
DECISION
2 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote paper determination which has been consented to/not objected to by the parties. The form of determination was P:Paper Remote A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined on the papers. The tribunal was provided with the Notice of Increase and submissions from the landlord and tenant. Including details of comparable properties. Decision: The Tribunal determines the market rent for the property in its current condition to be £270.41 per week. The determination takes effect from 4 April 2022. The reasons for the tribunal’s decision are below. Background:
1. The tenant, Ms. [APPELLANT] entered into an assured shorthold tenancy agreement of the premises on 2 May 2017. The property is a two bedroom, living room kitchen and bathroom first floor flat, close to local amenities including transport links.
2. The landlord served a notice of increase under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 on or around 21 February 2022 proposing a rent increase from $251.50 per week to £270.41 per week with effect from 4 April 2022. At the start of the tenancy the rent passing was £229.65 3. Ms. [NAME] referred that notice to the tribunal on 1 April 2022. The Tenant’s Evidence:
4. Ms. [APPELLANT] says that the property is in poor condition and that repairs have not been carried out, or have taken some time to be carried out by the landlord. She says that the bathroom fittings are old and worn, as are the carpets, which were affected by a water leak, but not replaced by the landlord. She has provided evidence from her local nurse to substantiate the flooding claim. This letter is dated 18 December 2017 and therefore precedes the notice of increase by over four years.
5. Ms [NAME] also says that the furnishings in the property are damaged, are of poor quality and require replacement, the wallpaper has been painted over with poor quality paint and that cracks are appearing in plasterwork. In her opinion the property requires redecoration and refurbishing.
6. She finally says that she was told this property would be let at a London Affordable Rent, and that her salary has decreased due to the rise in National Insurance contributions, with the rent rising 18%. Several photographs have been supplied in evidence. The Landlord’s Evidence:
3 7. Mr. [COUNSEL] the landlord’s representative provided details of similar properties for rent in the local area, the rentals of which varied from £1,300 - £1,350 per calendar month. This equates to £300 - £311 per week.
8. The landlord has no made any comment regarding the allegations of disrepair. Determination:
9. The tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining what the market rent for the property would be if presented to the market in its’ current condition. We cannot take into consideration the personal circumstances of the landlord or tenant, nor can we take into consideration whether this is an ‘affordable rent’.
10. Taking into consideration that some of the fixtures and fittings are showing signs of age, the tribunal finds that the landlord would have to reduce the asking rent to reflect the fact that the property was not newly refurbished.
11. The tribunal is also aware that some of the evidence relied on by the applicant in relation to the water leak is very old, and her evidence confirms that the leak was repaired the day it was reported, and therefore no longer relevant for rental purposes.
12. In the circumstances, the tribunal confirms the rent as set out in the notice of increase at £270.41 per week, with effect from 4 April 2022, and that this rental reflects the slightly dated fixtures and fitting sin the property. Name: [NAME]-Farey Date: 13 June 2022.
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 a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not
4 complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
5 THE LAW:
S.13 The Housing Act 1988. – Increases of rent under assured periodic tenancies: 13(1); This section applies to – (a) A statutory periodic tenancy other than one which, by virtue of paragraph 11 or paragraph 12 in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, cannot for the time being an assured tenancy; and (b) Ant other periodic tenancy, which is an assured tenancy, other than one in relation to which there is a provision, for the time being binding on the tenant, under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period. 13(2) For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy6 specified in the notice, being a period beginning not earlier than – (a) The minimum period after the date of the service of the notice; and (b) Except in the case of a statutory periodic tenancy – a. In the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the first period of the tenancy began. b. In any other case, on the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; and c. If the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased by virtue of a notice under this subsection or a determination under S.14 i. In the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the increased rent took effect. ii. In any other case, the appropriate date. (3) the minimum period referred to in subsection (2) above is. (a) in the case of a yearly tenancy, six months. (b) in the case of tenancy is less than a month, one month, and (c) in any other case, a period equal to the period of the tenancy.
6 (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 of the dwelling house concerned, or are payable under separate agreements. S.14 Determination of rent by the tribunal: (1) Where under subsection (4)(a) of Section 13, a tenant refers to the appropriate tribunal a notice under subsection (2) if that section, the appropriate tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to section (2) and (4) above, the appropriate tribunal consider that the dwelling house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord 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 notices relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of the grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to the Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates. (2) In [NAME] a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded – (a) any effect on the cost 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 immediate landlord, or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement 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.
7
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Under Housing Act 1988
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Additional Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Stack Pipe Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Granted Urgent Repair Dispensation Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Limitation Ruling by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Substandard Property - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Booster Pump Repairs
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 determination should reflect the property's condition.
- The rent determination should consider the property's market value.
- Proper consultation must be conducted before charging service fees.
- Dispensation from consultation requirements is allowed for urgent repairs.
- Further consultation can be waived if it would cause undue financial burden.
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 its current condition was set at £270.41 per week.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over rent increase.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court considered the condition of the property and comparable rents in the area to determine the market rent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The condition of the property and the need to reflect this in the rent were the most important arguments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, as the rent was reduced to reflect the condition of the property.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their property is well-maintained to avoid rent reductions.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the property's condition and comparable rental prices in the area were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.
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 determinations.
