First-tier Tribunal Sets Assured Tenancy Rent

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference BIR/00GF/MNR/2026/0079 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative N/A Landlord [APPELLANT] - Landlord’s Address c/o [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s [COMPANY], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], United Kingdom Date of Application 30th March 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] [NAME] – Tribunal Member Date of Decision 27th May 2026 Rent Determined £1,250.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 19th April 2026.

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 11th February 2026 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,250 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,150 pcm to take effect from 19th April 2026.

2. On 30th March 2026 under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 19th April 2024 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same. 5. £0 Liability for Council Tax 6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax. Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.

7. None Inspection/Hearing 8. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Property

3 9. According to the floor plans, imagery and associated details, the property comprises of an end terrace house constructed to the ‘Ellesmere’ design and forms part of a modern residential development of similar age and size properties. It provides the following accommodation: Ground Floor: hall, toilet with w/c, kitchen with dining area, living room. First Floor: landing, 3 bedrooms, bathroom with w/c. Outside: driveway parking, gardens to front and rear. The Property is situated in an established residential area within reasonable distance of general amenities and transport links. Evidence 10. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms. The Tenant.

11. The Tenant made the following comments: ‘During the last property inspection by [NAME], the inspector made a point to thank us for taking such good care of the property. We take very good care of this property and have caused no damage since staying here. I does not seem fair that we are being penalised. ‘ 12. No condition issues were made or reported.

13. In terms of rental evidence, the Tenant provided the following comparable properties. [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] 3 bed terraced house £1,175 pcm [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] S/D 3 bed house £1,160 pcm [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. 3 bed linked detached house £1,100 pcm The Landlord 14. In terms of evidence, the following was submitted by the Landlord’s agent by way of justification:

4 a. A schedule of 7 properties considered to be comparable. Property [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Telford. [POSTCODE] 3 bed S/D house ‘town house’ £1300 pcm [ADDRESS], Lawley, Telford. [POSTCODE] 3 bed S/D house ‘town house’ £1300 pcm [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] 3 bed Det. house £1300 pcm [NAME], Telford, TF4 3 bed S/D house £1285 pcm [NAME], Telford, TF4 3 bed S/D house £1285 pcm [ADDRESS], Dawley, Telford 3 bed det cottage £1250 pcm Let agreed [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] 3 bed S/D house £1250 pcm Let agreed b. Additionally, a letting summary was attached of 4 managed properties on [ADDRESS] including terraced, semi-detached and a detached property with rents ranging from £1250 to £1300. Determination and Valuation 15. The Tribunal first considered the letting evidence provided by the tenant. The first two comparables appear to be modern construction of similar size and accommodation to the subject property. The third comparable is larger with a garage but an older property.

16. A significant factor in establishing relevance is proximity of the comparables to the subject property. In each case, the distance of the comparables from the property is found to be 3.8 miles, 6.1 miles and 5.2 miles respectively. The different locations and distances are further than might be considered reasonable in terms of relevance.

Accordingly, the Tribunal is unable to place strong reliance on these comparables.

17. The tenant alluded to a discrepancy in the Landlord’s evidence in respect of [ADDRESS] in the’ best price guide’ and the tenant’s own evidence of [APPELLANT] drive, both of which have differing advertised rents but appear to have the

5 same photograph. Given this discrepancy, the Tribunal is unable to place reliance on either of these properties.

18. The Tribunal then turned to the supporting evidence provided by the Landlord.  Comparables one and two are larger town houses and not considered directly comparable.  The third comparable is a detached house which is not comparable.  The fourth [ADDRESS] comparable is to be excluded due to the discrepancy described in paragraph 17 above.  The fifth comparable is a detached cottage and again, not comparable.

Accordingly, the two remaining comparables which are considered relevant, have an average rent of £1,267.50 pcm.

19. The second part of the Landlords evidence is in the letting summary of properties on [ADDRESS]. In particular, the Tribunal is persuaded by those of the same ‘Ellesmere design’ which have agreed rents at £1250 and £1275. which average £1262.50.

20. Using its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1,250 pcm which is the same as the rent sought under the Section 13(4)(a) notice. This is the rent we would expect the property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as the comparable properties.

21. As the property is modern and in good condition, it is not necessary to make any adjustments to this level of rent. Undue hardship 22. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.

23. The Tenant submitted that ‘we have to children to support including a 3 [NAME] old and an [NAME] who is severely autistic. We do not own a property and are trying very hard to save for a deposit in an increasing expensive market. £100 / month is £1200 less every [NAME] that we can save towards a house deposit.’

6 24. The tenant has not evidenced its claim for hardship. Further, the proposed increase impact upon savings towards a house deposit is not relevant in these circumstances.

25.

Accordingly, for these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that for the increase to take effect from the date in the Landlord’s Notice would cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as at the date specified in the rent increase notice being 19th April 2026. Decision 26. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,250 per calendar month with effect from 19th April 2026. APPEAL PROVISIONS 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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.