VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a property under an assured tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and nearby rental prices. The decision excluded any improvements made by the tenant and considered fixed service charges.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the reasonable market value of the property, excluding any tenant improvements.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancyservice charges

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 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 rent based on what a willing landlord would expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This determination excludes the impact of improvements made by the tenant and any reduction due to the tenant's non-compliance with the tenancy terms.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property under an assured tenancy, considering various factors including service charges.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property under an assured tenancy, considering the property's condition and nearby rental prices, while excluding tenant improvements and fixed service charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: LON/00BE/MNR/2021/0050

HMCTS Code

: P:PAPERREMOTE

Property

: 302 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Landlord

: [COMPANY]

Tenant

: [NAME] [APPELLANT] of Application: Determination of a market rent under The Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Tribunal Member : [NAME] of Decision : 6 July 2021

_______________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF REASONS

____________________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

2

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing: This has been a remote hearing on the papers. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. Both parties did not object to the Tribunal making their decision on the papers sent in and without a hearing or an inspection.

Background

1. This is an application dated 28 January 2021 to the First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber by the Tenant of the above property [NAME] [APPELLANT] under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”), referring a notice served on him by the [COMPANY] proposing a new rent of £160.08 per week in place of the existing rent of £157.59 per week.

2. The Landlord’s notice was dated 25 January 2021 and the date inserted in the notice for the commencement of the new rent was 5 April 2021.

3. The tenancy under which [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] occupy the property is a periodic tenancy which commenced on 5 March 2003, according to the copy unsigned tenancy agreement.

The Property

4. 302 Tunnel Mills is a third floor one bedroom flat situated withing a block of flats.

5. The accommodation comprises living room, kitchen, one bedroom and a bathroom.

6. The property is unfurnished.

7. The property has access to a roof garden.

Tenant’s improvements

8. The Tenants have carried out no improvements.

Landlord’s written representations

9. No submissions were received by the Landlord.

Tenant’s written representations

10. No further submissions were sent by the Tenant, but the application form refers to the service charge being disputed as the caretaker should be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the building.

3

The Law

11. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy.

12. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1) ignored the effect on the rental value of any relevant Tenant’s improvements as defined in section 14 (2) of that Act.

The Decision

13.The Tribunal’s decision was sent to both parties.

14. By email dated 6 July 2021 the tenant stated that he still felt that the service charges were very high and would like to appeal. The Tribunal is therefore giving detailed reasons for its decision.

Reasons for the Decision

15. In the first instance the Tribunal determined what rent the Landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by having regard to the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels.

16. The Tribunal noted that there were two one bedroom flats in the vicinity of the subject property were with asking rents of £300 and £346 per week.

a. [ADDRESS] – 5th floor one bedroom flat with balcony in a purpose built block of flats. The asking rent is £346 per week which includes the service charge for concierge service and the fitness suite. The property is furnished with carpets and curtains.

b. [ADDRESS] – one bedroom flat in a converted warehouse. The asking rent is £300, having been reduced on 17 November 2021. There is a daytime concierge. The property is furnished with curtains and a carpet in the bedroom.

17. The Tribunal considered the subject property did not have the same facilities as the above mentioned properties and concluded that the likely market rent would be £200 per week.

18. The Tribunal considered a further deduction of £40 per week in respect of the carpets, curtains and white goods which were provided by the Tenants.

4

19. The Tribunal therefore confirmed that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let would be £160.08 per week which included the fixed service charge.

20. This rent will take effect from 5 April 2021 being the date specified in the notice.

21. Under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal is obliged to determine a rent for the property. In a case, such as this, if there are fixed service charges, then the rent to be determined is a rent inclusive of the service charges. Therefore, there is no specific determination as to the level of the service charges. If the service charges had been variable (adjusting within the year, to reflect any increase or decrease in the charges payable), then the Tenant would have been able to make an application under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination of the reasonableness and payability of service charges.

22. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), on a point of law only. Any such application must be made to the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days of this decision (Rule 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

[NAME]

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BE/MNR/2021/0050

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 302 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY], 3 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 160.08 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 05 July 2021

*3. The amount included for services is: 37.82 Per Week

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 05 March 2003

6. Length of the term or rental period Periodic Tenancy

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

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises One bedroom flat on third floor with roof garden

[NAME] of Decision Monday 5th July 2021

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 market rent based on its general knowledge of market rent levels.
  • The Tribunal considered comparable one-bedroom flats in the vicinity to assess market rent.
  • A deduction was made for carpets, curtains, and white goods provided by the tenants.
  • The determined rent included the fixed service charge, as required by law for assured tenancies.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on the market rent for a property under an assured tenancy.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the reasonable market value of the property, considering nearby rental prices and the property's condition.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property's condition and rental prices with similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the landlord, setting the rent at £160.08 per week.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the market conditions and comparable rental prices when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition, nearby rental prices, and any disputes over service charges were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law only.

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

Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determinations.

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.