First-tier Tribunal Increases Rent to £725 Per Month
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided to increase the rent from £700 to £725 per month for a property in Margate. This decision was made considering the current market conditions and the absence of comparable evidence from both parties.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent increase that reflects current market conditions.
📖 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. The determination considers the terms of the existing tenancy and disregards certain factors such as improvements made by the tenant or reductions due to non-compliance.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal increased the rent from £700 to £725 per month based on market conditions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a new rent of £725 per month for a property in Margate, effective from December 10, 2024. The decision was based on the current market conditions and the lack of comparable evidence provided by the parties.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/29UN/MNR/2024/0647
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 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
[NAME] [NAME] Judge Rai
Landlord [NAME] c/o [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] and Mr [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 725.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 10 December 2024
3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 10 May 2018
5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly
6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord
7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord
8. Description of premises 2-bedroom first floor flat
[NAME] of Decision 10 February 2025
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/29UN/MNR/2024/0647 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] and [NAME] :
None
Respondent Landlords : [NAME] : [NAME] of Application :
Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] Judge C Rai Date of Application : 12th November 2024 Date of Decision :
10th February 2025
DECISION
The Tribunal determines a rent of £725 per calendar month with effect from 10th December 2024.
HAV/29UN/MNR/2024/0647 2
SUMMARY REASONS
Background 1. On 4th November 2024 the Landlords’ Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £725 per month in place of the existing rent of £700 per month to take effect from 10th December 2024.
2. On 12th November 2024 under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenants referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 9th December 2024. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. Evidence
4. There were written submissions from the Tenant, but nothing received from the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 5. The Tribunal was provided with no evidence as to comparable rents in the area and could only rely on its own experience and knowledge.
6. The rent of £700 per month had been agreed between the parties for the previous rental period. In the circumstances the Tribunal considered that an increase of £25 per month for the rent was in line with general rental market increases and the new rent was in line with other properties advertised to rent in the area, and as such determined that the new rent of £725 per month might reasonably be expected to be agreed between a willing landlord and tenant.
7. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship.
8.
Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £725 per month should take effect from 10th December 2024, this being the date specified in the notice.
APPEAL PROVISIONS
These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reviews Tenant's Rent Increase Appeal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Rent After Landlord's Increase Notice
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Proposed Rent After Assessing Property Condition
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 tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for the property's condition.
- The tenant is entitled to a rent determination reflecting current market conditions.
- The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent based on the condition of the property and the services provided.
- The tenant is entitled to a rent increase that reflects both current market conditions and the property's condition.
- The tenant is entitled to a determination of rent under an assured periodic tenancy according to the Housing Act 1988.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A rent increase reflecting current market conditions but not considering the property's condition was dismissed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided to increase the rent from £700 to £725 per month.
Who was involved?
The decision involved a tenant and landlords.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the current market conditions and the lack of comparable evidence.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the current market conditions.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also seek a rent increase based on current market conditions.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Written submissions from the tenant were considered, but no evidence was provided by the landlord.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed within a month of receiving the summary reasons.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
