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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rental Value for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rental price for a flat under an assured periodic tenancy agreement. They considered the market value of similar properties and adjusted it based on the current state of the property, including missing white goods and partial misting of double glazing units.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed increase of rent must be assessed against the open market value, considering the property's condition and any improvements made by the tenant.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancy

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 a tribunal to challenge the rent payable. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured periodic tenancy. The determination excludes certain factors such as the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in property value due to improvements made by the tenant, and decreases in property value due to the tenant's non-compliance with tenancy terms.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy in Bournemouth.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy in Bournemouth, considering comparable evidence and property condition. The new rental value was set at £196 per week.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/00HN/MNR/2023/0053

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 [ADDRESS], 22 St. [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] C [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 196.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 03 April 2023

3. The amount included for services is £68.02 Per Week

4. Service charges are fixed and are included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 28 April 2017

6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises

A fifth floor flat forming part of a five storey block containing 63 flats for Retirement Living with communal facilities and central heating and hot water: bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom/WC.

[NAME] [NAME] of Decision 26 July 2023

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/00HN/MNR/2023/0053 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : [NAME] [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Inspection : None. Paper determination Date of Decision :

26th July 2023

DECISION

Summary of Decision

2 1. On the 26th July 2023 the Tribunal determined a market rent of £196 per week to take effect from 3rd April 2023. Background 2. The case concerned the determination of a market rent for the subject property following a referral of the Landlord’s notice of increase of rent by the Tenant pursuant to sections 13 and 14 Housing Act 1988.

3. On the 20th February 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £169.21 per month in place of the existing rent of £125.29 per month to take effect from 3rd April 2023. The notice complied with the legal requirements. The proposed new rental figure included £68.02 for service charges including heating and hot water. The Tribunal established that the global figure will be reduced to £157.67 following an energy credit of £11.54.

4. On 27th February 2023 the Tenant appealed to the Tribunal under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.

5. The Tribunal does not consider it necessary and proportionate in cases of this nature to undertake inspections or hold Tribunal hearings unless either are specifically requested by either party or a particular point arises which merits such an inspection and/or hearing.

6. The Tribunal issued directions on 21st June 2023 informing the parties that, unless either party objected, the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on written representations. The parties were invited to make submissions which could include photographs or videos.

7. The landlord submitted comprehensive documents including comparable evidence and photographs setting out its case. In addition, there was a Valuation Report prepared by [NAME] of [NAME] which gave an opinion of an open rental value of £950 per month. The Tribunal received a completed rent appeal statement from the tenant together with photographs. The papers were also copied to the other party.

8. Neither party objected to the matter being determined without an oral hearing, so the Tribunal determined the case on the 27th July 2023 based on the written representations received. The Property 9. From the information given in the papers and available on Rightmove and Google maps, the property comprises a five-storey block comprising 63 sheltered flats for Retirement Living. The block contains communal facilities which include two laundry rooms, a guest room, two reading rooms, roof terrace and communal gardens. The property is in a residential area close to Bournmouth town centre.

10. The fifth-floor accommodation comprises: living room, kitchen, bedroom and a bathroom/WC. There is a communal garden and residents parking. There is a communal gas central heating system and double-glazed windows were installed

3 in 2013. The tenant provided carpets, curtains and and white goods at the commencement of the tenancy. Submissions 11. The assured tenancy began on 28th April 2017 on a weekly basis 12. As previously mentioned, The tenant completed the Rent Appeal Statement and provided a helpful schedule of photographs and stated that he provided carpets, curtains and a cooker, otherwise there are no white goods.

13. As previously mentioned, the landlord submitted comprehensive package of documents including comparable evidence and photographs by the specified date setting out their case. In addition, there was a Valuation Report prepared by [NAME] of [NAME] which confirmed an open rental value of £950 per month. The Tribunal received a completed rent appeal statement from the tenant.

14. The Energy Performance Rating for the property confirms an energy rating of C62 and it is confirmed the floor area is 32m2. The Law S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal

(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy-

(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.

(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded-

(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or

4 (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates, or the following conditions are satisfied, namely-

(a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling- house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit.

(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation.

Consideration and Valuation 15. The Tribunal first considered whether it felt able to reasonably and fairly decide this case based on the papers submitted only with no oral hearing. Having read and considered the papers it decided that it could do so.

16. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the Tenant are not relevant to this issue.

17. Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and associated correspondence and using its own judgement and knowledge of rental values in the Bournmouth area, the Tribunal decided that the market rent for the subject property if let today in a condition that was usual for such an open market letting would be £900 per month.

18. However, the property is not let in such a condition as would command this full rent and the Tribunal needs to make some adjustment to this full rent to allow for the lack of white goods, carpets and curtains and partial misting of double glazing units due to defective seals.

5 19. The Tribunal has considered very carefully each parties submissions and using its own expertise, considers that a deduction of £50 should be applied for a lack of white goods (whilst recognising the laundry room facilities), the tenants’ provision of carpets, curtains, and the condition of the window units. This reduces the rental figure to £850 per month. 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.

20. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship. Determination 21. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £196 per week.

22. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £196 per week should take effect from 3rd April 2023, this being the date specified in the Notice.

23. The rental figure determined by the Tribunal exceeds that proposed by the landlord. Such figure is the maximum rent payable. However, the landlord is under no obligation to charge the full amount.

[NAME] [NAME] 26th July 2023

6

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 Tribunal determined a market rent based on its own judgment and knowledge of local rental values.
  • The Tribunal adjusted the market rent downwards due to the property's condition, including a lack of white goods and the state of the windows.
  • The Tribunal considered the tenant's provision of carpets and curtains when calculating the rent reduction.
  • The landlord's notice of rent increase complied with legal requirements.
  • The Tribunal found that the proposed new rental figure would be reduced by an energy credit.

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 rental price for an assured periodic tenancy at £196 per week.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on written submissions without an oral hearing. They considered comparable evidence and property condition.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied to determine the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The valuation report and comparable rental values were crucial in determining the new rent.

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

The tenant's appeal was partially successful, as the final rent exceeded the landlord's proposed amount but fell short of the tenant's expectations.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it by providing evidence on comparable rental values and property condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs, valuation reports, and rent appeal statements were important in the decision-making process.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an application for permission to appeal can be made within 28 days of receiving written reasons from the Tribunal.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for specific guidance on your situation.

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.