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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent After Tenant Dispute

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rental price for an assured tenancy in South Ruislip after considering factors like water damage and property location. The tenant argued against any increase, but the tribunal set the rent at £925 pcm starting February 2026.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent assessed based on market conditions and property condition when a landlord proposes an increase under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

rent determinationtenancy disputeswater damage

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to propose an increase in rent for assured periodic tenancies through a notice in a prescribed form. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period, which begins at least two months after the notice is served.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

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. It also includes the obligation 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 an assured tenancy in South Ruislip, considering water damage and location.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new market rent for an assured tenancy in South Ruislip, considering the property's condition and location. The tenant argued against any increase due to water damage from above, while the landlord proposed £1,096.98 pcm. The tribunal set the rent at £925 pcm effective February 2026.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference LON/00AS/MNR/2026/0119 Property Flat 4, 10 The Runway, South Ruislip. [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] [COUNSEL] Tenant’s Representative None Landlord [COUNSEL], [APPELLANT] Landlord’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s Representative None Date of Application 19 February 2025 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision 19 May 2026 Rent Determined £925 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 20 February 2026.

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 20 January 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,096.98 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £900 per month to take effect from 20 February 2026. This being an increase of £196.98.

2. On 19 February 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. It is stated that the assured tenancy commenced on the 20 October 2021, The Tribunal were presented with a copy of the agreement at a passing rent of £900 per month. The tenancy was for a term of 12 months; therefore, this is a statutory tenancy agreement by one day. 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:

5. None.

6. No service charges. Liability for Council Tax 7. 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.

8. It is assumed; there are none.

3 Inspection/Hearing 9. The parties did not request an inspection or a hearing.

10. The Tribunal has therefore, considered this case on the basis of the papers, together with the papers provided by the parties, Rightmove, and its own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Property 11. The Property is a converted first floor studio flat forming part of a three storey former office block. The accommodation comprises, one bedroom/living room and kitchen area and shower room. The flat has an EPC Rating of C which is above average, and it is stated in the EPC report the floor area is 22m2. Outside: The property has brick elevations under a flat roof. There is an allocated parking space. The Property is situated in a mixed commercial and residential area close to local amenities and South Ruislip station Evidence 12. The parties did not return the Tribunal’s Rent Appeal Statements. The tenant provided a statement within the application and stated there should not be any increase in the rent. There were helpful photographs and floor plans for the block. The Tribunal were also provided with video evidence showing water damage from the flat above. The Tenant.

13. In the written evidence the Tenant made the following comments: a) The flat has been subject to persistent water damage from the flat above which has caused considerable hardship. b) The tenant states the floor area is very small. c) The tenant provided a selection of comparable evidence for studio flats in a very wide geographical area which included Hanwell, Stoke Newington and Uxbridge. The rental values ranged from £850 pcm through to £1050 pcm. The Tribunal placed limited weight on this

4 evidence. At best, the Tribunal concluded this evidence provided a tone of values for studio flats in the London area. The Landlord 14. No evidence was provided by the Landlord Determination and Valuation 15. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the South Ruislip area and the comparable evidence provided by the tenant, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good condition in a residential area would be in the order of £1,000 per month. This is the rent we would expect the property to let for in the open market including having white goods and curtains provided by the landlord.

16. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following: a) The general condition of the property as stated by the tenant. b) The secondary commercial environment in comparison with an established residential area 17. The Tribunal has considered very carefully this information and usings its own expertise considers that a deduction of £75 should be applied in order to take account of the of the above matters. It should be noted that this figure cannot be. a simple arithmetical calculation and is not based upon capital costs but is the Tribunal’s estimate of the amount by which the rent would need to be reduced to attract a tenant. The full valuation is shown below: Starting Rent £1,000 Less a) Items given under a) above £75 Market rent £925 pcm

5 Undue hardship 18. 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.

19. The tenant has stated that his annual salary is £32,940 and any increase in monthly rental payments would cause undue hardship. On the basis of the evidence supplied by the Tenant and the level of the increase, the Tribunal considers that this will not cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as 20 February 2026. Decision 20. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £925 per calendar month with effect from the 20 February 2026, being the date of the Landlord’s notice. 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 tenant's comparable evidence, though broad, helped establish a general range of rental values for studio flats in London.
  • The Tribunal considered the property's general condition, as described by the tenant, when adjusting the rent.
  • The Tribunal reduced the rent due to the property's location in a secondary commercial area compared to an established residential one.
  • The Tribunal used its own expertise and knowledge of local rental values to determine a market rent.
  • The Tribunal determined the market rent to be £925 per calendar month.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's argument that there should be no rent increase was not accepted.
  • The tenant's claim that a rent increase would cause undue hardship was rejected by the Tribunal.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined a new market rent of £925 per month for an assured tenancy.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in the dispute over rental price.

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal considered evidence on property condition and location to set a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were used in determining the new rental price.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant's evidence on water damage from above was crucial to the decision.

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

The decision was partly against the tenant, as they did not get their requested rent freeze.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rental increase can argue about property condition and market rates to negotiate a fair price.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of water damage, comparable rental prices, and the property's EPC rating were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party may appeal on a point of law within 28 days to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It's advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such disputes.

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.