First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Student Room
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on the market rent for a student room in Middlesbrough. The tenant argued against an increase from £216 to £295 per month, but the tribunal found that the proposed rent was fair considering the services included and similar properties.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent that reflects the size of their accommodation relative to similar properties in the area.
📖 What the law says
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 timing requirements for when these increases can take effect.
This section implies a covenant by the lessor to repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, including drains, gutters, and external pipes, as well as installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation. Additionally, it includes a requirement to repair and maintain installations for space heating and heating water.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for a student room in Middlesbrough, considering comparables and services included.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a furnished student room in Middlesbrough, considering comparables and services included. The tribunal found that despite the smaller size of the room compared to others in the property, the proposed rent was fair given the amenities provided.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00EC/MNR/2026/0098 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative N/A [APPELLANT] / [NAME] [RESPONDENT] Landlord’s Address 329 Linthorpe road, Middlesbrough, [POSTCODE] Landlord’s [RESPONDENT] of Application 5.3.2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members I [NAME] [NAME] of Decision 22.05.2026 Rent Determined £295pcm Date the new rent takes effect 13.04.2026
REASONS FOR THE
DECISION Background 1. On 3 February 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £295per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £216pcm to take effect from 13 April 2026. On 5 March 2026, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant appealed the proposed new rent to the Tribunal for determination. The monthly tenancy commenced on 13 January 2025. Allocation of Repairs and Council Tax between Landlord and Tenant.
2. Responsibility for Repairs is as per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The property is furnished to include bed, desk, chair and wardrobe. No service charge is payable. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. Inspection/Hearing 3. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Property 4. The Property is a student room, one of 4 in a 1900 mid-terrace house. The other 3 rooms are larger. The rent includes gas, electricity, water rates, TV licence, Sky and Virgin, and internet. The Property is situated close to the centre of Middlesbrough in close proximity to all amenities and Teesside University.
Representations as to Rental Value 5. Tenant The Tenant stated that he occupied a non-standard room i.e. much smaller then the other 3 in the house. He considered that most rooms in TS1, larger than his, were £300 to £350pcm. He considered the proposed increase exorbitant, and proposed a rent of £250, but without supporting comparable evidence.
6. Landlord The Landlord put forward 8 comparables in various streets at £450 to £585, but most are considered larger rooms. Also, [ADDRESS] the adjacent house, is stated to have rents of £368 on the larger rooms, and £325 on a room similar to the subject room. Tribunal Determination 7. The Tribunal found the following facts: i The Tribunal were not made aware of any disrepair or tenants improvements. ii Room 2 is much smaller than the other 3 rooms in the property iii The rent includes gas, electricity and other services 8. The Tribunal had regard to its own knowledge and experience of market rent levels for similar properties in the area, but without any specific or secret evidence, and the representations from each Party. The Tribunal considers that the Market Rent of the subject Property in reasonable order would be £295pcm. This is the rent the Tribunal would expect the property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as comparable properties and assuming floor coverings, white goods and curtains/blinds are provided by the landlord.
9. No adjustments for either disrepair or tenants improvements were applicable.
10. The Tenant did put forward evidence to the Tribunal in relation to Section 14 (7) stating that he would experience hardship essentially as he was a student on limited funds. The Tribunal do not consider this reason sufficient to warrant undue hardship. Decision 11. In the circumstances the Tribunal determines a Market Rent of £295pcm payable from 13 April 2026. Appeal Provisions 12. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but generally only on a 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 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Gateshead Apartment
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Dagenham Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Assured Tenancy Rent
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured 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 landlord's proposed rent increase was partially allowed because it was supported by reliable comparables and evidence of property condition.
- A tenant's request for a rent determination by the First-tier Tribunal was allowed in part when the landlord served a notice proposing an increase under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act.
- A tenant's request for a rent determination by the First-tier Tribunal was allowed when the proposed rent increase caused undue hardship.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's request for a fair market rent was dismissed as the landlord's proposal lacked reliable comparables and evidence of property condition.
- The tenant's request for a fair market rent was dismissed as the tribunal found the proposed rent increase did not reflect the current market conditions.
- The tenant's request for a fair market rent was dismissed as the tribunal concluded the proposed rent increase did not align with the condition of the rented property.
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 a new market rent of £295 pcm for a student room in Middlesbrough.
Who was involved?
A tenant and their landlord, with the tribunal considering evidence from both sides.
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal considered comparables and services included to determine a fair market rent for the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Housing Act 1988 s.13 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11 were key provisions.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tribunal focused on comparables and services included when determining the market rent.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against, as the tenant's proposed lower rent was not accepted by the tribunal.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a rent increase should gather comparables and evidence of services included to argue their case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparables showing rents for similar properties were crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but generally only on a point of law within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.
