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

First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a fair rent for an assured tenancy by considering the property's condition and similar rental prices. The new rent is £1,050 per month, effective from November 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at a fair market value considering the property's condition and similar rental prices in the area.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured tenancies, allowing landlords to propose increases in rent under specific conditions. It outlines the process for serving a notice to increase rent, including the minimum period after which the increase can take effect and the conditions under which further increases can be proposed.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

This section implies a covenant by the lessor to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house, along with installations for utilities and heating, in repair and proper working order. It also specifies that the lessor is not required to carry out repairs if they do not affect the lessee's enjoyment of the property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy, adjusting the proposed rent based on property condition and comparable properties.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy, adjusting the proposed rent of £1,075 to £1,050 per month based on property condition and comparable rental prices in Birmingham.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference BIR/OOCN/MNR/2025/0831

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[NAME]

Tenant’s Representative

Landlord

[APPELLANT]

Landlord’s Address c/0 1 Drummond Gate London [POSTCODE]

Landlord’s [COMPANY] of Application

28th October 2025 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members [NAME] (Chairman) [NAME] of Decision 30th April 2026

Rent Determined

£1,050.00 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

1st November 2025

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background 1. On 27th August 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,075.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,025.00 to take effect from 1st November 2025.

2. On 28th October 2025, 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 22nd November 2023 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 curtains and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. Bed, bedside tables, sofa, TV stand, small dining table, two chairs and coffee table.

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.

Hearing

8. Neither party requested an oral hearing.

Inspection

9. 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.

3

10. The Property is a self-contained flat situated on the nineth floor, offering the following accommodation:

Open plan kitchen/lounge, one bedroom, and bathroom.

The Property benefits from central heating and double glazing. Carpets, curtains and white goods are provided by the Landlord. Wi-fi is understood to be included.

Limited parking is understood to be available at an additional cost.

Evidence

11. The Tenant and the Landlord completed the Tribunal’s Reply Forms.

12. The Tenant submits that the windows have not been cleaned since she moved into the property and that she has not been able to open the larger windows to the lounge and bedroom since July 2024. This has reduced the ventilation in the property and has resulted in condensation mould to the bathroom.

13. The Tenant submitted photographs to support their submission.

14. The Tenant submits that in their opinion the Landlord has made a deal with utility companies and a utility invoicing company which has resulted in additional charges of some £450.00 being incurred. At the same time, the Tenant was promised a concessionary rental for being an ‘established tenant’ which had not been the case. Other comparable one-bedroom flats were being offered at £900.00 - £1,050 pcm.

15. The Landlord submits evidence of various properties at [ADDRESS] showing an average rental in September 2025 of £1,093.00 pcm, in October 2025 of £1,128.00 pcm and in November 2025 of £1,090.00 pcm. They also provided a schedule of comparable details of similar properties within o.5 miles and 1 mile of [ADDRESS] at average rentals of £1,260.00 pcm and £1,223.00 pcm respectively.

16. The Landlord further submits that the Tenant has the use of the communal gym, roof terraces and gardens, communal kitchen and lounge, private residents meeting space, parking and bike storage, EV charging and events organised by the site team. There was also 24/7 security and [NAME]/on-site property manager.

17. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

4

Determination and Valuation

18. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Landlord, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1,075.00 pcm. 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 including having white goods and curtains provided by the landlord.

19. From this level of rent we have made an adjustment of £25.00 in relation to the dirty windows not all of which can be opened.

Decision 20. 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 £1,050.00 per month with effect from 1st November 2025. Undue Hardship 21. 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.

22. The Tenant has not asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case.

Chairman: [NAME]: 30th 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.

📊 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 at a fair market value based on comparable properties.
  • Rent must consider the property's condition and similar rental prices in the area.
  • The proposed rent increase must justify itself through comparable rental values.
  • Rent should be set by the First-tier Tribunal based on the Housing Act 1988 sections 13 & 14.
  • Adjustments for disrepair or other issues affecting the property's value must be considered.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a fair market rent of £1,050 for the assured tenancy.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in setting the rental price.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered property condition and comparable rents to set a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 s.13 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and comparable rental prices in the area were key arguments.

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 in a similar situation should consider property condition and comparable rents when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and rental price comparisons were important pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal on points of law.

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

It is advisable to consult with a qualified solicitor for legal advice in 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.