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

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £2,125 Monthly

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a new monthly rent of £2,125 for an assured periodic tenancy based on fair market value adjusted for specific property conditions. This decision reflects the need for a balanced approach between landlord and tenant interests.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for specific conditions of the property under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

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. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent for the property, considering the conditions and terms of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and inspection of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £2,125 per calendar month for an assured periodic tenancy after considering comparable evidence and property conditions. The tribunal deducted 15% from the initial proposed rent to reflect the property's condition.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. JM/LON/00AH/MNR/2023/0245

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 4 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge P [NAME]

Landlord [NAME] 10 Brunswick Quay, London, [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] & Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 2125.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 June 2023

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable 0.00 Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 October 2014

6. Length of the term or rental period Initially 6 months and then continuing

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord responsible for exterior and structure, tenant responsible for interior

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises Ground to second floor mid-terrace townhouse of brick and hung tile cladding under a pitched tile roof. Ground floor garage converted into kitchen/dining accommodation. Property benefits from small rear garden made mainly to paving. Two off-street car spaces. 4 bedrooms including a box room, bath/WC plus a further separate WC. Externally the soffits and fascia boards were in a state of disrepair, and a missing tile on the rear elevation had been filled with foam.

MR22 Chairman P. Korn Date of Decision 16 November 2023

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AH/MNR/2023/0245

Property : 4 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT] & [NAME]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 26 May 2023

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

Tribunal

: Judge P [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 16 November 2023

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,040 per calendar month with effect from 1 June 2023. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 28 April 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £3,100 in place of the existing rent of £1,750 per month to take effect from 1 June 2023.

2. On 26 May 2023 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 carried out an inspection of the Property on 16 November 2023.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Neither party requested a hearing.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and taking into account our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the Property in good condition would be in the region of £2,500 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have deducted 15% to reflect the fact that the Property was let unfurnished and with no white goods and that it is need of some external decoration, specifically in relation to the soffits and fascia boards and a missing tile on the rear elevation.

6. A deduction of 15% gives a figure of £2,125 per calendar month. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines a rent of £2,125 per calendar month.

7. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £2,125 per calendar month to take effect on 1 June 2023, this being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: Judge P Korn Date: 16 November 2023

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of

3 how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 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 market rent for the property in good condition was determined to be around £2,500 per month.
  • A 15% deduction was applied to the market rent due to the property being unfurnished and lacking white goods.
  • A 15% deduction was applied because the property needed external decoration, specifically for the soffits and fascia boards.
  • A 15% deduction was applied because a tile was missing on the rear elevation.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal set a new monthly rent of £2,125 for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal considered comparable evidence and property conditions to determine a fair market rent of £2,125 per month.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was used in determining the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition and value of comparable properties influenced the decision.

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

The tenant's claim was partially successful, as the new rent is lower than initially proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can seek a fair market valuation to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rental values and property condition reports were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can often be appealed to higher courts.

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.