VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Ipswich Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Ipswich, taking into account the condition and fittings of the property. The new rent was set at £150 per week, effective from April 4th, 2022.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the open market value of the property, adjusted for the condition and fittings of the property.

Topics

rent determinationassured shorthold tenancymarket rent

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to propose increases in rent for assured periodic tenancies, except for relevant low-cost tenancies. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period of the tenancy. The new period must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section permits a tenant to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. The tribunal will determine the open-market rent based on the conditions and terms of the existing tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Ipswich, considering various factors such as the condition and fittings of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Ipswich, considering various factors such as the condition and fittings of the property. The new rent was set at £150 per week, effective from April 4th, 2022.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/42LUD/MNR/2022/0017 Property : 205 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative :

None Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 23 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 23 May 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 5 March 2022 from the tenant of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent, served by the landlord’ agent, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice, undated, proposed a new rent of £105.84 per week with effect from and including 4 April 2022. The passing rent was stated in the notice, to be £88.80 per week.

2 3 The tenancy is an assured periodic weekly tenancy. A copy of Part 1 of the tenancy was provided, Part 2 was not. A copy of part of the Landlord’s notice was provided.

Inspection

4 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property owing to the application of the current Covid 19 regulations by the FtT Property Chamber. The Tribunal had regard to [ADDRESS] images of the Property from the public road (@ December 2020). The Property is part of a substantial and new (post 2000) 5 level block of purpose built flats. The walls are brick clad on a steel concrete and glass block. It is located with other new build blocks on the edge of a substantial 1960’s industrial estate. The block appears to have been constructed on what appears to have been formerly industrial land near the heart of the Ipswich docks.

5 The Property is a second floor flat, with access from a communal ground floor entrance, lift and stairs access. Accommodation comprises, one bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom/ WC on one level. Windows appear to be double glazed and water and space heating full fed from a self contained system in the flat or communal block installation. The block appears to be in good condition. The Tribunal assumes that the flat is also in good condition reflecting its relatively new build. There are no additional outside areas let with this Property.

6 It is unclear whether the Property was let with chattels but, it is assumed that it was let with flooring to kitchen and bathroom. It is also assumed that it came without carpets to the remainder, nor curtains or white goods.

Representations

7 Directions, dated 22 March 2022, for the progression of the case, were issued by [APPELLANT]. Neither party requested a hearing. The tenant made brief representations with the application. The Tribunal received no representations from the landlord. Neither party completed and submitted a copy of the Tribunal’s standard Reply Form issued with the Directions. The Tribunal carefully considered such written representations as it received, from both parties in the application and subsequently.

Law

8 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act the Tribunal 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

3 terms of the tenancy. Thus the property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

9 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Ipswich, it determines that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £160 per week, fully fitted and in good order.

10 There were no significant tenant’s improvements or additions to consider but, the Tribunal assumes an absence of landlord’s ‘white goods’, floor coverings to main rooms and curtains as is usual with a letting by a social housing provider.

11 These factors would slightly affect the starting rent and for these factors the Tribunal deducts £10 per week and determines the new rent for the Property at £150 per week. Although this figure is higher than the rent sought by the landlord in their notice, the Tribunal is required to determine the market rent and sometimes this is higher than the rent sought. Despite this, the landlord remains free to charge any rent up to this figure but, no higher.

12 The new rent is payable from and including the date set out in the Landlord’s notice, 4 April 2022.

[NAME] 23 May 2022

📊 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 market rent for the property based on its general knowledge of rent levels in the area.
  • The tribunal considered the property to be a second-floor flat in a new, well-maintained block.
  • The tribunal adjusted the market rent downwards because the property was assumed to be let without certain items like white goods, carpets, and curtains.
  • The new rent determined by the tribunal was higher than the rent proposed by the landlord, but the landlord could not charge more than this figure.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision determined the market rent for a property in Ipswich, setting it at £150 per week.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the market conditions and the state of the property, adjusting for the condition and fittings.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition and fittings of the property, which influenced the market rent determination.

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

The decision was for the tenant, as the rent was set at a lower rate than initially proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition and fittings of their property when disputing rent increases.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as the condition of the property and the proposed rent increase notice 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 disputes.

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.