First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HE/MNR/2025/0706

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 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Regional Surveyor J Coupe FRICS Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] (Rocklands) Address c/o [COMPANY], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 825.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 June 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 9 May 2018

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises Third floor flat in a seven-storey purpose built, mixed-use, building close to the beach. Accommodation comprises – hall, living room/kitchen, bedroom, bathroom. No parking.

Chairman

Regional Surveyor J Coupe FRICS

Date of Decision 29 July 2025

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : HAV/00HE/MNR/2025/0706

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant Tenant : [COUNSEL] [NAME] : None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT]

(Rocklands)

Representative : [COMPANY] of Application : Determination of a Market Rent

Sections 13 & 14 Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME]

Mr [NAME] of Decision : 29 July 2025

REASONS

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

2

Decision of the Tribunal

On 29 July 2025 the Tribunal determined a Market Rent of £825.00 per month to take effect from 1 June 2025.

Background

1. By way of an application received by the Tribunal on 30 May 2025 the tenant of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (hereinafter referred to as “the property”) referred a Notice of Increase in Rent (“the Notice”) by the Respondent landlord of the property under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) to the Tribunal.

2. The Notice, dated 30 April 2025, proposed a new rent of £925.00 per month in lieu of a passing rent of £775.00 per month, to take effect from 1 June 2025.

3. The property was initially let to the tenant by way of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement commencing 9 May 2018 for a fixed term of six months. This was extended by way of another six month term dated 1 December 2018 rolling on monthly thereafter. Copies of both tenancy agreements were provided.

4. On 27 June 2025 the Tribunal issued Directions advising the parties that it considered the matter suitable for determination on the papers unless either party objected, in writing, within 7 days. Additionally, that the Tribunal intended inspecting the property on 23 July 2025. No objections were received.

5. The Directions required the landlord and tenant to submit their completed statements to the Tribunal by 8 July 2025 and 17 July 2025 respectively, with copies to be sent to the other party. In the event, both parties submitted case management applications requesting an extension of time and one additional day was granted to both.

6. These reasons address in summary form the key issues raised by the parties. The reasons do not recite each point referred to in submissions but concentrate on those issues which, in the Tribunal’s view, are critical to this decision. In writing this decision the Chairman has had regard to the Senior President of Tribunals Practice Direction – Reasons for Decisions, dated 4 June 2024.

Law

7. In accordance with the terms of Section 14 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy.

3

8. In so doing, and in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal ignores any increase in value attributable to tenants’ improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenants’ failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

The Inspection

9. The Tribunal inspected the property at 10:00am on Wednesday 23 July 2025. The Applicant, Mr [APPELLANT], was present during the inspection. Neither the Respondent nor their representative attended. Weather conditions at the time of the inspection were dry and bright.

The Property

10. The property is a third floor flat within a seven-storey, purpose-built block that includes a penthouse level. The ground floor accommodates commercial units, including a branch of Pizza Express. The front elevation of the building, south-facing, overlooks the junction of Narrowcliff and [ADDRESS], while the north-facing elevation benefits from views across Tolcarne Beach. The residential accommodation is arranged across two wings – East and West – with the subject property situated in the West wing. There is a lift which was operational at the time of inspection.

11. The communal entrance was observed to be clean and tidy, although the décor appeared worn. The communal staircase – used by the Tribunal to access the roof terrace and to descend the building – was similarly clean and well maintained. However, some staining consistent with water ingress was noted.

12. The accommodation comprises an entrance hall; a living room/kitchen with a small balcony overlooking Narrowcliff; a bedroom; and a bathroom fitted with a bath, toilet, wash hand basin and separate shower cubicle. Situated at the front of the building, the apartment overlooks the road and does not benefit from sea views.

13. The tenant has access to the communal roof terrace which offers views of the beach and sea. In addition, the tenant is granted use of a small storage unit located within the basement carpark. The tenancy agreement does not include any parking facilities.

14. From both the roof terrace and ground level, the Tribunal observed that a substantial number of cladding panels were either missing or visibly damaged, resulting in the fabric of the building being exposed to the elements. The jagged edges on several remaining panels indicated that the missing sections had likely become dislodged, rather than having been professionally removed.

15. The Tribunal observed that the front door to the apartment – a fire door - did not fit securely within its frame, leaving visible gaps at the top right hand corner. The door was difficult to close tightly. The balcony patio door handle in the living room was noted to be loose, and the seals around the door frame showed signs of minor disrepair. Flaking paintwork was observed in both the living room and bedroom. Mr [NAME] also highlighted areas of unfinished grouting in the bathroom and reported

4

that the bath spotlights were no longer functioning.

16. The kitchen was fitted with a range of modern base and wall-mounted units, all in good condition. A fridge with a small freezer compartment was included - although the freezer door was broken thereby rendering the freezer unusable. An oven, with built-in dishwasher, was reported to be in good working order, and a washer/dryer was also provided. Underfloor heating, controlled by two separate panels, was installed throughout the property. The windows are UPVC double-glazed. The bedroom window did not open; ventilation was instead provided by two window vents and an extraction fan.

17. The property is conveniently situated for local facilities and public transport.

Submissions - Tenant

18. The tenants’ submissions, excluding consideration of personal circumstances - which are to be disregarded in setting a market rent under the Act - can be summarised as follows.

19. The tenant provided a comprehensive bundle including a statement of case, documentation and evidence upon which he relied. Much of the bundle comprised communication between the parties concerning various reports of disrepair and the proposed replacement of the oven/dishwasher, and the replacement of the washer/dryer.

20. It is accepted that the landlord provides the white goods and flooring, and that the property is fully heated and double glazed.

21. The tenant accepts that the oven, which incorporates a built-in dishwasher, has remained at the property despite the landlord’s earlier indication that it would be removed, and the tenant confirmed that it is in working order. The tenant further acknowledges that although the original washer/dryer was temporarily replaced with a washing machine only, the landlord has since provided a replacement washer/dryer. However, the tenant states that the current appliance takes approximately ten hours to complete a full cycle, resulting in increased energy consumption and higher associated costs.

22. The tenant outlines a number of defects in the apartment, including the gap between the front door and frame, a loose balcony door handle and deteriorating door seals, flaking paintwork, a broken freezer door, damage to the bath tub, poor grouting, broken bath lights, and issues with the boiler – located in a cupboard in the bedroom – and heated towel rail, both of which he accepts have now been rectified by the landlord. The tenant also states that the lift malfunctions on occasion.

23. The tenant referred to the dislodged and damaged cladding to the building, stating that remedial works, to be undertaken under the government’s scheme, are scheduled to commence in July 2026.

24. The tenant relies on a number of comparable one-bedroom flats, advertised online as available to let, at asking prices ranging from £755- £795. None of the comparables were situated within Rocklands, or are sea-

5

fronting, but each was within reasonably close proximity.

25. Regarding the landlord’s comparable evidence in Rocklands, the tenant notes that each of the four cited properties are located on the north-facing side of the building and benefit from sea views. Additionally, these comparables mostly feature larger balconies capable of accommodating patio furniture, whereas the tenant’s balcony is more akin to a ledge and is not a useable outdoor space. Two of the comparables are furnished, and one includes a parking space in Rocklands’ secure underground garage, which command a premium. The tenant argues that if these superior properties achieve rents between £950 - £1,150 per month, they in fact support his position that the proposed rent for his own apartment is excessive. As for the landlord’s additional comparables, the tenant contends that these are not relevant as they offer two-bedroom accommodation and are therefore not comparable.

26. The tenant stated that local street parking is both limited and much is subject to a two-hour restriction, which requires him to park further out of town and walk to the property.

27. The tenant stated that the landlord has failed to carry out regular maintenance in a timely manner, despite being notified by the tenant in April 2024. On 2 October 2024, the tenant served the landlord’s agent with a Notice of Breach of Repair Obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

28. The tenant seeks financial compensation for loss of income incurred while waiting contractor appointments that ultimately failed to happen.

Submissions – Landlord

29. The landlords’ submissions, excluding consideration of personal circumstances which are to disregarded in setting a market rent, can be summarised as follows.

30. The landlord concurs with the tenant’s description of the property, the right to use the roof terrace and the lack of allocated parking. The landlord describes the property as ten years-old with the original high/modern specification fittings.

31. The landlord explains that remedial works to the cladding are being funded by the government grant. However, this is proving to be a lengthy process which the [NAME] continue to manage.

32. The landlord relies on four one-bedroom apartments within Rocklands as comparable evidence, each let by the landlords’ agent between February and June 2025 at monthly rents ranging from £950 - £1,150. In addition, the landlord’s representative submitted letting advertisements for a one- bedroom flat with an asking rent of £850 per month, and two two- bedroom flats, both asking for £1,250 per month. These additional comparables are not located on the seafront.

33. In regard to the tenant’s comparable evidence, the landlord says that these properties are not on the seafront or fitted to the same specification as the subject or provide a balcony.

6

34. The landlord states that the property is conveniently located for local facilities and public transport.

Determination

35. The Tribunal determines a market rent for a property by reference to rental values generally and, in particular, to the rental values for comparable properties in the locality. The Tribunal has no regard to the current rent and the period of time which that rent has been charged, nor does it take into account the percentage increase which the proposed rent represents to the passing rent. In addition, the legislation makes it clear that the Tribunal is unable to account for the personal circumstances of either the landlord or the tenant.

36. The date at which the Tribunal assesses the rent is the effective date contained within the landlord’s Notice which, in this instance, is the 1 June 2025. The Tribunal disregards any improvements made by the tenant but has regard to the impact on rental value of disrepair which is not due to a failure of the tenant to comply with the terms of the tenancy.

37. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the submissions before it, alongside its findings from the inspection.

38. In the first instance, the Tribunal determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market, if it were let on the effective date and in the condition that is considered usual for such a market letting.

39. The landlord relies on four comparable lettings within Rocklands, each achieving rents between £950 and £1,150 per month. The Tribunal finds that these comparables are all superior to the subject property, being located on the north-facing side of the building, with beach and sea views, and featuring balconies that function as extensions of the living space, and one with allocated parking. In contrast, the tenant’s apartment overlooks a busy road junction, is subject to road traffic noise disturbance, lacks sea views, has a balcony suitable only for standing, and has bedroom windows that do not open.

40. The Tribunal considers that the availability of the communal roof terrace constitutes a positive amenity likely to attract a rental premium. When considered alongside the property’s close proximity to the beach, the Tribunal finds that these features enhance the rental value of the subject property relative to the tenant’s proposed comparables.

41. Having weighed the parties’ comparable evidence against its own expert knowledge as a specialist Tribunal – and taking into account, among other factors, the property’s position within the building, its close proximity to the beach, the use of the roof terrace, the absence of parking, and the perceived or actual health and practical risks associated with the cladding works - the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property, assuming it to be in good tenantable condition, is £850.00 per month.

42. Once the hypothetical rent was established it was necessary for the

7

Tribunal to determine whether the property meets the standard of accommodation, repair and amenity of a typical modern letting.

43. The Tribunal finds that, while the property is no longer in pristine condition, it is not in a state of significant disrepair. In light of the outstanding minor works of repair and general maintenance, together with overall wear and tear, the Tribunal considers that a deduction of £25.00 per month from the hypothetical rent is justified. The Tribunal does not consider a further deduction warranted in respect of the washer/dryer’s extended cycle time, nor are any additional deductions deemed necessary. The Tribunal’s assessment also takes into account the condition of the building’s cladding.

44. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the adjusted open market rent to be £825.00 per month.

45. The tenant made no submissions to the Tribunal in regard to delaying the effective date of the revised rent on the ground of undue hardship under section 14(7) of the Act. Accordingly, the rent of £825.00 per month will take effect from 1 June 2025, that being the date stipulated within the landlord’s notice.

46. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine either an alleged breach of landlord’s covenant, or to award the tenant financial compensation. Both are matters for an alternative judicial forum.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.