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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent Amid Hardship Concerns

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that the market rent for a property in Birmingham should be increased to £1,550 per month. The decision took into account the tenant's hardship due to Universal Credit limitations and postponed the increase until March 2026.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent increase postponed if it causes undue hardship due to benefits limitations.

Topics

tenancyrent control

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 the open-market rent, considering various factors including the terms of the existing tenancy and any improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in Birmingham, considering evidence of hardship due to Universal Credit limits.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a property in Birmingham, considering evidence of undue hardship due to Universal Credit limitations. The new rent was set at £1,550 pcm with effect from March 2026.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference BIR/00CN/MNR/2025/0782

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[NAME] and [COUNSEL] [NAME]

Tenant’s Representative

Landlord [COUNSEL] [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s [NAME] of Application

15th September 2025 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members [NAME] (Chairman) [NAME] of Decision

12th March 2026 Rent Determined £1,550.00 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

12th March 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 1st August 2025, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,550.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,450.00 pcm to take effect from 5th October 2025.

2. On 15th September 2025, 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. Based on the tenancy agreement it is understood that the tenancy commenced on 5th December 2023. For an initial term of six months. It is assumed that the tenancy is continuing on a monthly basis.

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 curtain 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 inspection or 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.

3

The Property

9. The Tribunal has not carried out an inspection.

10. Based on the application form the Tribunal understands that the property is a semi-detached house, offering the following accommodation:

Ground Floor - Hall, one living room, kitchen.

First Floor – Landing, four bedrooms and bathroom with W.C.

Outside: Garden and garage.

The Tribunal assumes that the property benefits from central heating and based on internet mapping it appears to be double glazed.

The Property is situated in an attractive, established urban location within the Birmingham conurbation.

Evidence

11. Neither the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms. The Landlord requested a copy of the Directions but made no submissions. The Tenant submitted a copy of his Universal Credit Statement.

Determination and Valuation

12. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject property subject to the usual tenancy conditions would be in the order of £1,550.00 pcm. This is the rent we would expect the property to be let for in the open market.

13. 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.

The Tenant has asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case. He says he will otherwise be caused undue hardship because his rent is part funded by Universal Credit and currently the rental is over the Local Housing Allowance. This means that any further rent increase means Universal Credit will not cover the increased amount. The Universal Credit Statement confirms that [NAME] [NAME] is a carer and that [NAME] [NAME] is either prevented or affected at work due to health issues.

4

The Landlord did not respond to the Tenant’s application for postponement due to hardship.

As a result of our decision the rent will increase by £100.00 a month. The date specified in the Landlord’s Notice was 5th October 2025. On the basis of the evidence supplied by the Tenant, the Tribunal considers that for the increase to take effect from the date in the Landlord’s Notice would cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as 12th March 2026.

Decision

14. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,550.00 per calendar month with effect from 12th March 2026.

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 rent increase must be justified by comparable rental values.
  • The landlord must consider the condition of the property and any improvements made by the tenant.
  • The rent increase cannot cause undue hardship to the tenant.
  • The landlord's proposed rent increase must be adjusted based on the property's condition and any environmental factors affecting its value.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent must be set at the market rate based on comparable properties within the same area without considering the condition of the property.
  • A determination of market rent based on comparable properties in the area alone is not sufficient.

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 £1,550 pcm for a property in Birmingham.

Who was involved?

A tenant and landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered evidence of hardship due to Universal Credit limitations and postponed the rent increase until March 2026.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant's evidence of undue hardship due to Universal Credit limitations was crucial.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, postponing the rent increase.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants facing hardship due to benefits limitations may have their rent increases postponed.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence showing undue hardship due to Universal Credit was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal on points 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.

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.