VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new monthly rent of £1,273.00 for a property after reviewing comparable evidence and considering the tenant's obligations.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment based on comparable properties and the tenant's obligations.

Topics

market rent determinationhousing act 1988tribunal procedure

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section 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 a fair market rent based on the open market conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a new market rent for a property after considering comparable evidence and adjusting for the tenant's responsibilities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new market rent of £1,273.00 per month for a property, taking into account comparable evidence and the tenant's responsibilities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: BIR/00CN/MNR/2024/0648

Property : 15 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Landlord : Mrs [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

Landlord’s agent : [RESPONDENT] of application : 17th December 2024

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] of Decision : 2nd July 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,273.00 per month with effect from 27th January 2025 ____________________________________

S E C FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 29th November 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,300.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £825.00 to take effect from 27th January 2025.

2. On 10th December 2024, 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.

Inspection

3. 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.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Landlord. From the information provided it appears that the subject property is a semi-detached house comprising two living rooms and kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom. There are gardens and two sheds.

5. The Landlord submits that the decoration has not been maintained by the tenant and that the tenant is not using the heating or opening the windows. Various comparables were provided at rentals between £1,200.00 - £1,450.00 per calendar month.

Determination and Valuation

6. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £1,425.00 per month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

a) The Tenant’s liability to redecorate.

7. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£1,340.00 per month Less a) Tenant’s internal decoration liability @ 5% £67.00

£ 67.00 Say £1,273.00

3 Decision

8. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy was £1,273.00 per month with effect from 27th January 2025.

Chairman: G S Freckelton FRICS Date: 2nd July 2025

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.

4 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 15 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr G S Freckelton FRICS Mrs [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mrs [RESPONDENT] [NAME] c/o [APPELLANT] [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] and [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £1,273.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 27th January 2025

3. The amount included for services is/is not applicable N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 27/10/2016 5. Length of the term or rental period Not known 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises A semi-detached house comprising two living rooms, kitchen, two bedrooms and bathroom. Gardens. Two sheds. Chairman G S Freckelton FRICS Date of Decision 2nd July 2025

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No.

BIR/OOCN/MNR/2024/0648

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 determined a market rent based on its own expertise and online research.
  • The Tribunal considered comparable properties provided by the parties to determine the market rent.
  • The market rent was adjusted downwards due to the tenant's responsibility for internal redecoration.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's submission that the tenant had not maintained decoration was not explicitly used to increase the rent.
  • The landlord's claim that the tenant was not using heating or opening windows was not a factor in the rent determination.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a new market rent of £1,273.00 per month for a property.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable evidence and adjusted for the tenant's responsibilities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparable evidence and the tenant's responsibilities were crucial in determining the new rent.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a lower rent than initially proposed.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should gather comparable evidence and highlight their responsibilities to argue for a fair rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable evidence and documentation regarding the tenant's responsibilities were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.