VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £2,200

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a terraced house, setting it at £2,200 per month. The decision was based on evidence of similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a market rent assessment based on comparable properties in the area.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section 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 the open-market rent, considering the terms of the existing tenancy and disregarding certain factors like improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the market rent for a terraced house at £2,200 per month.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a terraced house at £2,200 per month, taking into account comparable properties in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. FR/LON/00AB/MNR/2025/0654

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 111 GALLEONS DRIVE BARKING [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME]

[RESPONDENT]

Tenant [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 2,200 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 27TH MAY 2025

*3. The amount included for services is N/A Per

*4. Service charges are not included

[NAME] of Decision 27TH MAY 2025

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 10TH ARRIL 2017

6. Length of the term or rental period MONTHLY

7. Allocation of liability for repairs [RESPONDENT]

8. Furniture provided by [RESPONDENT] or superior [RESPONDENT]

9. Description of premises A FOUR BEDROOMED TERRACED HOUSE

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : FR/LON/00AB/MNR/2025/0654

Hearing Type : Face to Face

Property : 111 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] & [COUNSEL] (Tenant)

Representative : In person

Respondent: [redacted] : Represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] of [NAME] of Objection : 3rd January 2025

Type of [NAME] : Referral in Respect of Market Rent Under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME]

[NAME] of Hearing : 27 May 2025

Date of Inspection : No inspection

Date of Full Reasons : 27 May 2025

STATEMENT OF FULL REASONS ON AN [NAME] FOR DETERMINATION OF A MARKET RENT UNDER S. 13 AND 14 OF THE HOUSING ACT 1988.

2

REASONS

Background

1. On 16 November 2024 the [RESPONDENT] served a Notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 proposing an increase in the rent of the above property from the passing rent of £2,000.00 per month to £2,200.00 per month.

2. On 3rd January 2025 the tenant made an [NAME] to the Tribunal for the determination of a market rent.

3. The original tenancy is believed to have begun on 10 April 2017.

4. The tenant occupies the property by way of an Assured Periodic Tenancy.

5. By way of a letter dated 13 March 2025, the Tribunal issued directions. These required the [RESPONDENT] to provide details of evidence on which they wished to rely by way of reply by 3 April 2025. The tenant was directed to do the same by 17 April 2025 and the [RESPONDENT] was given until 24 April 2025 for his response thereto.

6. On 28 April 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the parties confirming details for a hearing date to take place on 27 May 2025.

7. Both parties took the opportunity to make submissions.

8. In consideration of the Market rental value of the subject property, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all documentation before it, including letters and any reply forms returned by the parties.

9. In their [NAME] to the Tribunal, the tenant states that the property is a terraced house, confirms that the [RESPONDENT] has provided a sofa by way of furnishings and says that they have painted the bedrooms and the ground floor themselves.

10. In the tenant’s Reply form the tenant confirmed that they would like a hearing but do not need an inspection. They provide general details of the accommodation and confirm that the property has central heating and double glazing. They say that they have provided carpets and curtains and that the property does have a parking space but there are issues with the cooker and no hot water in the bathroom. Finally, they advise of mould in the en-suite bathroom.

3

11. The Tribunal has been provided with various correspondence relating to those that may remain in occupation, but this is not of concern to the Tribunal in [NAME] an assessment of the market rent.

12. The [RESPONDENT] provides a market appraisal from [NAME] which provides comparable evidence of eight properties available to let and four where lettings have been agreed.

13. Of those to let, the rental value for the four-bedroom houses ranges between £2,300.00 and £2,900.00 per month.

14. Of those where lettings have been agreed, the rents range from £2,100.00 for a three-bedroom house to £2,600.00 for a four-bedroom house.

The Hearing

15. [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] (a tenant) was present at the hearing and gave evidence on behalf of the tenants. [NAME] [NAME] was also present but was represented by [NAME] of [NAME] who represented him and spoke on his behalf.

16. [NAME] [NAME] explained that the property used to be occupied by his parents himself and his siblings but more recently that he and his siblings had moved out and as a result his parents ere left to find the rent alone and could not afford to do so. he said that his parents may be able to get financial assistance in the form of benefits but to do so needed a new tenancy which the landlords had not granted.

17. [NAME] [NAME] referred to some disrepair in the property namely intermittent defects to the boiler, bath drainage, cooker and hob. He also said that the extractor in the bathroom was too weak for purpose.

18. When asked specifically what he thought currently monthly rental value of the property might be in the current condition he was unable to give a figure but after further questioning said that the thought it should be a little more than the passing rent .

19. For the [RESPONDENT], [NAME] referred the tribunal to the market report of [NAME] and the evidence therein. He stated that the rent of £2,200 was not a market rent and that if the property were to come to the market now, they would ask £2,800.00 per month.

4

20. The [RESPONDENT] confirmed that the rent of £2,000.00, the rent passing, had been the rent since the tenants initially occupied in 2017.

21. On 27 May 2025, based on paper submissions and following a hearing, the Tribunal determined the Market rent of the above property at £2,200.00 per month.

The Law

22. When determining a market rent in accordance with the Housing Act 1988 Section 13 regard must be had to all of the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property, matters contained within the rent, repairing obligations, etc. This means that issues such as the tenant’s ability to pay the rent or bills associated with the property are not a consideration for the tribunal in assessing the rent.

Valuation

23. Following consideration of the written and photographic submissions given by both parties, evidence given at the hearing and using its own knowledge and experience of the rental market in the Barking area, the Tribunal finds the open market rent of the property, be £2,200.00 per month.

Hardship

24. While the tribunal has taken note of the change in circumstances of the tenants named in the tenancy agreement, the tenancy which began in April 2017 has not been brought to an end and as a result the obligations of each of the tenants named thereon remains. The fact that some of those tenants may no longer be contributing to the rent thus creating hardship for those that remain in occupation is not a factor that the tribunal can take into consideration and as a result the tribunal determines that the rent should be effective from the date given in the landlords notice 10th January 2025

Chairman:

[NAME] Chairman

Date:

27 May 2025

5

6

ANNEX OF RIGHTS FOR MARKET RENTS

By Rule 36(2) of the Tribunal procedure, (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they might have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with this case

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the Decision to the [NAME].

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. Any appeal in respect of the Housing Act 1988 should be on a point of law.

If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 market rent based on comparable properties in the area.
  • The landlord's proposed rent of £2,200 per month was accepted as the market rent.
  • The Tribunal considered the market appraisal provided by the landlord, which included comparable evidence.
  • The Tribunal used its own knowledge and experience of the local rental market to determine the rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's inability to provide a specific market rental value for the property was not accepted.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the market rent for a terraced house at £2,200 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered comparable properties in the area to determine the market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the evidence of comparable properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect the market rent to be assessed based on comparable properties in the area.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of comparable properties in the area mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.