First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy Property
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal set a new rent for an assured tenancy property after considering the current condition of the house and whether the increase would cause financial difficulties for the tenant. The decision was based on evidence provided by both parties and expert knowledge of rental values in Hainault.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have a new rent set at a fair market value considering the condition of the property and any undue hardship faced by the tenant.
📖 What the law says
This section of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to propose an increase in rent for assured periodic tenancies, provided they follow a prescribed procedure and specify a new period for the tenancy. The new rent can only take effect after a minimum period from when the notice was served, which varies depending on the type of tenancy.
This section implies certain repairing obligations for landlords in short leases. Specifically, the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house in repair, along with installations for water, gas, electricity, sanitation, and heating. However, these obligations do not extend to works or repairs for which the tenant is responsible or to items the tenant is entitled to remove.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy property based on evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in Hainault.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured tenancy property based on evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in Hainault, considering the condition of the property and any undue hardship faced by the tenant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference LON/00BC/MNR/2026/0186 Property 72 Aragon drive, Hainault, Essex, [POSTCODE], Tenant [COUNSEL] Tenant’s Representative None Landlord [COUNSEL] and [COUNSEL] [NAME] Landlord’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s Representative None Date of Application 12 February 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision 29 May 2026 Rent Determined £2,100 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 20 March 2026.
2
REASONS FOR THE
DECISION Background 1. On 6 February 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,200 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,900 per month to take effect from 20 March 2026. This being an increase of £250.
2. On 19 March 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 in May 2021. The Tribunal, however were not presented with a copy of the agreement. 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. No furniture supplied by the landlord.
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 9. The parties did not request a hearing. However, the tenant made a request to the Tribunal for an inspection. This request was considered and on the 5 May 2026, and determination was made to refuse such an inspection as there was sufficient evidence to consider the condition of the property. Inspection/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 an extended 1930’s built semi-detached house. The accommodation comprises, three bedrooms, living room, kitchen and bathroom. The house has an EPC Rating of D which is average and a stated floor area of 103m2. The property has gas central heating, double glazed windows and carpets and floor coverings. Outside: The property has render elevations under a pitched and tiled roof. There is a rear garden and roadside parking. The Property is situated in an established residential area close to local amenities and Hainault underground station. Evidence a. The parties returned the Tribunal’s completed Rent Appeal Statements together with helpful photographs and comparable evidence of recent lettings in the Ilford area. The Tenant.
12. In the written evidence the Tenant made the following comments: a) The tenant considers a realistic rent increase would be £2,000 pcm b) The property is in a poor state of repair with cracked plaster to the walls, damaged kitchen units, corrosion to radiators, damaged paved patio, misted double glazing units, stained carpets.
4 c) Evidence of three comparable lettings ranged from £1700-£2000 pcm The Landlord.
13. The Landlord provide the following evidence. a) The landlord provided comparable evidence of three properties which ranged between £2250-£2300 pcm which fully supported the proposed increase. The Tribunal noted that this evidence was for houses in Ilford and not Hainault. Therefore, limited weight is placed on these. Determination and Valuation 14. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Hainault area together with the comparable evidence provided by the landlord and tenant, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject property modernised and in good condition would be in the order of £2,200 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.
15. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following: a) The general condition of the property based upon the photographic evidence and the tenant’s submissions 16. 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 £2,200 Less Items given under a) above £100
5 Market rent £2,100 pcm Undue hardship 17. 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.
18. The tenant has stated that she receives Universal Credit and is a [NAME] with two children.
For these reasons any increase in rent will cause financial hardship. On the basis of the evidence supplied by the tenant, the Tribunal considers that there is not sufficient evidence to show this will not cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as 20 March 2026. Decision 19. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £2,100 per calendar month with effect from the 20 March 2026, being the date of the Landlord’s notice.
6 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy Flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent at £1,950 PCM for Assured Tenancy in Tottenham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent After Tenant Dispute
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Manchester Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets fair rent of £618.75 pcm for Ipswich flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Portsmouth Property
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 fair market value considering the property's condition.
- Undue hardship faced by the tenant should be taken into account.
- Proposed rent increases must reflect the actual condition of the property.
- Environmental factors affecting the desirability of the property should be considered.
- Rent should be assessed based on market conditions and the property's condition.
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 rent of £2,100 per month for an assured tenancy property.
Who was involved?
A tenant and their landlord were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on evidence provided by both parties and expert knowledge of rental values in Hainault.
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 condition of the property and whether an increase would cause undue hardship to the tenant mattered most.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
It was partially in favour, as the rent was set lower than proposed but still increased.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a rent increase should gather evidence of comparable rents and property condition to support their case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs, comparable rental evidence, and statements about the property's condition were important.
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 recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
