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

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £1,250 PCM

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant challenged a proposed increase in rent from their landlord. The First-tier Tribunal considered evidence of similar properties' rents and set the new market rent at £1,250 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed increase in rent must be supported by evidence of comparable properties' rental values to determine a fair market rent under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to propose increases in rent through a notice in a prescribed form. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the date of the notice's service. Additionally, if the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can only occur after a specific period, which varies depending on the type of tenancy.

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 that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and that more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent at which the dwelling-house might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under similar conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy in Liverpool, considering comparables and local rental values.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy in Liverpool at £1,250 pcm based on comparable properties' rental values and local conditions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

MAN/00BY/MNR/2026/0068

Property

Apt. 516, 1 Stafford St, Liverpool, [POSTCODE]

Tenants

[COUNSEL] and [COUNSEL]

Tenant’s Representative

Landlord

[NAME]

Landlord’s Address c/o Allsop Letting & [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Landlord’s Representative

Date of Application

13 February 2026

Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision

18 May 2026

Rent Determined

£1,250.00 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

17 February 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 14 January 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,395.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,210.00 pcm to take effect from 17 February 2026.

2. On 13 February 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 shorthold tenancy commenced on 17 January 2025 for a term of 9 months. The rental period is monthly.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per tenancy agreement.

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. The Tenant does not pay any service charges, The Property is let fully furnished.

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. N/A.

Inspection/Hearing

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

The Property

9. The Property is a fifth-floor flat forming part of a large modern development known as Milliners Yard comprising approximately 250, offering the following accommodation:

Open plan kitchen/lounge, two bedrooms and bathrooms with full suite including shower.

3

External/Common Facilities: reception and concierge, gym, residents’ lounge, communal roof terrace, parcel lockers. The development has a residents’ car park providing the option for parking spaces at additional cost.

The Property benefits from heating by electric radiators and double glazing.

The Property is situated in central Liverpool, close to [ADDRESS].

Evidence

10. Both parties were provided with the option to make written submissions. Representations were received only from the Tenants.

The Tenants.

11. In terms of rental evidence, the Tenants provided the following 2-bed comparables: a. [NAME] - £1,200-£1,245 pcm b. The Keel - £1,210 pcm c. The Summit - £1,100 pcm d. The Eight - £1,250 pcm e. [NAME] - £1,250 pcm f. [NAME] - £1,400 pcm g. The Copper House - £1,438 pcm

Determination and Valuation

12. The Tribunal attached most weight to the comparables listed at a-e above. Comparables F and G are larger and better-specified properties in superior developments.

13. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Tenants, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1,250.00 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, furniture and curtains provided by the landlord.

14. The Tribunal consider the property to be in overall good condition. As such, no adjustments are warranted and the market rent is determined as below.

Market rent

£1,250.00 pcm

Decision

4

12. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,250.00 per calendar month with effect from 17 February 2026, being the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

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

  • The rent increase is assessed against comparable rental values in the area.
  • The rent increase takes into account the condition of the accommodation.
  • The rent increase is considered fair and reasonable based on local comparables.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent increase was not supported by evidence of comparable properties' rental values.
  • The rent increase did not align with current market rates or cause undue hardship to the tenant.
  • The rent increase was deemed unreasonable without proper comparison to market rates.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal determined that the fair market rent for a Liverpool tenancy should be £1,250 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in a dispute over rental prices.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on evidence of comparable properties' rents and local market conditions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were used to determine the fair rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant provided evidence of comparable properties' rents which influenced the decision.

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 by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it using comparable rental prices as evidence.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of comparable properties' rents was crucial to the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party may 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.