VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant asked the First-tier Tribunal to determine their rent after receiving a notice from their landlord proposing an increase. The tribunal considered the evidence and local rental market conditions before setting the rent at £1850 per month, effective May 2026.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined by a tribunal if they refer a landlord's notice proposing a new rent under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy, provided certain conditions are met. These include the notice being in a prescribed form and specifying a new period of the tenancy starting at least two months after the notice's service date.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

This section implies a covenant by the lessor to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house, along with installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation, in repair and proper working order. It also includes obligations to maintain space heating and heating water installations.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy based on evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent at £1850 per calendar month based on evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in Barnet, where a tenant referred a landlord's notice proposing an increase to £1980 pcm.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

LON/00AC/MNR/2026/0340

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[COUNSEL]

Tenant’s Representative

In Person

Landlord

[NAME]

Landlord’s Address

[ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], AL8 7 JX

Landlord’s [COUNSEL] of Hamilton Chase Estate Agent

Date of Application

10 May 2026

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

Tribunal Members Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision

15 June 2026

Rent Determined

£1850 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

11 May 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 8 April 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1980 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1850 pcm to take effect from 11 May 2026.

2. On 10 May 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.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 11 November 2016 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly on the 11th of the month.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Liability for Council Tax

5. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.

Inspection/Hearing

6. 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

7. The Tribunal did not inspect.

8. The Property is a ground floor flat, offering the following accommodation:

2 bedrooms, reception room, kitchen and bathroom.

Outside: XXX

3

The Property benefits from gas central heating and double glazing. The bedroom floors are carpeted and the remaining areas tiled

The Property is situated in in Barnet, close to shopping and public transport.

Evidence

9. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms.

The Tenant.

10. The Tenant made the following comments:

a) There is disrepair and the rent should not increase until the repairs are carried out. b) A s21 notice has been served so that the property can be sold c) The Tenant is in receipt of Universal Credit and provided supporting evidence.

The Landlord

11. The Landlord agreed the Tenant’s proposal the delay the rent increase until repairs are carried out.

12. A s21 notice has been served so that the property can be sold.

Determination and Valuation

13. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the statement provided by the Landlord that the rent increase will be deferred until repairs are made, the Tribunal confirms the present rent of £1850 pcm

Undue hardship

14. 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.

15. The Tenant has asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case but as the rent is not increasing there is nothing to defer.

4

Decision

16. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1850 per calendar month with effect from 11 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 landlord agreed to delay the rent increase until repairs were completed, which the Tribunal considered.
  • The Tribunal used its own expert knowledge of local rental values to determine the market rent.
  • The tenant's request for a later start date for the new rent was not applicable because the rent was not increasing.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's argument that the rent should not increase due to disrepair was not directly rejected, but the landlord's agreement to defer the increase made it moot.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal set the market rent for an assured tenancy at £1850 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in a dispute over rental rates.

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal considered evidence about repairs needed and local market conditions before deciding on the rent.

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 tenant argued for a lower rent due to disrepair issues, while the landlord proposed an increase based on market rates.

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

The decision supported the tenant's request by confirming the current rent of £1850 pcm.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can refer it to a tribunal if they believe the proposed rate is unfair or too high.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence about repairs and local rental market conditions was important in determining the rent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party may appeal on points of law to the Upper Tribunal 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.