First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Coventry Tenancy
📌 In brief
A tenant applied to have their rent assessed by the First-tier Tribunal after receiving a notice of increase from their landlord. The Tribunal initially considered striking out the case due to late filing but ultimately determined the market rent at £700 pcm based on research and experience.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have their rent assessed by the First-tier Tribunal if they apply within the prescribed timeframe.
📖 What the law says
This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding those that are considered relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent, which must take effect at least two months after the notice is served. There are additional conditions regarding when the rent increase can take place, depending on the type of tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy in Coventry.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent at £700 pcm for a tenancy in Coventry, despite an initial procedural issue with the application timing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference : BIR/00CQ/MNR/2025/0683
Property
: 13 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] : Appeal against a Notice proposing a new rent under an
Assured Periodic Tenancy under section 13(4) of the Housing
Act 1988
Tribunal Members : [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS
Judge David R. Salter
Date and Venue of : 9 September 2025 (striking out) Hearing
Date of Decision : 14 January 2026
____________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
1 The market rent is determined at £700.00 (Seven Hundred Pounds) per calendar month from 11 April 2025.
REASONS
Introduction
2 The tenant, [APPELLANT], holds a monthly assured tenancy of 13 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] in Coventry city centre. The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2018.
3 By Notice dated 24 February 2025, the Landlord served notice of increase under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988 proposing a rent increase from £650 pcm to £850 pcm to take effect on 11 April 2025. The rent did not include any Council Tax, water rates or service charges.
4 In an application dated 2 April 2025, the Tenant applied for the rent to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), but this application was dated stamped as received by the Tribunal on 26 April 2025, and, thus, beyond the relevant date of 11 April 2025.
5 As a consequence, a hearing before the Regional Surveyor, [NAME], and Judge David R Salter was held on 9 September 2025 to consider whether the Tenant's application should be struck out under Rule 9(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. The hearing was attended by the Tenant; the Landlord did not attend nor was he represented.
6 At the hearing, the Tenant submitted that his application was made in time in that it was received by the Tribunal before 26 April 2025, and, importantly, before 11 April 2025.
7 Subsequent to the hearing, the Tenant provided evidence to the Tribunal in support of his submission that his application was made in time.
8 Such evidence was a screenshot of his bank account that gave details of a £5.00 payment made on 8 April 2025 to [APPELLANT] whom the Tenant described as an 'Official Post Office Partner'.
9 In light of the above, this Tribunal was constituted to determine the market rent for the Property in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
10 This Tribunal has considered the case based on its knowledge, experience and, in the absence of any evidence submitted by the parties as to rents paid for comparable properties, online research into rents paid for comparable properties.
The Law
11 Section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 provides:
'(1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a rent assessment committee a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the committee shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the committee consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy -
3
(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;...'
'(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 the
immediate landlord ...'
Facts Found
12 The Tribunal has not inspected the property and relies on the limited evidence provided by the parties and online research.
13 The property is in a residential development near the canal in Coventry city centre. The Tenant describes the property as having a living room with integral kitchen and partition separating the living room to form a bedroom, but the bedroom area has no additional heating or natural light. In his opinion it is a bedsit.
14 The property was let with a table, two chairs, 2 wardrobes and bed included in the tenancy.
Evidence
15 The Tenant
The Tenant's application form to the Tribunal advised he had been told by the Landlord that he was responsible for updating the shower, although the existing shower was 20 years old, and that he had bought a heater for the bedroom area as none had been provided. He also considered it to be a 'bedsit', rather than flat.
16 The Landlord's Submission
The Landlord made no Submissions.
Decision
17 Although the parties had not provided any evidence of market rents paid for this type of property, the Tribunal finds from its own knowledge and experience that the market rent would be £700 pcm.
18 Accordingly, the Tribunal determines the rent under section 14 of The Housing Act 1988
at £700.00 (Seven Hundred pounds) pcm with effect from 11 April 2025.
[NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS
Chairman
4
Appeal
If either party is dissatisfied with this decision an application may be made to the Upper Tribunal, Property Chamber (Residential Property) on a point of law arising from this Decision only. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to the Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be received within 28 days of the issue of this statement of reasons (regulation 52(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds on which it is intended to rely in the appeal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £800 PCM for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent at £1,250 PCM
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Coventry Apartment
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Coventry Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent in Assured Tenancy Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rental Rate for Tenant's Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
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 applied within the prescribed timeframe.
- The tenant requested a fair market value assessment.
- The tenant challenged a proposed rent increase.
- The tenant sought a fair determination based on current market conditions.
- The tenant asked for an assessment considering the property's condition relative to others.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The First-tier Tribunal set the market rent for a Coventry tenancy at £700 per month.
Who was involved?
A tenant applied to have their rent assessed by the tribunal against a landlord's proposed increase.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal considered whether the application was timely before determining the market rent based on research and experience.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Housing Act 1988 s.13(4) and Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 rule 9(2).
What argument mattered most?
The tenant's evidence that the application was timely, despite initial concerns.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the tenant, as the rent was set at a lower rate than proposed by the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Tenants can apply to have their rent assessed if they believe it is unfair and provide timely evidence of application.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenant provided a screenshot showing an early payment as proof of timely application.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only on points of law with permission from the Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice for such cases.
