VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines New Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a new rent for a a person after considering its condition and market value. The new rent is set at £900 per month, starting from November 28, 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the relevant tenancy legislation, a tribunal can adjust the proposed rent based on the property's condition and compliance with improvement notices.

Topics

rent determinationproperty conditionmarket value

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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 rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal adjusted the proposed rent downward due to property defects and pending improvement notices, setting the new rent at £900 per month.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent for a property based on its condition and market value, adjusting for necessary repairs. The new rent is £900 per calendar month, effective from 28 November 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : CAM/33 UG/MNR/2024/0633 [NAME] : [ADDRESS] NR3 2 LJ Applicant : [redacted] (Tenants) Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative :

Type of Application : S.13 Housing Act 1988 Determination of a new rent Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 3 February 2025 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 3 February 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application, on 26 November 2024, before the effective start date of the new rent sought, from [NAME], regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice, dated 18 October 2024, proposed a new rent of £925 per calendar month exclusive, with effect from and including 28 November 2024. This rent does not include other services.

2

3 The tenancy is an assured periodic calendar monthly tenancy with effect from and including 28 September 2020. A copy was provided.

4 The rent payable from up to and including 27 November 2024 was £650 per calendar month. No furniture or services were included.

Directions

5 Directions, dated 19 December 2024, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [NAME]. Neither party asked for a hearing.

Inspection

6 There was no inspection. The [NAME] is a 1930’s end terraced, former local authority house, on 2 levels. It has small front and rear gardens the front partly used a driveway. (Google Streetview April 2024). It is of traditional construction: Brick fair faced lower, rendered upper main walls, a hipped double pitched clay pantile main roof over. Windows double glazed plastic frames. Set within an established residential estate of a mix of former and current public sector housing.

7 The [NAME] has 3 bedrooms, large and small doubles and single to the first floor. Ground floor, large living room, kitchen, conservatory and bathroom, shower and WC. There is landlord central heating, carpets and curtains.

Tenants’ and Landlord’s Representations

8 The tenants provided written submissions via Application Form and the completed standard Reply Form. The tenant mentioned referral to Norwich City regarding condition and an Improvement Notice and a penalty pending. The Tribunal received some 7No. pictures of the interior: 5No. of mould patches to walls and ceiling, a container of rainwater leaks ? and a ‘condemned’ fitted gas stove and hob. The tenants referred to the inaction by the landlord in remedying these defects even with the Notice.

9 The landlord replied via the standard Reply Form and referred to the low level of the passing rent. He commented that owing to the referral to the City Council by the tenant this had been compelled to increase the rent to help pay for the repairs rather than continue to leave it low with the existing subsidy he was giving. He felt that even the proposed rent was still low and could be the order of £1200 pcm from other comparable properties rented and available in the City.

10 The Tribunal is grateful for such information as was provided by both parties in the application, standard Reply Forms and additions.

3

Law

11 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the [NAME] 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. Thus the [NAME] falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the [NAME] to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

12 From the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Norwich it determines that the subject [NAME] would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1200 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order.

13 From the representations; it found however that the [NAME] lacked a working stove and hob and that there were some minor but persistent repairs to the back addition roof and dampness to bedroom walls. In particular the presence of an Improvement Notice at the [NAME] that had not been complied with, could be a serious impediment to letting and hence rental value at the valuation date – the start date for the new rent. Subject to any separate pending appeals to this Tribunal against such notice (and against a penalty arising) the Tribunal therefore makes a significant reduction in that rent, of some £300, bringing it down to £900 pcm. The new rent will therefore be £900 pcm with effect from 28 November 2024.

14 Although the landlord is not obliged to charge this rent and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation; they may not charge more than this figure.

[NAME] 3 February 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

4

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the [NAME], and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

5 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. CAM/33UG/MNR/2024/0633

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 21 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT]

Tenant [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 900 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 28 November 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable nil Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 28 September 2020

6. Length of the term or rental period periodic calendar monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs per tenancy

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Landlord’s oven included but not working. No loose furniture.

9. Description of premises 1930’s former Council house, end terrace (of 3). Gardens front & rear off street parking. Residential estate. Double pitched hipped clay pantile roof, GF brick, FF rendered. Front exterior fair/ good condition. (Google Streetview April 2024). Landlord’s GFCH & DG, carpets & curtains white goods. Accom. 2 levels: FF 3 bedrooms (1 large double, 1 small double, 1 single); GF Living room. Conservatory, Kitchen, bath/wc. Minor persistent repairs LA enforcement, Imp Notice penalty pending. Incl. mould to bed walls no cooker & roof leak.

6 [NAME] of Decision 3 February 2025

📊 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 in good condition to be £1200 per month.
  • The property lacked a working stove and hob, which reduced its rental value.
  • There were minor but persistent repairs needed for the back addition roof and dampness in bedroom walls.
  • The presence of an uncomplied Improvement Notice significantly reduced the rental value.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's argument that the proposed rent of £925 per month was still low was rejected.
  • The landlord's claim that the rent increase was compelled to pay for repairs was not accepted as a basis for the new rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on a new rent of £900 per month for the property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the property's condition and market value, reducing the proposed rent due to issues like mold and a non-working stove.

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 of the property and the need for repairs.

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

The decision was partially for the tenant, as the rent was reduced.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their property is in good condition to avoid higher rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Pictures of the interior showing issues like mold and a non-working stove were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.

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.