VadeLab
OtherFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent at £1800 PCM

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy property in Camberwell. The tribunal reviewed the landlord's proposed new rent and tenant-provided comparables to set a final rent of £1800 per calendar month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may propose a new rent under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 if it is reasonable and based on open market conditions.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

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

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy, except if the rent is already determined by a previous decision under this section or if more than six months have passed since the tenancy began. The tribunal then determines the open-market rent the property could reasonably expect to fetch.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy property in Camberwell, London.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy property in Camberwell, London. The tribunal considered the landlord's proposed new rent and tenant-provided comparables to set a final rent of £1800 per calendar month.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Other

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BE/MNR/2026/0175 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] (Tenants) Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative : None Date of Application : Undated Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 &14 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision : 28 May 2026 Rent Determined : £1800 per calendar month Date of new rent start : 6 April 2026

REASONS FOR

DECISION Background 1 A landlord’s notice dated 2 February 2026, was served under Section 13(2) Housing Act 1988 proposing a new rent of £1348.80 per calendar

2 month in place of the passing rent of £1158.40 pcm to take effect from 1 6 April 2026. 2 At a date, prior to the effective date, under S.13(4)(a) Housing Act 1988 the tenant referred the landlord’s notice proposing a new rent, to the Tribunal for determination. 3 The assured tenancy is now calendar monthly periodic. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant 4 As per S.11 Landlord and tenant Act 1985. Landlord’s Service Charges and Furniture provided and costs. 5 Landlord supplied standard white goods to kitchen and floor coverings in bedrooms hall and living room. Liability for Council Tax 6 Tenant. Other relevant terms of tenancy 7 None Inspection and Hearing 8 An inspection is not routinely carried out. The Tribunal is content that it has sufficient information on the Property, its condition and on comparables, from a combination of the written and photographic representations received and from its own knowledge and specialist expertise. Property 9 There was no inspection. The Property is a 1960’s flat purpose built in a Building with 4 levels of similar flats. The Property on the second floor, has 2 bedrooms, living room/ kitchen, bathroom, WC set on 1 level. There are communal internal access areas for 8 flats in each part of the Building, each served by communal stairs and hallways, with small communal external areas and access. There are on street parking restrictions. Access is off a busy local road in an established residential area, with some commercial activity. (Google Streetview April 2025). 10 The Property appears to be of modern framed construction with brick wall finishes and what appears to be a main flat roof above. It appears in fair to good condition. There are PVCu double glazed windows and electrical heating.

3 Evidence 11 The Tribunal received completed Form 6 and 1b from the tenant. Form 1a from the landlord was received. The Tribunal is grateful for such information as was provided by one or both of the parties. Tenant 12 The tenant referred to the condition inside the Property and provided some internal photographs. The tenant highlighted a series of minor defects which included: some damp and mould growth to wall surfaces especially around windows, in the bathroom and kitchen, from a lack of air extraction. There were ongoing deficiencies in internal communal lighting and external security to communal areas resulting in fly tipping. There was no WiFi service. 13 The tenant also provided a summary of some 9No. 2 bedroom flats said to be let or to let at or around the date of their application preparation. Most were in LB Southwark, where the Property is located, others were not. The rents ranged from £1300 pcm for a flat in Ritchie House, Moodkee St SE16; through Colechurch House SE1 at £1,500 pcm; 159- [ADDRESS]5 at £1600 pcm; and [ADDRESS]5 £1660 pcm. While links to each were provided, the Tribunal does not follow links set out in evidence. It is for the party to provide a full copy of the materials that they seek to draw to the Tribunal’s attention. 14 The tenant did not suggest a new rent. The tenant also referred to Intermediate Market Rents calculated at 80% of a market rent. Any final calculations to reach any chargeable basis other than an open market rent, are a matter for the parties to undertake separately. Landlord 15 The Tribunal received brief representations from the landlord in Form 1a. These included their reference to valuation work completed by their consultants in late 2025 as to the new market rent for the Property. Law 16 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the Property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

4 Valuation 17 The Tribunal finds the tenant’s comparables, said to be let or t0 let around in early 2026, helpful. From these and from the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in LB Southwark it determines that the subject Property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1900 pcm, fully fitted and in good order. This is the rent we would expect the Property to let for in the open market if it was in the same condition as comparable properties including landlord’s white goods carpets and curtains. 18 From the representations the Tribunal found that while there were some minor defects at the Property, none was sufficient to justify any deduction from the rent stated above. However it was noted that the Property was provided with electrical storage heaters rather than a gas or oil fired space heating system, a shortcoming for which the Tribunal will make the small allowance of £100 pcm. The new rent is therefore £1800 pcm. Undue Hardship 19 This was not sought by the tenant in their application. Decision and effective start date 20 The starting date of the new rent of £1800 pcm is from and including 6 April 2026. 21 Although the landlord is not obliged to charge this rent and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation; they may not charge more than this figure. [NAME] 28 May 2026 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. 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

5 within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013). If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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

  • Rent should be set at a reasonable market rate based on the condition of the property and local comparables.
  • Rent determinations must consider the property's condition relative to similar properties in the area.
  • Entitlement to a fair market rent determination by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is recognized.
  • Rent adjustments under Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 are subject to fair market conditions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Improvements made by the tenant should be ignored when determining fair market rent.
  • Rent proposals under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 are not automatically accepted without scrutiny.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that the market rent for an assured tenancy property in Camberwell should be £1800 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved, with no legal representatives present.

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal reviewed the proposed rent increase and comparables provided by both parties to determine a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in determining the new rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparables provided by both parties played a crucial role in setting the final market rent.

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

The decision was neither fully for nor against either party, as it set a fair market rent based on evidence presented.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can present comparables to argue for a more reasonable rent level.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Form 6 and Form 1b from both parties, along with photographs of the property's condition, were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party can apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission to appeal 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.