First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the rent at £2100 per month, starting from November 1, 2021, after evaluating the property's market value and condition.
⚖️ Legal holding
The rent for an assured periodic tenancy should be set at a level that reflects the open market value, adjusted for the condition of the property and the terms of the tenancy.
📖 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 rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market, taking into account the condition of the property and the terms of the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £2100 per calendar month, effective from 1 November 2021, after considering the open market value and the condition of the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AG/MNR/2021/0176
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 Flat 3 (2nd floor), 78 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Judge Daley Mrs Sarah Redmond MRICS
Landlord [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS], Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, [POSTCODE]
Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 2100.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 November 2021
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable N/A Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 8.08.09
6. Length of the term or rental period Assured Periodic
7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord N/A
9. Description of premises The premises is a second floor flat, comprising four rooms, kitchen and bathroom
Chairman Judge Daley Date of Decision 25.01.22
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/MNR/2021/0176 Property : Flat 3, 2nd floor 78 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent : [redacted] : Section 13, Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : Ms M W Daley LLB(hons) Mrs Sarah Redmond MRICS Date and venue of hearing : Determined Remotely on the papers Date of decision : Decision and reasons dated 20 March 2022
DECISION
Decision of the tribunal (1) The sum of £2100 PCM is determined as the rent with effect from 1 November 2021 from the date specified in the notice of increase.
The application Background
1. By an application dated on 19 October 2021 the tenant of the above property referred to the Tribunal a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord on 23 September 2021 under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
2. The landlord's notice, which proposed an increase in the rent from £2100 PCM to £2150.00 per month with effect from 1st November 2021.
3. The assured tenancy which followed a succession commenced on 8 August 2009. The premises comprise 4 rooms, kitchen and a bathroom/WC.
4. On 30 November 2021, directions were given for the determination of this matter; the directions stated “The Tribunal will decide the application during the fourteen days from 24 January 2022 based on the written submissions by the parties.
5. This matter was determined by the Tribunal on the basis written submissions from the parties.
The representations from the tenant
6. The tenant’s representations were limited to the application form. The tenant stated that following a flood at the property caused by a water tank. The bathroom had been refurbished by the tenant following an insurance pay out.
The representations from the Landlord
7. The landlord provided no written representations.
The Inspection 8. Due to the Coronavirus pandemic no inspection of the property was carried out.
The law
9. In accordance with the terms of section 14 Housing Act 1988 (the Act) the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
10. In so doing the Committee, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.
The Valuation
11. The Tribunal determined that the market rent for the properties within the area of Camden was within the range of £2625 per month. However the Tribunal was aware that the tenant was responsible for internal decoration of the premise. The Tribunal made a discount for terms and conditions of the tenancy. The Tribunal was also aware that no modernisation had been carried out by the landlord, and assessed the property as in need of modernisation in respect of the kitchen. There were also no white goods, curtains and carpeting provided by the landlord at the premises.
12. The property was not in a condition usual for a market letting. Thus 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 (that is at the date of the determination) in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting which was £2625 per calendar month. The Tribunal made a deduction of 20% to reflect this.
13.
The Decision
14. The Tribunal having taken into account the factors set out above determines that the market rent is confirmed at £2100.00 per calendar month. The Tribunal confirmed the rent as payable from 1st November 2021.
Name:
Judge Daley
Date: 20 March 2022
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Determination for Tenant's Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Residential Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent to £1100 After Considering Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy Based on Market Comparables
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Four-Bedroom Property Under Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Tenancy
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 is set based on the property's condition and amenities.
- The rent includes adjustments for improvements made by the tenant.
- The rent reflects current market conditions, including economic impacts like the pandemic.
- The rent is determined according to the Housing Act 1988.
- The rent is assessed using market comparables and the open market value.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £2100 per month.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the open market value of the property, adjusted for its condition and the terms of the tenancy.
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 condition of the property and the terms of the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the open market value of their property and the terms of their tenancy when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Written submissions from both parties were considered.
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 determination.
