VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Open Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the fair rent for a tenant's assured periodic tenancy by comparing similar properties in the area and accounting for minor repairs needed in the property. The final rent was set at £680 per month, effective from March 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair determination of their rent based on comparable properties and minor disrepair deductions under the Housing Act 1988, s.14.

Topics

tenancyrent assessment

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 under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property, taking into account the terms of the existing tenancy and any improvements or disrepair. The determination excludes certain factors such as the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in value due to improvements made by the tenant, and reductions in value due to the tenant's failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the open market rent for an assured periodic tenancy in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the open market rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £680 per month, considering comparables and minor disrepair deductions under s.14 of the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00EQ/MNR/2024/0154 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 Flat 11, [NAME], 149 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Mr S Wanderer Mrs [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Landlord [APPELLANT] 23A Chestergate, Macclesfield, [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £680 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 8-Mar-24 *3. The amount included for services is/is negligible/not applicable Per *4. Service charges are variable and are not included 5. Date periodic/statutory periodic assured tenancy commenced 8 January 2024 6. Rental period Monthly 7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement 8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Curtains, carpet, white goods.

9. Description of premises Lower Ground Floor Flat: 1 Living Room, 1 Bathroom, 1 Kitchen, 1 Bedroom Chairman S Wanderer Date of Decision 21 January 2025

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00EQ/MNR/2024/0154 Property : Flat 11, [NAME], 149 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] [APPELLANT] Landlord : [NAME] of Application : s13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] of Decision : 21 January 2025 _______________________________________________

DECISION Decision 1. By a decision dated 21 January 2025, the Tribunal determined, in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, that the open market rent for the Property is £680.00 per month. Background 2. By a notice dated 16 January 2024, (“the Notice”), the Landlord proposed a new rent of £695.00 per month to take effect from 8 March 2024.

3. By an application dated 2 March 2024, the Tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal. Inspection 4. The Tribunal inspected the Property on 21 January 2025.

5. The Property is a lower ground floor flat. The Property is situated on a main road to the west of Macclesfield town centre. Externally, to the front of the block, there is a shared car parking area, with communal gardens to the rear. The accommodation comprises: reception room, kitchen, double bedroom, bathroom. The Property benefits from exclusive use of the rear patio area. The Property has double-glazing and gas central heating. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

6. The Property is let unfurnished. Floor coverings, blinds and white goods are provided by the Landlord.

7. Upon inspection, the Tribunal noted: 7.1 misted double glazing unit in patio door; 7.2 damaged carpet threshold strip 7.3 odour from boiler cupboard; and 7.4 shower curtain not well secured. Evidence and Submissions 8. Written submissions including comparables were made by both parties. 8.1 The Tenant referred to comparables with monthly rents ranging between £600 and £675 in the following locations: [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS]. The Tenant also mentioned disrepairs as well as pointed out that the number of parking spaces in the car park was insufficient for the number of flats in the building. 8.2 The Landlord referred to comparables within a two-mile radius rents ranging between £650 and £995. In particular, details were provided of three other lettings within [NAME] at rents ranging between £650 and £895. The Law 9. The Tribunal must first determine that the Landlord’s notice under section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served.

10. The Housing Act 1988, section 14 requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

11. In so doing the Tribunal, is required by section 14(1), to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.

12. Section 14(4) provides that for the purposes of section 14 “rent” includes amongst other things any sums payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of council tax.

13. Section 14(4) provides that for the purposes of section 14 “rent” does not include a “service charge” within the meaning of section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (i.e. where in accordance with the terms of the tenancy or other agreement a service charge payable by the tenant is variable from time to time according to changes in the relevant costs). However it does include a “fixed” service charge. Tribunal’s Deliberations

14. The Tribunal determined the Notice to be valid in accordance with s13(2).

15. The Tribunal determined that the open market rent for a comparable property to the Property in good condition was £685.00 per month.

16. The Tribunal determined that deductions totalling £5.00 per month should be made from this rent to allow for minor items of disrepair.

17. The Tribunal therefore determined that the open market rent for the Property in accordance with the statutory basis is £680.00 per month.

19. This rent will take effect from 8 March 2024 being the date stipulated in the Notice.

📊 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 disputes the landlord's proposed rent increase.
  • The rent is set based on comparable properties' rental values.
  • The rent takes into account minor disrepair deductions.
  • The rent is determined by a First-tier Tribunal under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant requests a fair market rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined that the fair open market rent for an assured periodic tenancy is £680 per month.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal inspected the property and considered comparable rental prices to determine the fair market value of the tenancy.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 was used to assess the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The Tribunal considered comparable rental prices and minor disrepair issues in determining the fair market value.

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

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

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants can challenge proposed rent increases if they believe it is not fair based on comparable properties and property condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The inspection of the property, rental comparables from other areas, and details about disrepair were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions can often be appealed to a higher court if there are grounds for doing so.

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.