VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a property under an assured tenancy. They set the rent at £1,600 per month, effective from April 1st, 2022, considering comparable properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

The market rent for a property under an assured tenancy should reflect what a willing landlord could obtain on the open market.

Topics

rent determinationhousing actproperty chamber

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy. The tribunal will then decide on the rent that a willing landlord could reasonably expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The decision must consider the terms of the existing tenancy and any notices given under Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to the Act.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal set a new market rent for a property under an assured tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a property under an assured tenancy to be £1,600 per month, effective from April 1st, 2022, based on comparable properties in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BE/MNR/2022/0034 Property : 216 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] : Mr [COUNSEL] Landlord : Mr [COUNSEL] and [NAME] [COUNSEL] : [COUNSEL] LLP Type of Application : Determination under Housing Act 1988, section 14

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge H. Carr Mrs A Flynn MA MRICS Date of Determination :

19th April 2022

DETERMINATION

The determination

1. The market rent determined by the tribunal is £1,600 per calendar month. The effective date is 1st April 2022.

2 The application 2. On 22nd February 2022, the landlord by their representatives, [RESPONDENT] served a notice under Housing Act 1988, section 13(2) proposing a new rent from 1st April 2022 of £1,600 per month, in place of the existing rent of £1,100 per month. On 22nd March 2022, the tenant applied to the First Tier Tribunal (Property) for determination under Housing Act 1988 section 14.

3. The tribunal made its decision on 19th April 2022.

The property 4. The property is a three-bedroom terraced house in a mainly residential road, It is in close proximity to Peckham Rye British Rail Station.

The law 5. Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14, the Tribunal must determine the rent that would be obtained in respect of the same property on a new letting on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy, on otherwise similar terms (other than rent) to the existing tenancy. The rent so determined must, however, disregard the effect on the rent of the granting of the tenancy to a sitting tenant; any increase in the value of the property as a result of improvements carried out by the tenant during the tenancy (or a previous tenancy), otherwise than as a result of his or her obligations to the landlord under the lease; or any reduction attributable to a failure to comply with such an obligation. The rent does not include a service charge but does include sums payable for furniture or council tax.

Determination 6. The Tribunal first assessed the market price that would be achieved for a new letting, in a condition that would be expected of the property if it were to be marketed now.

7. The Tribunal considered that the realistic range of comparable properties, as let, was from £1500 to £2500 per month.

8. At the date of the notice no hardship was claimed by the applicant. Therefore, the rent of £1,600 per month is confirmed as a rent at which the property might reasonably be let.

Name: Judge H Carr Date:

19th April 2022

3 Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 is entitled to reductions in service charges if the landlord fails to maintain the property properly.
  • An RTM company can acquire the right to manage premises if it follows the necessary legal steps.
  • A tenant can challenge a defective notice of rent increase under specific housing laws.
  • A landlord can be exempted from consultation requirements if the situation involves urgent health risks.
  • A tenant can request a rent determination based on the property's condition and market comparables.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Applications for lease extensions must be submitted within six months of receiving a counter-notice.
  • A tenant's challenge to a notice of rent increase was partially dismissed due to the parties' intentions regarding maintenance costs.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The market rent for a property under an assured tenancy was set at £1,600 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable properties in the area, setting the rent at £1,600 per month.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property's rental value with similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the landlord, as the rent was set higher than the existing rent.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider comparable rents in the area when disputing rent increases.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rental prices for similar properties in the area were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determination.

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.