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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy Flat

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy flat in Northwood Hills after considering the property's condition and the tenant's financial hardship. The new rent of £1,450 pcm was set to take effect from February 28, 2026.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed rent increase must reflect the actual condition of the property and any undue hardship to the tenant.

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to propose increases in rent for assured periodic tenancies, provided they follow a prescribed procedure and specify a new rent period starting at least two months after serving the notice.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

Under this act, landlords are obligated to maintain the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, including drains, gutters, and external pipes, as well as installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation. Additionally, landlords must ensure the proper working order of installations for space heating and heating water.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy flat in Northwood Hills, considering property condition and tenant hardship.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy flat in Northwood Hills, considering property condition and tenant hardship. The new rent of £1,450 pcm was set to take effect from February 28, 2026.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference LON/00AS/MNR/2026/0111 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative None Landlord [APPELLANT] Landlord’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s Representative None Date of Application 11 February 2025 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision 19 May 2026 Rent Determined £1,450 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 28 February 2026.

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 15 January 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,550 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,250 per month to take effect from 28 February 2026. This being an increase of £300.

2. On 14 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.

3. It is stated that the assured tenancy commenced on the 28 February 2024, The Tribunal were presented with a copy of the agreement at a passing rent of £1250 per month. The tenancy was for a term of 24 months; therefore, this is a statutory tenancy agreement by one day. 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:

5. None.

6. No service charges. Liability for Council Tax 7. 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.

8. It is assumed; there are none.

3 Inspection/Hearing 9. The parties did not request an inspection or a hearing.

10. The Tribunal has therefore, considered this case on the basis of the papers, together with the papers provided by the parties, Rightmove, and its own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Property 11. The Property is a purpose built third floor flat forming part of a five storey block comprising 64 one and two bedroom flats. The accommodation comprises, one bedroom, living room/kitchen area, bathroom and two balconies. The flat has an EPC Rating of C which is above average, and it is stated in the EPC report the floor area is 50m2. There is a lift provided to the block. Outside: The property has render elevations under a flat roof. There is a communal garden and under croft parking associated with some flats. The Property is situated in an established residential area close to local amenities and Northwood Hills station Evidence 12. The parties did not return the Tribunal’s Rent Appeal Statements. The tenant provided a statement within the application and stated the proposed increase should be between £1350-£1450 per month. There were also two short videos showing an ant infestation and feces in an external area. The Tenant.

13. In the written evidence the Tenant made the following comments: a) The flat is regularly infested by ants. b) There is damp staining to the bedroom ceiling and damp and mould to the walls in the living room together with condensation to the window units. c) The lift breaks down on a regular basis, and repairs take a considerable length of time.

4 The Landlord 14. No evidence was provided by the Landlord Determination and Valuation 15. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Northwood Hills area, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good condition would be in the order of £1,550 per month. This is the rent we would expect the property to let for in the open market including having white goods and curtains provided by the landlord.

16. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following: a) The general condition of the property as stated by the tenant.

17. The Tribunal has considered very carefully this information and usings its own expertise considers that a deduction of £100 should be applied in order to take account of the of the above matters. It should be noted that this figure cannot be. a simple arithmetical calculation and is not based upon capital costs but is the Tribunal’s estimate of the amount by which the rent would need to be reduced to attract a tenant. The full valuation is shown below: Starting Rent £1,550 Less a) Items given under a) above £100 Market rent £1,450 pcm Undue hardship 18. 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.

5 19. In the application form, the tenant has stated that she has no savings and is in debt with utilities such as water, electricity and gas. This would cause undue hardship should the rent increase. Based on the evidence provided by the Tenant and the level of the increase, the Tribunal considers that this will not cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as the 28 February 2026. Decision 18. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,450 per calendar month with effect from the 28 February 2026, being the date of the Landlord’s notice. 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

  • Rent increases should be based on fair market values as assessed by comparables and expert analysis.
  • The condition of the property must be taken into account when setting a new rent.
  • Undue hardship faced by the tenant should influence the decision on rent increases.
  • Rent proposals must be supported by evidence from comparable properties.
  • The First-tier Tribunal can determine a new rent if the landlord serves a notice under Section 13(2).

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 for an assured tenancy flat in Northwood Hills.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved, with the tenant challenging the proposed rent increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the property's condition and the tenant's financial hardship to determine the new rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 s.13 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant's evidence of property condition issues and financial hardship influenced the decision.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, setting a lower rent than proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it based on property condition and financial hardship.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenant's statement about property issues and financial difficulties were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may apply for permission to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.