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

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £725 PCM for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a fair market rent of £725 PCM for an assured tenancy property in Nafferton. The decision was based on evidence from both the tenant and landlord, including rental comparables and the condition of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at a fair market value based on comparable properties in the area.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve notices proposing increases in rent. The notice must specify a new rent amount and a new period for the tenancy, which begins at least two months after the notice is served.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

This section implies a covenant by the lessor to repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, including drains, gutters, and external pipes, as well as installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation. It also includes the obligation to repair and maintain installations for space heating and heating water.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy in Nafferton, East Riding of Yorkshire.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy in Nafferton, setting it at £725 per calendar month after considering comparable properties and tenant hardship.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00FB/MNR/2026/0076 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative Landlord [COUNSEL] c/o [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s [COUNSEL] of Application 05 February 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision 28 May 2026 Rent Determined £725.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 01 May 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 07 January 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £775.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £690.00 pcm to take effect from 01 March 2026.

2. On 05 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 tenancy commenced on 15 April 2021 for a term of six months. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per 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. Washing machine and oven provided within the tenancy. 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. None 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 Tribunal did not inspect the Property.

10. The Property is a two bedroom mid terrace house, offering the following accommodation: Living room, kitchen, WC, two bedrooms and bathroom with full suite including shower. Outside: courtyard to rear. The Property benefits from gas central heating and double glazing. The Property is situated in the village of Nafferton in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

3 Evidence 11. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms. The Tenant.

12. The Tenant made the following comments: a) The Tenant indicated that they did not agree that the notice was valid. However, their reasons given were that they did not agree with the level of rent being proposed. b) They have redecorated the majority of the property. They keep it well maintained, clean and tidy. They have replaced the curtain rails. c) The property is looking tired in places, the carpets are over 10 years old, there is a rusty radiator, there is cracking to the stairway and cosmetic damage to the kitchen (in existence at the beginning of the tenancy). The property is small with little storage space.

13. In terms of rental evidence, the Tenant had provided printouts from the property portal app “Rightmove” which showed properties in Nafferton similar to the Property with rents all at £725.00 pcm. The Landlord 14. The Landlord disputes the description of the property as a terraced house, claiming it is a semi- detached property. However, the property clearly has another property attached to both sides (although the attachment is offset on one side).

15. In terms of rental evidence, the Landlord had provided a table detailing the passing rents for a number of properties all described as two bedroom semi-detached houses. Other than an address for each property, which were all in Driffield, no further details have been provided. Determination and Valuation 16. The Tribunal considers the comparables provided by both the Tenant and the Landlord are relevant to this matter. However, the Tribunal puts slightly more weight on the comparables provided by the Tenant, given that slightly more information was available and the location of the comparables.

17. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by both parties, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £725.00 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 and curtains provided by the landlord.

18. The Tribunal has made no adjustments, as there is no evidence to suggest that the state of the property would affect its rental value. Market rent £725.00 pcm

4 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 asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case. They say they will otherwise be caused undue hardship because they rely on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) as carer for their disabled daughter. They have provided evidence of their DLA claim to support this.

14. The Landlord did not respond to the Tenant’s application for postponement due to hardship.

15. As a result of our decision, the rent will increase by £35 a month. The date specified in the landlord’s notice was 01 March 2026. On the basis of the evidence supplied by the Tenant, the Tribunal considers that for the increase to take effect from the date in the Landlord’s Notice would cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as 01 May 2026. Decision 16. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £725.00 per calendar month with effect from 01 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 tenant's comparable properties were given more weight because more information was available and their location was relevant.
  • The property's market rent, if modernised and in good order, was determined to be £725.00 per calendar month.
  • The tenant's reliance on Disability Living Allowance for their disabled daughter was accepted as evidence of undue hardship.
  • The new rent's effective date was postponed to May 1, 2026, due to the tenant's undue hardship.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's claim that the property was semi-detached was rejected as it clearly had properties attached on both sides.
  • The tenant's argument that the notice was invalid was rejected because their reason was only about the proposed rent level.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the market rent at £725 PCM for an assured tenancy in Nafferton.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved, with both providing evidence on rental comparables and property condition.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable properties provided by both parties and set the rent based on fair market value.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparables provided by both parties played a crucial role in determining the fair market rent.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, as it set a lower rent than proposed and delayed its start date due to hardship.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it by providing evidence of fair market comparables and demonstrating undue hardship.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Rental comparables from Rightmove and property condition details were important in the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal 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.