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

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £712 per Month

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set the market rent at £712 per month after considering the property's condition and the tenant's responsibilities. The decision reflects adjustments for damage and maintenance needs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed rent increase must reflect the property's actual condition and tenant responsibilities under 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 a new rent increase. The new rent can take effect at the start of a new period specified in the notice, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served. However, if the rent has been previously increased, the new rent period is adjusted accordingly.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal then determines the open-market rent, considering factors like the periods of the tenancy and the terms of the agreement. The tribunal disregards certain factors when determining the rent, such as the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant or improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Derby, adjusting for condition and tenant liability.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Derby, adjusting from an initial proposed rent of £725 to £712 per month due to condition issues and tenant responsibilities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: BIR/OOFK/MNR/2025/0811

Property : 16 Bishop’s Green St Swithin’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT]

Landlord’s agent : [NAME] of application : 30th September 2025

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision : 9th March 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £712.00 per month with effect from 5th October 2025. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 4th September 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £725.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £675.00 to take effect from 5th October 2025.

2. On 30th 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.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and online research.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

5. From the information provided it appears that the property comprises of a second floor flat with living room/kitchen, two bedrooms (one with an en-suite) and bathroom. The flat has central heating and double glazing.

6. The tenant submits:

1) That the carpet to bedroom 2 is damaged.

2) There is damage to the woodwork in the hallway caused by a previous leak and this has resulted in an insect infestation.

3) The bath is in poor condition.

4) The central heating/hot water boiler failed in 2023 and was out of order for several months.

5) Not all the repairs needed following the leak in 2022 have been attended to.

6) The tenant submitted photographs which include the damage to the ceiling in the bathroom.

7. The landlord submits:

1) The property includes integrated white goods in the kitchen. 2) The property is part furnished. 3) Minor upgrading has been completed including decoration, new smoke alarm, a new bathroom extractor fan and new bathroom lights.

3 4) The landlord submitted a copy of the inventory including photographs, when the property was initially occupied by the tenant. This shows the property to be in good condition.

8. The landlord submits the following comparable evidence:

1) Four, part furnished, 2-bedroom flats in [ADDRESS] at rentals between £800.00 - £925.00 per month. 2) A fully furnished 2-bedroom flat in [ADDRESS] at a rental of £1,195.00 per month.

9. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. In particular the Tribunal noted that the condition of the property indicated in the Inventory photographs is good. It was also noted that the deterioration in the condition of the decoration to the bathroom noted in the later photographs was, on the balance of probability, due at least in part by condensation.

Determination and Valuation

10. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £760.00 per month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

a) Condition in respect of the woodwork to the hallway, carpet to bedroom 2 and redecoration required to the bathroom ceiling following the previous leak. b) The Tenant’s liability to redecorate.

11. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£760.00 per month

Less a) Items given under a) above

£10.00

b) The tenant’s internal decoration liability @ 5% £38.00 £48.00

£712.00

Decision

12. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy was £712.00 per month with effect from 5th October 2025.

Chairman: [NAME]: 9th March 2026

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 the appeal.

5

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 16 Bishop’s Green St Swithin’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [ADDRESS] Burton on Trent [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £712.00 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 5th October 2025

3. The amount included for services is/is not applicable N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 5th March 2021 5. Length of the term or rental period Six months 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Dining table, sofa, storage units, chairs and bedroom furniture as detailed in the Inventory 8. Description of premises A self-contained flat with living room/kitchen, two bedrooms (one with en-suite), bathroom. Central heating and double glazing.

Chairman [NAME] of Decision 9th March 2026

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No.

BIR/OOFK/MNR/20025/0811

📊 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 reflects the property's actual condition.
  • The rent is set at a fair market value based on comparable properties.
  • The proposed rent increase is reasonable and supported by evidence.
  • The rent is adjusted based on the condition of the property and any improvements made by the tenant.
  • The rent increase is assessed against current market conditions.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal determined a new market rent of £712 per month.

Who was involved?

A landlord proposed an increase in rent, while the tenant argued against it based on property condition issues.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered evidence about the property's condition and made adjustments to reflect actual conditions and responsibilities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were used to determine the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property, including damage and maintenance issues, influenced the decision.

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

The tenant's arguments about property conditions were partially accepted, leading to a lower rent than proposed.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants should present evidence of property condition and maintenance issues when disputing rent increases.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs showing damage and written submissions about repairs were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal 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.