VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4135960

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair market rent of £950 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the rent based on the property's condition and lack of amenities like central heating.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent adjustment based on comparable properties and conditions, as seen in the determination of £950 per month for this assured tenancy.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured periodic tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a rent of £950 per month for an assured tenancy, adjusting for the lack of certain amenities and conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £950 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the property's condition and lack of certain amenities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/21UD/MNR/2025/0605

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 71A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] Judge Arrow

Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [APPELLANT], 94A [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 950.00 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 February 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 October 2017

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises Basement flat with 2 bedrooms and garden.

[NAME] of Decision 6 March 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/21UD/MNR/2025/0605 Property : 71A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] [NAME] :

[NAME]

Respondent Landlords : [RESPONDENT] : [COMPANY] of Application :

Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] [NAME] Judge I Arrow Date of Application : 9th January 2025 Date of Decision :

6th March 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £950 per calendar month with effect from 1st February 2025.

HAV/21UD/MNR/2025/0605 2 SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 27th December 2024 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,100 per month in place of the existing rent of £580 per month to take effect from 1st February 2025.

2. On 9th January 2025 under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant’s Agent referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent. 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. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be £1,050 per calendar month.

6. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings to all be provided by the Landlord.

7. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with white goods, carpets and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In addition the Tribunal has made the adjustments for electric night store heating and damp/mould.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,050 Less deductions for:- Tenant’s provision of white goods

£30 Tenant’s provision of carpets and curtains

£25 No central heating/ electric night store provided £25 Internal damp/mould

£20

____

TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£950

HAV/21UD/MNR/2025/0605 3 9. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £950 per month.

10. 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.

11.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £950 per month should take effect from 1st February 2025 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:

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 rent determination must reflect the actual conditions and amenities provided by the tenant.
  • Rent should be based on comparable properties and local rental values.
  • The entitlement includes adjustments for specific conditions of the property.
  • The tribunal determines the fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the rent for the assured tenancy at £950 per month.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the proposed increase in rent from £580 to £1,100 per month.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £950 per month after considering the property's condition and the lack of certain amenities.

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 comparison of the property's condition and amenities with similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant who brought the case, setting a fairer rent based on the property's condition.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek a fair rent adjustment based on the condition of their property and the amenities provided by the landlord.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents used, but it likely included comparable evidence and information about the property's condition.

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.