First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £850 PCM

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00DA/MNR/2026/0224 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative Landlord [COUNSEL] & [COUNSEL] Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], United Kingdom Landlord’s [RESPONDENT] of Application 23 April 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] (Chair) & [NAME] (Valuer Member) Date of Decision 12 June 2026 Rent Determined £850.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 6 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 £850.00 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £800.00 pcm to take effect from 6 May 2026.

2. On 23 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. Under a tenancy agreement between the parties dated 30 July 2023, the Property was demised for a term from 6 May 2025 to 5 May 2026 with rent payable in advance on the sixth day of each month. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant 4. As per the tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than any carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same 5. No service charge or furniture. 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

3 Hearing 8. Neither party requested an oral hearing or an inspection. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly consider this case based on the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Property 9. The Property is a modern, mid-terrace house, offering the following accommodation: Ground floor: lounge, kitchen and WC. First Floor: 2 bedrooms and bathroom Outside: rear garden The Property has gas central heating, double glazing, a mixture of carpet and vinyl flooring, and tiled bathroom flooring. Carpets and curtains were included but the Tenant has installed curtain rails the in the living room and bedroom 1. Evidence 10. The parties completed the relevant Rents 1 (Tenant) and Rents 1A (Landlord) forms. The Landlord 11. The following comparables were provided by the Landlord’s agent to the Tenant before the Tenant’s application. The [NAME] is in respect of the area of 0.25 miles from the Property for the period 1 June 2025 to 1 April 2026: a) [ADDRESS] – 2-bedroom terrace house @ £1,050.00 pcm b) [ADDRESS] – 2-bedroom end of terrace house @ £900.00 pcm.

4 c) [ADDRESS] – 2-bedroom terrace house @ £895.00 pcm d) [ADDRESS] – 2-bedroom terrace house @ £875.00 pcm e) [ADDRESS] – 2-bedroom house @ £850.00 pcm f) [ADDRESS] – 2-bedroom terrace house @ £850.00 pcm The Tenant 12. The Tenant made the following comments: a) Direct Market Comparables for [COMPANY]. I believe £825 is the accurate market rent for this property in its current state of repair. This represents a fair increase from the current £800 rent while acknowledging that the property has not undergone the modernization seen in higher-priced listings. Current market evidence for similar 2- bedroom non-renovated terraced houses in the LS12 area (such as those recently listed on [ADDRESS] and Cecil Mount) consistently shows achievable rents at the £825 level. b) Landlord’s agent provided a “[NAME]” citing properties between £850 and £1,050 pcm to justify the proposed increase. However, these properties are not direct “like-for-like” comparisons due to significant differences in condition: Property 1 ([ADDRESS] - £850): marketed explicitly as “Recently Renovated”. Property 4 ([ADDRESS] - £895): Described as “Beautifully Presented” with a “Modern Kitchen and Bathroom”. Property 2 ([ADDRESS] - £850): a property in a different sub-locality. My property, [ADDRESS], does not feature a modern kitchen or bathroom and has not been recently renovated. Consequently, it cannot command the same “premium” rent as the renovated properties used by the agent as benchmarks. c) Acknowledgement of Required Improvements. The agent’s own data shows that properties achieving £850+ are in a “renovated” or “modern” state. The agent has scheduled a property inspection specifically to

5 address several “improvements” I have requested. This act acknowledges that the property is not currently at the standard of the £850 comparables. Until these improvements are completed, a rent of £825 is a more accurate reflection of the property's current market value. d) Supply and Demand Trends. According to the Rightmove “Number of Views” graph in the provided report, potential tenant interest peaks at lower price points and drops significantly as rent approaches the £1,000 mark. For a traditional, unrenovated terrace, the £825 price point aligns more closely with the highest volume of market demand than the landlord’s £850 proposal.

13. In response, the Landlord commented as follows: a) The like-for-like comparison is misplaced. [NAME] is intended to demonstrate the overall market position. b) The proposed rent of £850.00 pcm is in line with market rent based on the comparable properties evidence by [NAME]. c) The comparables reflect the current range of achievable rents within the local market. The Guide is intended to demonstrate overall market positioning rather than rather than rely on a single property, like-for-like. Determination and Valuation 14. Only the Landlord’s comparables listed above have been considered by the Tribunal. In respect of the two properties mentioned by the Tenant at paragraph 12. a) above, no photographs or other details have been provided and the Tribunal considers the information too limited for the purpose of comparison.

15. Of the Landlord’s comparables, all the properties are of significantly older construction than the Property, save for [ADDRESS] which is of a similar age, and therefore this is the comparable on which the Tribunal has placed

6 greatest reliance. The Tribunal does not agree that it is located in a different sub-locality to the Property.

16. The Tribunal does not consider that for current purposes any reliable inference can be drawn from the number of views graph mentioned at paragraph 12. d) above.

17. Relying on its own [NAME], general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the [ADDRESS] comparable, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property in good order would be £850.00 pcm.

18. The Tribunal does not consider that any adjustments need to made to that figure. Based on the photographs provided by the Tenant, the Property is in a good state of repair and not in need of modernisation. No required improvements are identified by the Tenant at paragraph 12. c) above. The new curtain rails do not constitute a value-significant improvement by the Tenant for the purpose of determining a market rent. Decision 19. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £850.00 per calendar month with effect from 6 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.