First-tier Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Property
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal set a new market rent of £900.00 per calendar month for a a person, considering its condition and local rental values. The decision was made by Judge JR Morris and a person.
⚖️ Legal holding
Under the relevant tenancy legislation, a market rent must be determined without considering the current rent or the personal circumstances of the landlord and tenant.
📖 What the law says
Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent for the property, considering what a willing landlord would charge for a similar tenancy. The tribunal must disregard certain factors such as the current rent and personal circumstances of the parties.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set a new market rent for a property in need of repairs, disregarding the current rent and personal circumstances of the parties.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a market rent of £900.00 per calendar month for a property, taking into account its condition and local rental values, while disregarding the current rent and personal circumstances of the parties. Judge JR Morris presided over the case.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference
: CAM/00MG/MNR/2021/0066
[NAME]
: 2 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant (Tenant) : Ms [APPELLANT]
Respondent (Landlord): [COUNSEL] [NAME]
: [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] : Determination of a market rent under
Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : Judge JR Morris
Mrs m Wilcox BSc MRICS
Date of Decision : 14th February 2022
_______________________________________________
DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
DECISION
1. The Tribunal determined a rent of £900.00 per calendar month to take effect from 17th January 2022.
[NAME]
2. [NAME] is a modern two storey mid terraced house with painted rendered elevations under a pent pitched tile roof. The windows are upvc with double glazed units. The doors are upvc as are the rainwater goods. There is off street parking at the rear of [NAME] for one vehicle. There is a courtyard to the front, and an enclosed garden at the rear of the house which has rear access to the car parking space.
[NAME] comprises, on the ground floor, a porch on one side of which there is a [NAME] and the other the entrance door, there is an entrance lobby, with cloakroom (wash hand basin and w.c.), a dining room (16’9’’ x 11’9’’/5.11 x 3.58 m) from which stairs rise to the first floor with a kitchen off (9’10’’ x 8’1’’/3.00 x 2.46 m) and a FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME])
2 lounge (16’.9’’ x 10’3’’/5.11 x 3.12m). On the first floor there are two double bedrooms and one single bedroom (13’10’’ x 10’5’’/4.23 x 3.16 m; 13’10’’ x 10’5’’/4.22 x 3.16 m; 8’1’’ x 7’8’’/2.47 x 2.34 m) and a bathroom.
Services Space and water heating is by a gas fired central heating system. [NAME] has mains electricity, gas, water and drainage.
[NAME] is let unfurnished. The floorcoverings are provided with laminate flooring on the ground floor and carpets on the stairs landing and bedrooms. White goods are not provided.
[NAME] is situated in a residential estate in Milton Keynes.
THE TENANCY
3. The Tenancy commenced as a contractual periodic Assured Shorthold Tenancy on 21st May 2000. It appears that the tenancy was renewed each year until the last tenancy agreement dated 17th June 2013 which was for a period of 12 months until 16th June 2014. Thereafter it has become a statutory monthly periodic tenancy. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies in respect of the Landlord’s repairing obligations.
THE REFERRAL
4. The current rent is £725.00 per calendar month. By a notice in the prescribed form dated 11th November 2021 the Landlord proposed a new rent of £1,200.00 per calendar month from 17th January 2022.
5. On 26th November 2021 the Tenant referred the notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal. Directions dated 2nd December 2021 were issued informing the parties that the Tribunal did not intend to hold an oral hearing unless a request was made by 6th January 2021. Neither party made a request for a hearing and both parties completed the Reply Form attached to the Directions. An inspection took place on 14th February 2022.
THE LAW
6. The relevant law is in section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 which is summarised below.
7. By virtue of section 14 (1) Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal is to determine a rent at which the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured periodic tenancy- (a) 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 rent) are the same as those of the subject Tenancy
8. By virtue of section 14 (2) Housing Act 1988 in [NAME] a determination the Tribunal shall disregard –
3 (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 (as defined by section 14(3) Housing Act 1988) carried out by a tenant otherwise than as an obligation; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house due to the failure of the Tenant to comply with any terms of the subject Tenancy.
9. Nothing in section 14 affects the right of the landlord and the tenant under an assured tenancy to vary by agreement any term of the tenancy (including a term relating to rent).
CONDITION
10. The Tribunal inspected [NAME] on 14th February 2022 in the presence of the [NAME]. A risk assessment regarding coronavirus was undertaken prior to the inspection in which the [NAME] and the Tribunal confirmed that no one present was self-isolating or had symptoms of coronavirus or the coronavirus disease. Distance was maintained between the [NAME] and the Tribunal and all persons present wore face coverings.
11. Externally, there is a courtyard to the front which has a hedge and at one time had a fence and gate which has fallen over and not been reinstated. At the rear there is an enclosed garden which is part paved and part lawn. The paving is now uneven. The decorated render is in fair condition.
12. Internally, the porch and [NAME] are in poor condition with the hardboard ceiling beginning to come away from the beams. [NAME] has a fitted kitchen which is now dated. Some of the units are dilapidated with a door front missing and the sink unit missing a section of lamination. The cloakroom is serviceable. The bathroom is also serviceable but dated and the w.c. pan did not appear to be securely affixed to the floor. The laminate flooring is coming apart at the joints. The carpet is worn and there appears to be a hole in the landing floor at the threshold to the bathroom which requires attention. The door to the kitchen/diner from the entrance lobby is missing.
13. The internal decorations are well maintained by the Tenant. The mirrored doors to the landing cupboards had to be rehung when the Tenant took possession.
REPRESENTATIONS
14. The Tenant made written representations stating that she had replaced a dripping kitchen tap and installed smoke detectors at the start of the tenancy.
15. She also referred to the following items of disrepair: Fence and gate to the front had fallen over; The plywood ceiling in the front porch was falling away revealing the insulation underneath; The base cabinets under the kitchen sink are damp and rotting; Others doors on the kitchen cabinets have rusting hinges and do not shut properly; Wooden flooring throughout the ground floor is separating and is chipped around the edges;
4 The toilet in cloakroom is not affixed to the floor; The fence to the rear garden is leaning and the post is rotten; The bath is stained where the tap was dripping which took a year to be fixed; There is a burn mark on the top of the cistern from the previous tenants; The sink is not fully connected to the wall; The bathroom flooring is badly fitted and has a hole The carpets in the bedroom are stained.
16. The [NAME] made written representations saying that [NAME] had been let for a very long period. There had been some improvements over the years. [NAME] was said to have been under market rental value for some time. In 2013 the rent was £675.00 per calendar month and had subsequently gone up to £725.00 per calendar month in 2014.
17. The following rental values of what were said to be comparable properties: 1. [NAME], Heelands – 4-bedroom terraced house £1,250.00 per calendar month 2. [ADDRESS], Bradwell Common 3-bedroom link detached house £1,250.00 per calendar month 3. Bishopstone, Bradville – 3-bedroom semidetached house £1,250.00 per calendar month 4. [NAME], Heelands – 3-bedroom terraced house £1,150.00 per calendar month 5. [ADDRESS] – 3-bedroom semidetached house £1,150.00 per calendar month 6. Heelands - 3-bedroom terraced house – £1,050.00 per calendar month 7. [NAME], Heelands – 3-bedroom end of terrace house £1,000.00 per calendar month
18. In addition, he provided an analysis from [NAME] showing average asking prices had been increasing during 2021 and in the latter part of the year were between £1,000.00 and £1, 200.00 per calendar month.
DETERMINATION
19. The Tribunal determines a market rent for a [NAME] by reference to rental values generally and to the rental values for comparable properties in the locality in particular. The Tribunal does not take into account the present rent and the period of time which that rent has been charged nor does it take into account the percentage increase which the proposed rent represents to the existing rent. The Tribunal cannot take into account the personal circumstances of either the Landlord or the Tenant.
20. The Tribunal assessed a rent based on the condition of [NAME] as at the time of the determination. Therefore, it cannot take into account the period of time which a [NAME] might have been in disrepair prior to work being carried out by the Landlord. Equally, it cannot take into account work which the Landlord said it intended to undertake or was scheduled to take place in the future.
21. The Tribunal firstly considered the comparable evidence adduced by the [NAME]. It was found that properties in Heelands achieved a lower rent than houses
5 in some of the surrounding areas. The Tribunal was of the opinion that if [NAME] were in good condition with modern up dated kitchen and bathroom and with floorcoverings and white goods it would achieve in the region of £1,000 to £1,100 per calendar month. However, in its current condition as at the date of the inspection the tribunal determined that the market rent is £900.00 per calendar month.
22. The Tribunal determined that a market rent for [NAME] in its present condition is £900.00 per calendar month to take effect on 17th January 2022.
Judge JR Morris
Caution: The Tribunal inspected the subject [NAME] for the purposes of reaching this decision. The inspection was not a structural survey and any comments about the condition of [NAME] in this statement must not be relied upon as a guide to the structural or other condition of [NAME].
APPENDIX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. If a party wishes to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.
2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].
3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
4. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property at £950
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property at £1,100 Per Month
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Determination for a Property Based on Condition and Location
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Set at £900 pcm by First-tier Tribunal
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 of £900.00 per calendar month for the property.
- The property's current condition, including its dated kitchen and bathroom, was considered in setting the market rent.
- The Tribunal considered the rental values of comparable properties in the locality.
- The property would achieve a higher rent if it were in good condition with modern updates and white goods.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set a new market rent of £900.00 per calendar month for a property.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the property's condition and local rental values, ignoring the current rent and personal circumstances.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The condition of the property and local rental values were the most important factors.
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 of their property and local rental values when disputing a rent increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the property's condition and comparable rental values were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a party may appeal the decision 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.
