First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and amenities. The rent was set at £1800 per month, effective from the date of the decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
The rent for an assured periodic tenancy should reflect the property's condition and amenities.
📖 What the law says
Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 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 what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property under similar conditions. The determination considers the property's condition and amenities, 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 determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the property's condition and amenities. The rent was set at £1800 per month, effective from the date of the decision.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
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 30 Linkside, Finchley, London, [POSTCODE] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [NAME] 30 Linkside Finchley London [POSTCODE]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 1800 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 24 September 2020
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable
Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 17 July 1996
6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months
7. Allocation of liability for repairs Housing Act Act 1988
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
9. Description of premises First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AC/MNR/2020/0008
A 1930s three bedroom semi detached house with garage and rear garden.
[NAME] of Decision 24 September 2020
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : Lon/00AC/MNR/2020/0008 Property : 30 Linkside Finchley London [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] Type of application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : Judge [NAME] [NAME] and venue of hearing : Video Hearing 24 September 2020 Date of reasons : 16 October 2020
REASONS (HOUSING ACT 1988)
Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that the rent that the property in its current condition might reasonably be expected to achieve in the open market under an assured tenancy is £1800 per month Background 1. The tenant lives in the property as an assured periodic tenant since 27th July 1996. On 6 December 2019 the landlord served a notice pursuant to section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 seeking to increase the rent from £1575 to £1950 per month effective from 27 January 2020.
2. By an application received on the 15 January 2020 the tenant referred that notice to the tribunal for a determination of the market rent. and the tenant subsequently requested a hearing Submissions 3. The Video hearing in this matter took place on 24 September 2020. Both the tenant and the landlord’s agent appeared.
4. Written representations were received from Mr [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] on behalf of the landlord suggesting a monthly market rent he relied two comparable lettings, namely 44 Linkside which was in good condition and let at £2000 per month and [ADDRESS] which was stated to be in poor condition which let at £1825 per month.
5. The applicant provided a selection of evidence dating back to 2013 which was not considered appropriate by the Tribunal due to a lack of information and its historical nature. In addition, the applicant provided a detailed schedule of the condition of the property which confirmed it was partially double glazed, part electrical rewiring , damp problems via bathroom, dated kitchen and sanitary fittings and no white goods. This evidence was not contested by the landlords agent.
Inspection 6. Due to the current restrictions the tribunal did not inspect the property and relied on information provided by the parties and its expert knowledge. The property is a 1930s three bedroom semi detached house with one living room, kitchen, bathroom, garage and rear garden. The property is located in an established residential area amongst dwellings of a comparable age and type convenient to local amenities.
The Law 8. The rules governing a determination are set out in section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, the tribunal is to determine the rent for each flat at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy, subject to disregards in relation to the nature of the tenancy (i.e. it being granted to a “sitting tenant”) and any increase or reduction in the value due to the tenant’s improvements or failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure, exterior and any installations pursuant to section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenant for interior decoration. The valuation 9 Having carefully considered all of the evidence the Tribunal considers that the rent that would be achieved in good condition with modern amenities would be £2000 per month in accordance with the comparable provided by [NAME], namely 44 Linkside.
10. That however is the rent that would be achieved if the property was let in good condition with all modern amenities. Based upon the evidence provided to the Tribunal we consider that that the rent should be reduced by £200 to reflect the dated kitchen and and bathroom fittings,, partial double glazing and basic electrical wiring. Our deduction reduces the rent to a figure of £1800 per month 11. We have not made any deduction to reflect the decorative state of the property because this is the tenants responsibility under the term of the letting. 12 Section 14 (7) of the Housing Act 1988 states that the rent set by the tribunal will apply from the date specified in the notice unless it appears to the tribunal that would cause undue hardship to the tenant.Ms [APPELLANT] made reasonable representations to the Tribunal that there was undue hardship caused by the proposed rent increase and, therefore, the rent determined by the tribunal is to take effect from the date of the Tribunals decision , being 24 September 2020.
Name: Judge D [NAME]: 15 October 2020
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Lighting Works Without Consultatio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Lift Repairs Dispensation Without Conditi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Sewage Pump Replacement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Masonry Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Victorian Flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Freeholder Allowed to Appoint New Contractor for Fire Door Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation from Consultation Requirements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Premiums for New Leases Based on Expert Valuations
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 condition and amenities are considered when setting the rent.
- The Tribunal uses expert valuations to determine fair rent.
- Urgent works allow landlords to bypass consultation requirements without causing prejudice.
- Tenants can request rent adjustments based on property improvements they make.
- Landlords can be dispensed from consultation requirements if works are urgent and necessary.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Applications for rent determination are struck out if the landlord's notice is defective.
- Tribunals lack jurisdiction over applications that do not meet statutory requirements.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The market rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £1800 per month.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court considered the property's condition and amenities to determine the market rent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The condition and amenities of the property were crucial in determining the market rent.
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 should consider the condition and amenities of their property when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence regarding the property's condition and comparable rents were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions 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 disputes.
