VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Semi-Detached House

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal decided on the fair market rent for a two-bedroom semi-detached house in Langley, Derbyshire. After considering similar properties and the current state of the home, the tribunal set the new rent at £750 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at a fair market rate based on comparable properties and the condition of the property.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve notices proposing increases in rent, with specific conditions regarding when these increases can take effect.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

Under this section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, there is an implied obligation for landlords to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house, along with installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation, in repair and proper working order. This obligation also extends to installations for space heating and heating water within the dwelling-house.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a two-bedroom semi-detached house in Langley, Derbyshire.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent of a semi-detached house in Langley, Derbyshire. The tribunal considered comparable properties and the condition of the property to set the new rent at £750 per month.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference BIR/17UB/MNR/2026/0026

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[NAME] Tenant’s Representative

Landlord

Habodel 8 Limited

Landlord’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Landlord’s Representative

Date of Application 16th January 2026

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

Tribunal Members [NAME] (Chairman) Mr N Wint FRICS Date of Decision 30th April 2026

Rent Determined

£750.00 Date the new rent takes effect 14th March 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 5th January 2026 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £762.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £700.00 to take effect from 14th March 2026.

2. On 16th January 2026, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 14th March 2025 for a term of twelve months. The rental period is monthly.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtains and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. None.

Liability for Council Tax

6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.

Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.

7. None.

Inspection/Hearing

8. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and online research.

9. Based on the information provided to it, the Tribunal understands that the property comprises of a semi-detached house, offering the following accommodation:

3

Ground Floor: Living room and kitchen.

First Floor: Two bedrooms and bathroom.

Outside: Front forecourt and rear garden.

Based on internet mapping the property appears to be double glazed. There is understood to be gas fired central heating.

It is understood that white goods are provided by the Tenant and that carpets and curtains are provided in part, by both Landlord and Tenant.

The Property is situated in an established residential area.

Evidence 10. The Landlord has completed the Tribunal Reply Form and has made submissions. No written submissions were provided by the Tenant except to state in the Application that the rear garden was full of the Landlord’s waste.

11. Directions were issued on 10th February 2026. On 27th February 2026 the Landlord applied to the Tribunal for a Case Management or Other Interim Order.

12. The Landlord submits that when the property was inspected in July 2025 it was noted to be in generally fair to good condition. A copy of the inspection report was submitted to the Tribunal with photographs showing the property to be in good general condition.

13. The Landlord submits the following comparable evidence:

a) A three-bedroom terraced house in [ADDRESS], Langly Mill, Derbyshire offered at £850.00 per month. The property had been let. b) A three-bedroom terraced house on [ADDRESS], Heanor Derbyshire offered at £850.00 per month. This property was noted to be more modern than the subject property. The property had been let. c) A three-bedroom terraced house in [ADDRESS], Langley Mill, Derbyshire offered at £800.00 per month. The property had been let. d) A three-bedroom terraced house in [ADDRESS], Heanor offered at £800.00 per month. The property had been let.

14. The Tribunal considered the written submissions provided by the parties. It was noted that all the comparables provided by the Landlord were for three-bedroom houses whereas the subject property has only two bedrooms.

4

Determination and Valuation

15. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Landlord, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £800.00 pcm. This is the rent we would expect this property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as the comparable properties including having white goods and curtains provided by the landlord.

16. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

a) Some curtains and carpets fitted by the Tenant. b) White goods provided by the tenant. c) Landlord’s waste left in rear garden.

17. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£800.00

Less a) Items given under a) above

£15.00 b) Items given under b) above

£20.00 c) Items given under c) above

£15.00 £50.00 £750.00

Decision 18. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £750.00 per month with effect from 14th March 2026. Undue Hardship 19. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.

20. The Tenant has not asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case.

Chairman: [NAME]: 30th April 2026

5

APPEAL PROVISIONS If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made 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 upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

📊 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 Tribunal used its own expert knowledge of local rental values to determine the market rent.
  • The Tribunal considered comparable properties provided by the landlord, adjusting for differences.
  • The rent was reduced because the tenant provided some curtains and carpets.
  • The rent was reduced because the tenant provided white goods.
  • The rent was reduced due to the landlord's waste left in the rear garden.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal determined that the fair market rent for a semi-detached house in Langley was £750 per month.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved, with the tenant challenging the proposed increase in rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal considered comparable properties and the condition of the property to determine a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in determining the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tribunal relied on comparable properties to set a fair market rent for the property.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, as the new rent was lower than proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone challenging their rent can seek a fair market valuation based on comparable properties and property condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tribunal considered inspection reports, photographs of the property, and information about comparable properties.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this decision.

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.