VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for an assured tenancy by evaluating the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area, adjusting the landlord's proposed rent.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancyproperty valuation

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 11 implies a covenant by the lessor to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. Additionally, the lessor must keep in repair and proper working order the installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation, as well as those for space heating and heating water.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the rent after considering the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured tenancy by assessing the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties, setting a fair weekly rent excluding certain costs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00BY/MNR/2018/0033

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 66 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[ADDRESS], [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [COMPANY]) Limited Address

First Floor, Citygate, [ADDRESS], Newcastle upon Tyne Ne14JE

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: 146.00 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 25 June 2018

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date periodic/statutory periodic assured tenancy commenced 17.03.14

6. Rental period weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per s. 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Tenant responsible for interior decoration.

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

None

9. Description of premises A semi-detached house with a reception room and kitchen on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor, with gardens front and rear.

[ADDRESS] of Decision 08.03

1

Case Reference : MAN/00BY/MNR/2018/0033

Property : 66 [ADDRESS]

[POSTCODE]

Landlord

: [COMPANY])

Representative : N/A

Tenant : [COUNSEL]

: N/A

Type of Application : Determination of rent under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [ADDRESS] Kasambara

Date and venue :

Determination following an inspection on 8 March 2018

Date of Decision : 8 March 2018

_______________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 DECISION

The rent at which the Property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy is £146.00 per week exclusive of water rates and council tax.

This rent will take effect from 25 June 2018, being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.

REASONS

Background

1. The Property is held on an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The tenant is [APPELLANT]. The landlord is [COMPANY]) [RESPONDENT].

2. The tenancy commenced on Monday, 17 March 2014 by way of a succession to the tenant’s mother’s regulated tenancy. There is no written tenancy agreement. The repairing obligations of the parties are governed by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As at the date the landlord gave notice proposing an increase in rent, the rent was £145.00 per week. There is no service charge.

3. By a notice to the tenant dated 17 May 2018 the landlord proposed a new rent for the Property of £155.00 per week with effect from Monday, 25 June 2018.

4. On 31 May 2018 the tenant referred the landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988. The tenant’s application was in the prescribed form and was made before the date specified in the landlord’s notice for the start of the proposed new rent.

Inspection

5. The Tribunal inspected the Property on the morning of 8 March 2019 in the presence of the tenant. The Property is a semi-detached house with a reception room and kitchen on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor, with gardens front and rear. There were no signs of landlord’s disrepair and no tenant’s improvements since the commencement of the current tenancy. There were, however, necessary improvements as the Property lacks central heating.

Evidence

6. The landlord’s agents, [RESPONDENT], submitted written representations and advertising details of three comparable properties – at Dunham

3 Road L15, at £162.00 per week, [ADDRESS], L14 at £150.00 per week, and [ADDRESS], L16 at £150.00 per week.

7. Neither party elected for a hearing so that following the inspection the Tribunal reconvened to make its determination.

Law

8. Where a tenant has referred a valid landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, section 14 of that Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considers that the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy. In so doing the Tribunal is required, by section 14(1) of the Act, to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2).

9. For these purposes, “rent” includes amongst other things any sums payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of council tax. It does not include a “service charge” within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (i.e. where the service charge payable by the tenant is variable from time to time according to the relevant costs). However, it does include a “fixed” service charge.

Validity of the landlord’s notice

10. The Tribunal must first determine that the landlord’s notice under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. Those requirements are that the notice was given in the prescribed form and was accompanied by the relevant guidance notes, that it gave at least one month’s notice of the proposed increase, and that it must specify a start date for the proposed new rent which coincides with the beginning of a period of the tenancy.

11. The Tribunal determined that the landlord’s notice complied with these requirements and was therefore validly served.

Valuation

12. The Tribunal next determined the rent at which the Property could reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such open market lettings.

13. Having taken into account the comparables provided and having had regard to its general knowledge of market rent levels in the area, the Tribunal concluded that a likely market rent for a property such as the subject property would be £170.00 per week exclusive of water rates and council tax.

4

14. However, the Property is not in the condition considered usual for a modern letting at a market rent and so the Tribunal proceeded to make a number of deductions from the hypothetical market rent of £170.00 per week to take account of relevant differences.

14.1 A deduction of £17.00 per week was made because the landlord does not provide carpets, curtains and some white goods which would usually be provided in an open market letting.

14.2 A deduction of £7.00 per week was made for the need for central heating.

15. These deductions totaled £24.00 per week and reduced the net market rent for the Property to £146.00 per week.

📊 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 tribunal determined the landlord's notice was validly served, complying with all requirements.
  • The tribunal considered comparable properties to establish a likely market rent.
  • A deduction was made because the landlord did not provide carpets, curtains, and some white goods.
  • A deduction was made due to the property's lack of central heating.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a fair rent for an assured tenancy based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the rent downwards, taking into account the property's lack of central heating and absence of certain amenities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property to similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant, who sought a fairer rent than the landlord proposed.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and compare it to similar properties when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparative data on similar properties and the condition of the property itself were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

Yes, it is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent disputes.

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.