VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant challenged their landlord's proposed rent increase from £975 to £1,000 per month. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed similar rental prices in the area and found that the new rent was fair and did not cause financial harm to the tenant.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may increase the rent of an assured shorthold tenancy if it aligns with current market rates and there is no undue hardship to the tenant.

Topics

tenancyrent determinationmarket value

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to increase the rent of assured periodic tenancies, including assured shorthold tenancies, by serving a notice in a prescribed form. The notice must specify a new rent and a new period of the tenancy starting 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, installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation, and installations for space heating and heating water. The covenant applies to short leases and ensures the lessor maintains these aspects in good repair and working order.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy based on comparable properties in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent of a property in Middlesbrough, setting it at £1,000 pcm based on comparable properties and rejecting claims of undue hardship.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00EC/MNR/2026/0239 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative Landlord [APPELLANT] Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Landlord’s [COMPANY] of Application 27 April 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision 18 June 2026 Rent Determined £1,000.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 12 May 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 4 March 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,000.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £975.00 pcm to take effect from 12 May 2026.

2. On 27 April 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. The assured shorthold tenancy commenced on 12 November 2021 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per tenancy agreement and 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. The Tenant does not pay any service charges. The Property is let unfurnished. 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. N/A. Inspection/Hearing 8. Neither party requested 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. The Property 9. The Property is a modern semi-detached house providing the following accommodation: Ground Floor: kitchen, living room, w/c First Floor: 2 bedrooms, bathroom

3 Outside: front and rear gardens, driveway The Property is situated in the Bracken Grange Development in Middlesbrough, close to amenities. Middlesbrough town centre is approximately 3 miles to the north. Evidence 10. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms. The Tenant 11. The Tenant provided a screenshot showing another property in Bracken Grange with an asking rent of £925 pcm and proposed a monthly rental value of £925. The Landlord 12. The Landlord provided details of 9 comparable properties in Bracken Grange with recently agreed rentals between £1,000 and £1,020 pcm. Determination and Valuation 13. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the Landlord’s and Tenant’s comparable evidence, but is of the view that the preponderance of evidence favoured the Landlord’s position and that the Landlord’s comparables were agreed rents as opposed to asking rents.

14. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area and the comparables provided by the parties, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property in good order would be in the order of £1,000.00 pcm. This is the rent we would expect the property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as comparable properties.

15. The Tribunal considers the property to be in overall good condition. As such, no adjustments are warranted and the market rent is determined as below. Market rent £1,000.00 pcm Undue hardship 16. 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.

4 17. The Tenant has stated that a rent increase will cause financial hardship. Only very limited information and supporting evidence was provided as to the Tenant’s financial position.

18. Whilst any significant increase in rent will inevitably cause some measure of hardship, in considering whether to exercise its discretion to postpone the rent increase, the question for the Tribunal is whether undue hardship will be caused. In this case, the Tribunal does not consider that a case for undue hardship is established.

Accordingly, the new rent will take effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase. Decision 19. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,000.00 per calendar month with effect from 12 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.

📊 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 should be set at a fair market value based on comparable properties in the area.
  • The rent adjustment must consider the actual condition of the property.
  • A fair determination of market rent should be made by the First-tier Tribunal when faced with an unreasonable rent increase notice.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent increase must align with current market rates.
  • There should be no undue hardship to the tenant.

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 £1,000 pcm for an assured shorthold 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 reviewed comparable properties' rents to determine a fair market value without causing undue hardship.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were used to set the new rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tribunal considered comparable rental prices in determining a fair market value for the property.

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

The decision was against the tenant, as the proposed rent increase was upheld.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase should gather evidence of comparable rental prices to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Details of comparable properties and financial information were important in the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal on a point 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.