VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a market rent of £246.92 per week for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from April 3, 2023. The decision was based on the open market value of the property, adjusted for specific conditions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a market rent determination based on the open market value of the property, adjusted for specific conditions.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determinations

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord would expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This determination takes into account the specific conditions of the tenancy and disregards certain factors such as improvements made by the tenant or reductions due to non-compliance.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a market rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on written submissions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a market rent of £246.92 per week for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from April 3, 2023, based on the open market value of the property, adjusted for specific conditions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/29UQ/MNR/2023/0074

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 3 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 246.92 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 03 April 2023

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

4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 19 October 2020

6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

9. Description of premises Modern 2 bedroom ground floor flat.

[NAME] of Decision 6 June 2023

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/29UQ/MNR/2023/0074 Property : 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant Tenant : Miss [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [NAME] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Inspection : None. Paper determination Date of Decision :

6th June 2023

DECISION

CHI/29UQ/MNR/2023/0074

2 Summary of Decision

1. On 6th June 2023 the Tribunal determined a market rent of £246.92 per week to take effect from 3rd April 2023. 2. The Tribunal is aware that this market rent is more than the amount requested by the Landlord who is providing Social Housing. The Landlord is not obliged to charge this higher figure.

Background 3. The case concerned the determination of a market rent for the subject property following a referral of the Landlord’s notice of increase of rent by the Tenant pursuant to sections 13 and 14 Housing Act 1988.

4. On 8th February 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £122.94 per week in place of the existing rent of £114.90 per week to take effect from 3rd April 2023. A service charge of £18.36 is payable in addition to the rent. The notice complied with the legal requirements.

5. On 28th March 2023 the Tenant applied to the Tribunal under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.

6. The Tribunal does not consider it necessary and proportionate in cases of this nature to undertake inspections or hold Tribunal hearings unless either specifically requested by either party or a particular point arises which merits such an inspection and/or hearing.

7. The Tribunal issued directions on 14th April 2023 informing the parties that, unless either party objected, the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on written representations. The parties were invited to make submissions which could include photographs or videos.

8. Both parties submitted papers by the specified dates which were copied to the other party.

9. Neither party objected to the matter being determined without an oral hearing, so the Tribunal determined the case on 6th June 2023 based on the written representations received. The Property 10. From the information given in the papers and available on the internet the property comprises a ground floor flat in a modern purpose-built block of flats within a cul-de-sac about 1 ½ miles northeast of the centre of Tunbridge Wells.

11. The accommodation is described as including a Living Room, Kitchen, two Bedrooms and a Bathroom. There is off-street parking and communal gardens.

CHI/29UQ/MNR/2023/0074

3 12. The property has double-glazed windows and gas-fired central heating. No white goods or curtains are provided by the Landlord. Submissions 13. Miss [RESPONDENT] took occupation of the property 0n the 19th October 2020.

14. Miss [NAME] states that the kitchen units are dated, that she has replaced kitchen and bathroom floor coverings and she provided the Tribunal with photographs of the bathroom which show some black mould growth caused by excessive moisture. Miss [NAME] also says that the extractor fan is inadequate and that the kitchen units are dated.

15. Miss [NAME] also provided the Tribunal with details of other properties available to rent. The two bedroomed properties had asking rents ranging from £99 per week, £429 per month, to £590 per month. The Law

S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal

(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy-

(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.

(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded-

(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement

CHI/29UQ/MNR/2023/0074

4 concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates, or the following conditions are satisfied, namely-

(a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling- house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of [NAME], at least one of them) did not quit.

(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation.

Consideration and Valuation

16. The Tribunal first considered whether it felt able to reasonably and fairly decide this case based on the papers submitted only with no oral hearing. Having read and considered the papers it decided that it could do so.

17. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the Tenant are not relevant to this issue.

18. Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and associated correspondence and using its own judgement and knowledge of rental values in Tunbridge Wells the Tribunal decided that the market rent for the subject property if let today in a condition that was usual for such an open market letting would be £1,200 per month. The Tribunal concluded that the rentals provided by the Tenant were for other Social Housing in the area which explained why they were lower than the open market rents..

19. Using its experience the Tribunal decided that this theoretical open market rent should be adjusted to take account of the Tenant’s provision of white goods £30, dated Kitchen £50 and the dated bathroom affected by black mould £50. A total deduction of £130 per month.

CHI/29UQ/MNR/2023/0074

5 20. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship. Determination 21. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under the terms of this assured tenancy was £1,070 per month which equates to £246.92 per week.

22. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £246.92 per week should take effect from 3rd April 2023.

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 to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

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.

📊 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 refers a landlord's rent increase notice to the Tribunal for a fair market rent determination.
  • The tenant claims entitlement to a market rent adjustment based on the property's condition and improvements.
  • The tenant seeks a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy under relevant housing acts.
  • The tenant requests a rent adjustment considering the property's condition and amenities.
  • The tenant demands a rent determination by the First-tier Tribunal based on open market value and conditions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that led to unfavorable outcomes for tenants in the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a market rent of £246.92 per week for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from April 3, 2023.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord, both represented by themselves.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on written submissions and its own judgement of rental values in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the open market value of the property, adjusted for specific conditions.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a higher market rent than initially proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may benefit from a fair market rent determination based on the open market value of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and details of other properties available to rent were important evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission from the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal issues.

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.