VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £600 PCM

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set the fair rental value of an assured tenancy property at £600 per month after considering comparable properties and expert opinions. The landlord's proposal for a higher rent was not accepted.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair determination of market rent under sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 when faced with a proposed increase by the landlord.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent 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 specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served. The section also specifies the timing for subsequent rent increases.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy, provided the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the tenancy began. Additionally, a tenant can challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13. The tribunal then determines the open-market rent the property could reasonably expect to fetch.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy based on comparables and expert knowledge, setting it at £600 pcm.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy at £600 pcm, rejecting a proposed increase to £2,000 pcm based on comparables and expert knowledge.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00BR/MNR/2026/0216 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative Landlord [APPELLANT] Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Landlord’s Representative Versus Law Solicitors Date of Application 12 April 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision 3 June 2026 Rent Determined £600.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 1 May 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 27 March 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,000.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £500.00 pcm to take effect from 1 May 2026.

2. On 12 April 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 tenancy commenced on 1 December 2019 for a term of 6 months. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. 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 furnished. Liability for Council Tax and Utilities 6. The Landlord is responsible for the payment of Council Tax and utilities in respect of the Property. The rent determined is inclusive of Council Tax and utilities. 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 described in the submissions as a 2nd floor room within a house in multiple occupation

3 The Property is situated in the Claremont area of Salford within close proximity of amenities. Manchester City Centre is approximately 3 miles to the east. Evidence 10. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms. The Tenant 11. The Tenant referred to comparables which she said supported a rental value of £600 pcm. The Landlord 12. The Landlord responded to the Tenant’s submissions agreeing the rental value of £600 pcm. Determination and Valuation 13. The Tribunal placed significant weight on the fact that the parties were now in agreement about the rental value.

14. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the parties’ agreement referred to above, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £600.00 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.

15. The Tribunal has no basis to consider the condition of Property differs from the general condition of the comparable properties in any way which is value-significant. As such, no adjustments are warranted and the market rent is determined as below Market rent £600.00 pcm Undue hardship 12. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.

13. The Tenant has stated that a rent increase will cause financial hardship. Only very limited information without supporting evidence was provided as to the Tenant’s financial position.

14. Whilst any significant increase in rent will inevitably cause some measure of hardship, in considering whether to exercise its discretion to postpone the rent increase, the question for the Tribunal is whether undue

4 hardship will be caused. In this case, the Tribunal does not consider that a case for undue hardship is established.

Accordingly, the new rent will take effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase. Decision 15. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £600.00 per calendar month with effect from 1 May 2026. 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 must be set at a fair market value based on comparable properties in the area.
  • The proposed new rent must be assessed against comparable rental values in the area, considering any utilities provided by the landlord.
  • A landlord's proposed increase in rent must be supported by evidence of comparable properties' rental values.
  • The rent adjustment should consider the condition of the property and any ongoing issues affecting its use.
  • The rent must reflect the current market value, adjusted for specific property conditions.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The market rent for the assured tenancy was set at £600 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were in dispute over a proposed rental increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable properties and expert knowledge to determine the fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were used to set a fair rental value.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The agreement between parties on comparables and expert knowledge played a crucial role in setting the rent.

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

The tenant's position was supported, as the proposed higher rent was not accepted.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants facing rental increases can seek fair market determination through the First-tier Tribunal.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparables and expert knowledge were key to determining the fair market rent.

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.