First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Central Doncaster Flat
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a one-bedroom flat in central Doncaster. They considered the flat's condition, lack of amenities, and location, setting the rent at £550 per month.
⚖️ Legal holding
The market rent for a property should reflect its condition and location.
📖 What the law says
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 open-market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under similar conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for a one-bedroom flat in central Doncaster.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the market rent for a one-bedroom flat in central Doncaster, taking into account the property's condition, lack of amenities, and location. The rent was set at £550 per month.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CE/MNR/2025/0625 Property : [NAME], Doncaster [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent : [redacted] Application : MARKET RENT DETERMINATION Section 14 Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : Judge A M Davies
A Hossain MRICS
Date of Decision : 7 April 2025
DECISION
The rent payable by the Applicant is £550 per month with effect from 11 January 2025.
REASONS 1. The Applicant has rented [NAME] from the Respondent since 11 November 2019. The initial rent was £450 per month, and was not increased until the Respondent served a notice on the Applicant under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 seeking a new rent of £625 to take effect on 11 January 2025. The Applicant did not agree that the proposed rent reflected the current market rent for the property, and applied to the Tribunal for a determination under section 14 of the Act.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
2. In response to the application, the Respondent indicated that she intended to make no representations to the Tribunal, and did not wish to attend a hearing. The Applicant indicated that he wished the Tribunal to hold a hearing. He supplied written representations prior to the hearing date and these were copied to the Respondent. The Applicant’s representations did not include details of the rents paid for any comparable properties.
3. A hearing was arranged in Sheffield for 7 April 2025. Prior to the hearing the Tribunal inspected [NAME] in the presence of the Applicant.
4. On inspection, the Tribunal found the property to be a one bedroomed flat on the top (5th) floor of a building in central Doncaster. The ground floor is either empty or let to commercial units. There are 4 upper floors of residential units. There was no working lift in the building, and no working door entry system. The flat is reached via a stone circular staircase giving access to all floors and a wide carpeted corridor on the fifth floor.
5. The flat is small, comprising an internal bathroom, a small double bedroom, a lobby with storage cupboard, and a kitchen/living room. The shape of the flat is irregular but overall measurement was estimated to be not more than approximately 35m2. The living room furniture supplied by the Respondent consists of a round table with 2 chairs, and a two-person settee. The flat is heated by electric panel heaters and has been well maintained by the Applicant, who has replaced the carpet, bed and chairs during his occupation. In the ground floor entrance lobby, a number of the tenants’ post boxes, including that of the Applicant, were broken and insecure.
6. During its inspection of the flat the Tribunal ascertained from the Respondent that she did not intend to attend or to be represented at the hearing in Sheffield. In the circumstances, the Tribunal heard the Applicant’s evidence on site. The Applicant had nothing to add to the representations already shared with the Respondent but was invited to state what he considered the correct rent to be. The Respondent said that he would be willing to pay £525 per month “to allow for price rises including mortgages.” 7. No comparable rents having been shared by the parties, the Tribunal relied on its own professional knowledge of rents in the central Doncaster area to
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
determine the market rent. For one bedroomed flats at [NAME] current asking rents are £650 to £675. Other rents in the area for one bedroomed flats are known to start at around £450 per month. The Tribunal noted (1) the flat is on the fifth floor of a building with high ceilings, and has no working lift (2) the tenant’s postbox on the ground floor is broken and insecure (3) there is no intercom or remote door operation in place so that visitors and workmen have to telephone the occupant of [NAME], who must go to the street door to let them in and (4) the flat, and especially the living room space, is exceptionally small with space only for the limited furniture described above.
8. Taking these factors into account, the Tribunal determined that the market rent for [NAME] as at January 2025 was £550 per month.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Leeds Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Right to Buy Property in First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Secures Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed HMO
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Reduced Due to Severe Disrepair in Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Fire Safety Works Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenan…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Invalid Improvement Notice Leads to Cancellation of Financial Penalty
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Quashes Prohibition Order Against Small Leeds Flat
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 was £550 per month.
- The property is a small one-bedroom flat on the fifth floor without a working lift.
- The tenant's postbox was broken and insecure, and there was no working door entry system.
- The flat, especially the living room, was exceptionally small with limited space for furniture.
- The Tribunal used its professional knowledge of rents in the central Doncaster area.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's proposed rent of £625 per month was not accepted.
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 one-bedroom flat in central Doncaster was set at £550 per month.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the market rent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the property's condition, lack of amenities, and location, setting the rent at £550 per month.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The condition and location of the property were the most important arguments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, who argued that the proposed rent did not reflect the current market rent.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition and location of their property when disputing market rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The condition of the property and comparable rental prices in the area were important evidence.
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 such cases.
