First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £1,100 for Assured Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1,100 per month. The Tribunal considered various factors including the property's condition and local market conditions. They rejected the tenant's arguments for a lower rent based on evidence from local property professionals.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at a reasonable market rate under an assured tenancy.
📖 What the law says
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 a reasonable market rent for the property, considering the open market conditions and the property's state.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1,100 per month.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1,100 per month, considering the market conditions and the property's condition. The Tribunal rejected the tenant's arguments for a lower rent, citing comparable evidence from local property professionals.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/00ML/MNR/2021/0003
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 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]
[RESPONDENT] [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT] & [NAME]
1. The rent is: £ 1,100.0 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 15th February 2021
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable N/a Per
*4.
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 6th November 2017
6. Length of the term or rental period monthly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs Section 11 [RESPONDENT] and Tenant Act 1985
8. Furniture provided by [RESPONDENT] or superior [RESPONDENT] recorded
9. Description of premises Ground floor flat centrally heated and double glazed. Open plan Living Room/Kitchen, Bathroom and 2 bedrooms
[NAME] [NAME] of Decision 15th February 2021
1
Case Reference : CHI/00ML/MNR/2021/0003
Property : 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted] (Tenant)
Respondent: [redacted] : Received 30th December 2020
Type of Application : Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal
: Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME]
: 15th February 2021
_______________________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
Background 1. The Tribunal gave formal notice of its decision by a Notice dated 15th February 2021 determining the rent at £1,100.00 per calendar month.
2. By an application received on 30th December 2020, the tenant of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the [RESPONDENT] under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.
3. The [RESPONDENT]'s notice dated the 4th December 2020 proposed a rent of £1,100.00 per calendar month with effect from 6th January 2021, in place of the current rent of £950.00 per calendar month.
4. The tenancy agreement dated 3rd November 2017 is an assured tenancy commencing on 6th November 2017. The tenancy agreement is in standard form and is subject to the [RESPONDENT]'s repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the [RESPONDENT] and Tenant Act 1985.
Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 12th January 2021 and the explanation contained therein, the Tribunal did not inspect the premises.
6. Extracting such information as it could from the papers supplied to the Tribunal by the parties, by reference to information publicly available on the internet and with the benefit of its knowledge and experience the Tribunal reached the following conclusions and found as follows:
7. [ADDRESS] is located close to the A270, [ADDRESS], within 200m of Sainsbury's. Other local amenities including the [ADDRESS] shops, Aldi, Halfords and B & Q are nearby. Transport links to Brighton centre and the Universities of Brighton and Sussex are good.
8. The property comprises a ground floor centrally heated double glazed unfurnished flat with rear decking and small front garden.
9. The accommodation comprises: Open plan Living Room/Kitchen, Bathroom and 2 Bedrooms.
10. No specific information was provided to the Tribunal with regard to the supply of utilities. In the absence of any other information the Tribunal has assumed that mains, water, electricity, gas and drainage to be connected.
Hearing 11. A hearing was not requested.
Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 12. Tribunal Directions dated 12th January 2021.
13. [RESPONDENT]: Tribunal Reply Form and associated documents including damp survey and evidence of local rents.
3
14. Tenant: Application and schedule of improvements.
15. The [RESPONDENT]'s representations included a schedule of available two bedroom flats available on [NAME] and an email from Brighton and Hove Housing Department advising that a current market rent for the property would be £1,100.00 pcm. The [RESPONDENT] produced another email from local letting agent [NAME] confirming they had viewed the property and considered that £1,100.00 pcm would be the current market rent.
16. The [RESPONDENT] also produced 2 reports ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]) concerning the alleged damp. Both these reports concluded that other than some minor issues and the effects of condensation there were no significant damp issues and that the property was deemed fit for human habitation.
17. The [RESPONDENT] also referred the Tribunal to a report dated 23 January 2021 from the Private Sector Housing Department at Brighton & Hove council which concluded that “the flat appeared to be well maintained with the exception of the rear and front gardens” and “the property did not show any visible signs of mould growth or damp penetration.”
Tenant's Representations 18. In an attachment to the application the tenants stated they had carried out work after moving in including: thorough cleaning, unblock w.c., removed rubbish. Repaired: front steps, leaking shed roof (still un- useable).
19. Ongoing issues include: persistent damp, [RESPONDENT]'s failure to respond to repair requests, the high crime level and noise from the flat above. The narrow one way street and parking was also an issue.
The Tribunal’s Deliberations 20. The Tribunal may proceed to determine the rent at which it considers the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing [RESPONDENT] under an assured tenancy.
21. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the notice was a Notice under section 13 as prescribed by Statute.
22. 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 [RESPONDENT] under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the Tenant are not relevant to this issue.
23. The Tribunal checked the National Energy Performance Register and noted that there was no certificate (EPC) registered for the property. The minimum EPC rating required when offering a property to let (or renewing an existing tenancy) is E and it is illegal to offer a property to let with a rating below this level.
4
24. Based on the knowledge of its members the Tribunal finds that the market for this type of property is very sensitive to condition and inventory. In this case, if offered today in the market, the property would require enhancement and an upgraded inventory to include white goods, floor coverings and a high EPC rating.
25. The Tribunal considered the evidence supplied by the parties and although provided by property professionals it was not supported by comparable evidence.
26. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the evidence and current market conditions, determined that the market rent for the subject property is £1,100.00 per calendar month.
27. The rent will take effect from 6th January 2021 being the date specified by the [RESPONDENT] in the notice of increase.
Relevant Law 28. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
29. Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.620)
[NAME] OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision (on a point of law only) to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy at £650 pcm
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent at £705 Due to Market Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £680.00 pcm for Assured Tenancy
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 landlord's proposed rent of £1,100.00 per calendar month was accepted as the market rent.
- The property's location near local amenities and good transport links supported the rent determination.
- Reports indicated no significant damp issues and that the property was fit for human habitation.
- A council report concluded that the flat appeared well maintained, with no visible signs of mould or damp.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's claims of ongoing issues like persistent damp were not accepted as significant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £1,100 per month.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to set the rent at £1,100 per month based on the market conditions and the property's condition.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 and the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence provided by local property professionals regarding the current market rent.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the current market conditions and the condition of their property when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence from local property professionals and a damp survey were important in the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if permission is granted.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent disputes.
