First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
📌 In brief
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set a new rental price of £520 per month for an assured tenant. The decision was based on evidence about similar properties in the area and adjustments made because of issues with the property's condition.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair determination of market rent considering the property's condition and comparables.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent based on reasonable expectations of what a willing landlord would charge for a similar tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy under sections of the Housing Act 1988, adjusting for property condition issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy, adjusting from £570 to £520 per month due to property condition issues and comparables provided by both parties.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00AB/MNR/2026/0116 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative Landlord [COUNSEL] Landlord’s Address c/o PO Box 540, Wakefield [POSTCODE] Landlord’s [NAME] of Application 23 February 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision 05 June 2026 Rent Determined £520.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 07 April 2026
2
REASONS FOR THE
DECISION Background 1. On 09 February 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £550.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £475.00 pcm to take effect from 07 April 2026.
2. On 23 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 07 February 2020 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. None 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 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 first floor flat forming part of a modern multi storey highrise development, offering the following accommodation: Open plan kitchen/lounge, one bedroom, and bathroom. Outside: space in communal garage. The Property benefits from electric heating and double glazing. The Property is situated within the centre of Barnsley.
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) That the apartment has a mould issue, partly caused by the unheated garage being directly below the apartment. This causes black spots in the corners of all rooms and has damaged some of her belongings. Pictures provided.
13. In terms of rental evidence, the Tenant suggested that similar properties are available around £500 pcm but provided no evidence. The Landlord 14. The Landlord provided copies of the information that it had given to the Tenant about dealing with condensation damp.
15. The following comparables were provided by the Landlord from Rightmove: a) [ADDRESS], Barnsley. This is a two bedroom apartment, advertised at £800.00 pcm. b) [ADDRESS], Barnsley. A top floor, one bedroom apartment in a low rise development. Advertised at £650 pcm. c) [ADDRESS], Barnsley. A first floor two bedroom maisonette. Advertised at £600 pcm.
16. The Landlord referred to it’s letting of several one and two apartments within the same apartment block and suggested rents of £575 for the one bedroom apartments, but provided no details of the rental agreements. Determination and Valuation 17. None of the Landlord’s comparables were considered relevant. The first and third were for two bedroom apartments and the second one in [ADDRESS] appears to be a spacious top floor apartment in a much more desirable block.
18. The Tribunal considered that, whilst condensation was a factor in it developing, the main cause was most likely to be a result of the construction of the building and therefore, beyond the control of the Tenant.
19. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £570.00 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.
4 20. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following: a) Issues with the condition of the Property which reduce its value including condensation and mould. The full valuation is shown below: Starting Rent £570.00 pcm Less a) Items given under a) above £50.00 £60.00 Market rent £520.00 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 asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case. They say they will otherwise be caused undue hardship because they are unemployed and relying on benefits. They live in a one bedroom apartment, despite having a child, because they cannot afford anything bigger. However, they did not provide any evidence 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 £45 a month. The date specified in the landlord’s notice was 07 April 2026. As no evidence has been provided, the Tribunal considers that there are no grounds for a claim of undue hardship. Therefore, the increase will take effect from the date stated in the notice, being 07 April 2026. Decision 16. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £520.00 per calendar month with effect from 07 April 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent Amid Financial Hardship
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets fair rent of £618.75 pcm for Ipswich flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Portsmouth Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Manchester Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Assured Tenancy Rent
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 property's mould issue was considered a factor reducing its value, likely caused by the building's construction.
- The Tribunal relied on its own expert knowledge of local rental values to determine a market rent.
- The determined rent is exclusive of Council Tax, which the tenant is responsible for paying.
- The Tribunal adjusted the starting rent downwards due to the property's condition issues, including mould.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's claim of undue hardship for a later rent increase date was rejected due to lack of evidence.
- The landlord's suggested rents for similar apartments in the same block were not accepted as evidence.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set a new market rent of £520 per month for an assured tenancy.
Who was involved?
A tenant and their landlord were involved in the dispute over rental price.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court considered evidence about similar properties and issues with the property's condition to set a fair rent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were used in determining the market rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The main argument was about adjusting the proposed rent based on property condition issues.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially against the tenant, as the new rent was lower than initially proposed but higher than requested by the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a rental increase should gather evidence about comparable properties and property conditions to support their case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of similar rental prices and documentation about property condition issues were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can appeal the decision 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.
