VadeLab
OtherFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £1,050 per Month

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant referred a landlord's notice proposing a new rent under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent to be £1,050 per month based on its own expertise and knowledge without any submissions from either party.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined by a tribunal if they refer a landlord's notice under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period of the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13(2) or 13A(2).

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy based on its own expertise and knowledge, without submissions from either party.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy to be £1,050 pcm based on its own expertise and knowledge without submissions from either party.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Other

1

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference BIR/00CN/MNR/2025/0808

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[NAME] Tenant’s Representative None

Landlord

[NAME] Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Landlord’s [COMPANY] of Application 18 September 2025

Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent under sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members I D Humphries B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS N Atherton MRICS

Date of Decision

4 March 2026 Rent Determined £1,050 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

10 October 2025

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 10 September 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1050.00 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £850.00 pcm to take effect from 10 October 2025.

2. On 18 September 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 10 September 2023 for a term expiring 9 March 2024. The rental period is monthly.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Service Charges of furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. Not applicable.

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. No other significant terms affect the rent.

Inspection/ Hearing

8. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered the case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own general knowledge and specialist expertise.

3

The Property

9. The Tribunal did not inspect the property. It relied on information provided by the parties and the image on Google Streetview in reaching its decision.

10. The property is a three bedroom terraced house in [ADDRESS] to the west of Birmingham city centre and south of [ADDRESS]. The accommodation comprises three bedrooms and two reception rooms and the tenancy includes a double bed and fridge.

Evidence

11. Neither the Tenant nor Landlord returned the Tribunal's Reply forms.

The Tenant 12. The Tenant made no submissions.

The Landlord 13. The Landlord made no submissions.

Determination and Valuation

14. As neither party made any submissions, the Tribunal determines the rent based on its own general knowledge and expertise.

Undue Hardship

15. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord's Notice of Increase unless it would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date the Tribunal makes its determination.

16. Neither the Tenant nor Landlord made any submissions on the effective date the increase was to take effect. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal determines the effective date as the date specified in the Landlord's Notice, 10 October 2025.

Decision

17. Based on its own general knowledge and expertise and in the absence of any rental evidence provided by the parties, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,050.00 per calendar month with effect from 10 October 2025.

4

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 this 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

  • The proposed rent increase causes undue hardship.
  • The determination of market rent considers the actual condition of the property.
  • The rent increase is based on comparable properties in the area.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal set the new rent at £1,050 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on its own expertise and knowledge since no submissions were made by either party.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The lack of submissions from both parties allowed the tribunal to determine the rent based on its expertise.

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

It is unclear without knowing if the tenant agreed with the new rent.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone can refer a landlord's notice to the tribunal, and it will determine the market rent based on its expertise.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents were provided by either party.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if there is a point of law arising from the decision.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal issues.

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.