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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent at £1200 PCM

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant and landlord disagreed over proposed rent increases under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988. The First-tier Tribunal considered comparable properties' market rates and set a new rent of £1200 per calendar month, effective from May 21st, 2026.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may propose an increased rent under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988, but the new rent must be reasonable and supported by evidence of similar properties' market rates.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to propose an increased rent under an assured periodic tenancy through a notice in a prescribed form. The new rent must begin at least two months after the notice is served, and the increase can be challenged by the tenant in court.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section permits a tenant to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a reasonable open-market rent for the property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new market rent of £1200 per calendar month for a property in Sparkhill, Birmingham. The decision was based on comparable evidence provided by the landlord and expert knowledge of rental values in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT Case Reference : BIR/00CN/MNR/2026/0047 Property : [ADDRESS], Sparkhill, Birmingham. [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] Landlord : [APPELLANT] Landlord’s agent : Date of application : 14th February 2026 Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] of Decision : 21st May 2026 _______________________________________________

DECISION The Tribunal determines a rent of £1200 (One Thousand Two Hundred Pounds) per calendar month with effect from 21st May 2026 ____________________________________ FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 4th February 2026 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1250 per calendar month in place of the existing rent of £640 pcm to take effect from 4th March 2026.

2. On 14th 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. 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 considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. From the brief information provided it appears that the subject property is a mid-terrace 3-bedroom & 3-reception room dwelling house with garden located in a residential area of similar such properties.

5. The property is let on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy incorporating standard repairing obligations. The Tenant refers to repairs undertaken by and paid for by her in her submission.

6. The Landlord, submitted to the Tribunal details of comparable properties and letting information of similar properties in the locality together with a letting agent’s property summary with recommended rental value. No comparable letting information was submitted by the Tenant.

7. No submissions were made by either party regarding the current condition of the property. Determination and Valuation 8. Having considered the comparable evidence provided by the Landlord 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 £1200 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal consider that no adjustments should be made to the market rent.

3 Decision 12. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £1200 per calendar month with effect from 4th March 2026. Hardship 9. The Tenant raises hardship in their submissions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directs the new rent of £1200 per calendar month to take effect from 21st May 2026 this being the date of the Tribunal. Chairman: Date: 21st May 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.

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 [ADDRESS], Sparkhill, Birmingham. [POSTCODE] [NAME] [NAME] Landlord [NAME] [ADDRESS], Shirley, West Midlands. [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £1200 Per calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 21st May 2026 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Per 4. Date assured tenancy commenced 4th September 2012 5. Length of the term or rental period 6 months 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises Mid-terrace 3-bedroom & 3-reception room dwelling house with garden Chairman Date of Decision 21st May 2026 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CN/MNR/2026/0047

📊 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 is supported by reliable comparables.
  • The proposed rent reflects the current market conditions.
  • Adjustments are made to the proposed market rent due to property defects.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The proposed rent increase lacks reliable comparables.
  • The proposed rent does not reflect the current market conditions.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal determined the new market rent for the property to be £1200 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were in dispute over proposed rent increases.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable evidence of similar properties' market rates and expert knowledge.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 Sections 13(2) and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The landlord's evidence of comparable properties' market rates was crucial in determining the new rent.

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

It was partially for the tenant, as the effective date was delayed to May 21st, 2026.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase should gather evidence of comparable properties' market rates.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable property information and letting agent summaries were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal 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 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.