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 £950 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and lack of central heating.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for the property's condition.

Topics

tenancymarket rentassured periodic tenancy

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 their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent for the property, considering the property's condition and other factors such as the type of tenancy and any improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a market rent of £950 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the property's condition and lack of central heating.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/45UG/MNR/2022/0084

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 17 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

Landlord [NAME] ([COMPANY]) [RESPONDENT] 1st Floor, City Gate, St. [ADDRESS], Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne And Wear, [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 950.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 20 July 2022

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 25 December 2014

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises 2 bedroom terraced house.

[NAME] of Decision 7 September 2022

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/45UG/MNR/2022/0084 Property :

17 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord : [COMPANY] :

[APPELLANT]

Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] : None Type of Application :

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

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

7th September 2022

DECISION

CHI/45UG/MNR/2022/0084 2 Summary of Decision 1. On 7th September 2002 the Tribunal determined a market rent of £950 per month to take effect from 20th July 2022.

Background 2. 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.

3. On 15th June 2022 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £975 per month in place of the existing rent of £925 per month to take effect from 20th July 2022. The notice complied with the legal requirements.

4. On 15th July 2022 the Tenant applied to the Tribunal under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.

5. The Coronavirus pandemic and considerations of health have caused a suspension of inspections and Tribunal hearings in person until further notice.

6. The Tribunal issued directions on 25th July 2022 informing the parties that the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on written representations and that the Tribunal would seek to view the property on the internet. The parties were invited to make submissions which could include photographs or videos.

7. Mr [NAME] submitted papers to the Tribunal which had been copied to the Landlord’s Agent who made no representations to the Tribunal.

8. As stated in the Directions, as no objection was received from either party, the Tribunal determined the case on 7th September 2022 based on the documents received without an oral hearing. The Property 9. From the information given in the papers and available on the internet the property comprises a terraced house situated in a residential area on the northeast outskirts of Haywards Heath, about 2½ miles from the town centre. There is a full range of standard amenities within the town.

10. The accommodation provides a Living Room, Dining Room, Kitchen, 2 Bedrooms, Bathroom with WC, Gardens to front and rear and an outside WC.

11. The property has double glazed windows but no central heating. The Energy performance rating is ‘F’.

CHI/45UG/MNR/2022/0084 3 Submissions 12. The initial tenancy began on 25th December 2014 by succession from Mr [NAME] late mother. Mr [NAME] has lived at the property for more than 65 years, together with his brother.

13. Mr [NAME] states that the Kitchen is small and refers the Tribunal to an adjoining house with 3 bedrooms which is let £1,025.

14. Mr [NAME] further informs the Tribunal that he provided the white goods, carpets and curtains, that the bathroom and kitchen fittings are 24 years and 20 years old respectively and that he is responsible for internal decoration. 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 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.

CHI/45UG/MNR/2022/0084 4

(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 15. 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.

16. 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 Parties are not relevant to this issue.

17. Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and associated correspondence and using its own judgment and knowledge of rental values in the general area of Haywards Heath, 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 £1,300 per month.

18. However, the property is not in a condition that would command such a rent and adjustments need to be made to this ‘open market’ rent to take account of the condition of the Property together with Tenant’s provision of some white goods, carpets and curtains, dated Kitchen and Bathroom fittings and the Tenant’s responsibility for internal decoration. The Tribunal decided that a further adjustment should be made to reflect the low EPC rating.

19. Using its experience, the Tribunal decided that the following adjustments should be made:

CHI/45UG/MNR/2022/0084 5 Tenant’s provision of white goods £30 Tenant’s provision of curtains £10 Tenant’s provision of carpets £30 Lack of central heating £125 Dated kitchen £75 Dated bathroom £25 Tenant’s responsibility for internal decoration £30 Low EPC rating £25

____ TOTAL per month £350

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 £950 per month.

22. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £950 per month should take effect from 20th July 2022, this being the date specified in the notice.

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's provision of white goods reduced the market rent.
  • The tenant's provision of curtains reduced the market rent.
  • The tenant's provision of carpets reduced the market rent.
  • The lack of central heating in the property reduced the market rent.
  • The tenant's responsibility for internal decoration reduced the market rent.
  • The low Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating reduced the market rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed rent of £975 per month was not accepted as the fair market rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a market rent of £950 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and the lack of central heating were key factors.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may expect a fair market rent adjusted for the property's condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and descriptions of the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, the decision can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

Yes, it is recommended to get a solicitor for a case like this.

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.