VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for HMO Bedroom

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set the fair market rent for a single bedroom in an HMO at £520 per month after considering comparable properties and local conditions. The decision was based on evidence provided by both parties and the tribunal's own knowledge of rental values.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at a fair market value based on comparable properties and local conditions.

Topics

tenancyrent control

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 based on reasonable expectations 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 market rent for a single bedroom in an HMO, considering comparable evidence and local rental values.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a single bedroom in an HMO, setting it at £520 per month based on comparable evidence and local rental values. The tribunal did not inspect the property but relied on written submissions and online research.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT Case Reference : BIR/41UB/MNR/2026/0057 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] Landlord : [APPELLANT] Landlord’s agent : Date of application : 4th March 2026 Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] of Decision : 21st May 2026 _______________________________________________

DECISION The Tribunal determines a rent of £520 (Five Hundred and Twenty Pounds) per calendar month with effect from 21st May 2026 ____________________________________ FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 26th January 2026 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £685 per calendar month in place of the existing rent of £500.00 per calendar month to take effect from 5th March 2026.

2. On 4th 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. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and online research. Evidence 4. The Tribunal considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. From the brief information provided it appears that the subject property is a single bedroom in a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) with shared living room, kitchen and bathroom.

5. The property is let on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy incorporating standard repairing obligations. The Tenant states that the property was let unfurnished.

6. The Landlord did not submit any supporting evidence including market lettings of comparable properties to support the proposed rent increase.

7. The Tenant indicated that the advertised rent for a furnished double bedroom with ensuite in good condition and in the same postcode area was approximately £625 per month.

8. The Tenant submitted that no repairs had been carried out by the Landlord during the term of the tenancy and currently the boiler does not work and the shower leaks. Determination and Valuation 9. Having considered the comparable evidence provided by the Tenant and of our own expert knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be £520 per calendar month.

3 10. The Tribunal consider that no adjustments should be made to the market rent. Decision 11. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £520 per calendar month with effect from 5th March 2026. Hardship 12. The Tenant raises hardship in their submissions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directs the new rent of 5th March 2026 to take effect from 21st May 2026 this being the date of the Tribunal. Chairman: Date: 21st May 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.

4 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] K [COMPANY] [ADDRESS], Kington. [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £520 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 21st May 2026 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Per 4. Date assured tenancy commenced 5th June 2025 5. Length of the term or rental period 6 months 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises Single bedroom in a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) with shared living room, kitchen and bathroom Chairman Date of Decision 21st May 2026 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/41UB/MNR/2026/0057

📊 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

  • Rent should be set based on the fair market value of comparable properties.
  • The condition and state of repair of the property must be considered.
  • Evidence of similar properties' rents must support the proposed rent increase.
  • Local conditions and market rates should influence the determination of rent.
  • Rent setting must take into account the overall context including property condition and comparables.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the market rent for a single bedroom in an HMO at £520 per month.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved, with the tenant challenging the proposed rent increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal decided based on comparable evidence provided by both parties and its own knowledge of local rental values.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparable evidence provided by the tenant regarding similar properties in the area was crucial.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, setting a lower rent than proposed.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it by providing evidence of fair market values.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions and comparable rental data were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may apply for permission to appeal on points of law within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.