VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant challenged a rent increase notice served by the landlord. The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent based on the open market value of similar properties in Northampton, setting the new rent at £570 per calendar month.

⚖️ Legal holding

The rent for an assured shorthold tenancy should reflect the open market value of similar properties in the area.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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 open-market rent, considering the reasonable expectation of what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured shorthold tenancy based on market conditions in Northampton.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal received an application from a tenant challenging a rent increase notice served by the landlord. The Tribunal determined the rent based on the open market value of similar properties in Northampton, setting the new rent at £570 per calendar month.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/34UF/MNR/2023/0103 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] (Tenant) Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [RESPONDENT]. Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 2 October 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application (undated) late July 2023 from the tenant of the Property, 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 26 July 2023, proposed a new rent of £570 per calendar month with effect from and including 15 September 2023. The passing rent was stated in the notice, as £530 per calendar month, from 15 September 2022.

2

3 The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy. A copy of the tenancy and of the landlord’s Notice were provided.

Inspection

4 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property internally but viewed the exterior from a [ADDRESS] image of the Property from the public road (data capture @ October 2018). The house faces across a small front yard and busy main road, towards [ADDRESS].

5 The Property is a ground floor room and ensuite bathroom/ wc. It forms part of a larger HMO with 5 letting rooms, subdivided from the original two storey mid terraced dwelling house. It’s one of many constructed c.1900. The house is of faced brick elevations. There is a hipped roofed front bay to the main double pitched single lap, concrete tiled roof. Windows and front door to the shared area appear to be of the older style plastic frames with double glazed units. The front exterior appears in fair condition.

6 In addition to exclusive use of the Property, the tenant has shared use of a ground floor communal kitchen for cooking and laundry. The kitchen has white goods including cooker and hob and washing machine. The rent includes landlord provision of hot and cold water and waste, gas fired central heating, electricity, gas, council tax, broadband internet and TV licence.

Representations

7 Directions, dated 3 August 2023, for the progression of the case, were issued by [NAME]. A hearing was not requested. The standard Reply Form was sent to parties both of which completed and returned them.

8 The tenant made brief representations about poor relations with another occupant at the HMO; that this was affecting his health and that the landlord was trying to evict the applicant by increasing the rent. The Tribunal received no additional representations from the tenant on rent level or other lettings.

9 The landlord’s agent referred in general to rising mains services prices. They also referred to another letting room in the same HMO, stated as currently let at £630 pcm on another AST. They also referred in general terms that “Similar ensuite rooms in the NN5 postcode ranged from £600 up to £725 per month all bills included.”

10 The Tribunal carefully considered such written and oral representations as it received, from both parties.

3

Law

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

Decision

12 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Northampton, it determines that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £570 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order, fully serviced, all bills included.

13 There were no significant tenant’s improvements or additions. There appeared to no evidence of a shortfall or deficiency of service provided or condition of the Property or shared areas. The Tribunal did not adjust this figure therefore.

14 The new rent of £570 per calendar month is payable from and including the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice, 15 September 2023. The landlord is not obliged to charge this rent but, may not charge in excess of this figure.

[NAME] 2 October 2023

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 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.

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) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

4 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 property, 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).

📊 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 rent should reflect the open market value of similar properties.
  • Rent should be adjusted for the property's condition.
  • Rent adjustments should consider necessary repairs.
  • Rent should account for the property's amenities.
  • Rent should reflect any landlord failings.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the new rent at £570 per calendar month based on the open market value of similar properties in Northampton.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the open market value of similar properties in Northampton, ensuring the rent reflects current market conditions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied to determine the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the open market value of similar properties in Northampton.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting the new rent at £570 per calendar month.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the open market value of similar properties in their area when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence and documents such as the tenancy agreement and the landlord's notice of rent increase were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this decision.

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.