VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy after considering comparable evidence and rental values in the area. The new rent was set at £172.72 per week, effective from October 16, 2023.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have a new rent assessed by the First-tier Tribunal if they believe it exceeds the open market value.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to the appropriate tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, such an application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, tenants can also challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers the open market value, taking into account the periodic nature of the tenancy and ensuring that the terms of the new tenancy match those of the original tenancy, except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and general knowledge of rental values in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a new rent of £172.72 per week, inclusive of services, for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and general knowledge of rental values in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. TR/LON/00AW/MNR/2023/0143

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 7A [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY], 26-30 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 172.72 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 16 October 2023

*3. The amount included for services is 5.70 Per week

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 28 December 2015

6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises Ground floor converted flat with 2 bedrooms, reception room, kitchen, bathroom/wc

[NAME] of Decision 16 October to23

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AW/MNR/2023/0143

Property : 7A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [COMPANY] of Objection : 27 March 2023

Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME]

Date of Summary Reasons

: 16 October 2023

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £172.72 per week with effect from 16 October 2023. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. On 22 February 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £ 172.72 per week inclusive of services of £5.70 in place of the existing rent of £158.13 inclusive of £2.04 services per week to take effect from 3 April 2023

2. On 27 March 2023 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. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 29 March 2023.

3. By a decision dated 10 August 2023 the tribunal determined it had jurisdiction to consider the application.

Inspection

4. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

Evidence

5. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant. There were no written submissions from the landlord.

Determination and Valuation

6. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in its assumed condition and disregarding the tenants improvements would be in the region of £172.72 per week inclusive of services.

7. The tenant provided rental evidence of a number of fair rents from the rent register. These are of no real assistance as they are assessed on a different basis and were all historic. The tribunal notes that the register entry for the subject property had an uncapped rent of £265 per week in 2014. This is the market rent less an allowance for scarcity.

8. The tenant has provided photographic evidence of the condition of the flat at the start of the tenancy and of the considerable improvements she has made. The rent is assessed on the basis of the unimproved condition of the flat.

9. The Tribunal determines a rent of £167.02 per week plus services of £5.70 per week totalling £172.72 per week.

3

10. The Tribunal directed the new rent of £172.72 to take effect on 16 October 2023. The Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship.

Chairman: [NAME]: 16 October 2023

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 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 believes the rent exceeds the open market value.
  • The First-tier Tribunal must assess the rent based on open market conditions.
  • The condition of the property affects the rent adjustment.
  • The availability of amenities influences the rent adjustment.
  • Comparable evidence and local rental values are considered.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined a market rent of £172.72 per week for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent determination.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable evidence and rental values to determine the market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied in this case.

What argument mattered most?

The tenant's submission of comparable rental evidence influenced the decision.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a new rent based on market value.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can seek a determination from the First-tier Tribunal if they believe it exceeds fair market value.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographic and written submissions of rental evidence were crucial to the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

A decision on rent determination can typically be appealed, but specific procedures apply.

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

It is advisable to consult with a qualified solicitor for advice on 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.