VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £1000 pcm for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions in Ipswich. They set the rent at £1000 per calendar month, considering the condition of the property and market rents for similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the open market value of the property under similar tenancy terms.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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 rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market. The new rent should reflect the same terms as the original tenancy except for the rent amount itself.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions in Ipswich.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions in Ipswich, setting the rent at £1000 per calendar month. The Tribunal considered the condition of the property and market rents for similar properties in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CAM/42UD/MNR/2025/0642

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 42 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Tenant [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1000 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 27 March 2025

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable nil Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 27 March 2024

6. Length of the term or rental period periodic calendar monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs per tenancy

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises 1890’s mid terraced house on street. Small rear garden, smaller front yard. Double pitched single lap concrete tiled roof with small front porch, walls – rendered brick Accom. on 2 levels via cross stairs: First floor 3 bedrooms, ground 2 rooms. Kitchen, bathroom/WC b/a. Fair to good condition. (Google Streetview September 2023). Carpets curtains, double glazing, central heating provided by landlord. No reference to white goods. Opposite large busy car wash yard and main port rail line.

[NAME] of Decision 12 May 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/42UDMNR/2025/0642 Property : 42 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL] (Agent) Type of Application : S.13 Housing Act 1988 Determination of a new rent Tribunal : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 12 May 2025 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 12 May 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 4 March 2025. This was before the effective start date 27 March 2025 of the new rent sought, from tenants of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 2 The notice dated 12 February 2025, proposed a new rent of £1250 per calendar month exclusive, with effect from and including 27 March 2025. This rent does not include other services.

3 The tenancy is now an assured periodic calendar monthly tenancy. It had originally been granted for a fixed 12 months term on 27 March 2024 at an initial rent of £1,100 pcm. A copy was provided.

4 The rent payable up to and including 26 March 2025 was £1,100 per calendar month.

Directions

5 Directions, dated 19 March 2025, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [NAME]. One party asked for a hearing.

Inspection

6 There was no inspection. The Property is a 2 level mid terraced house dating from around 1890. It has a small front yard. It has a small rear yard/ garden. (Google Streetview September 2023). There is no off- road parking but, there is on street parking. Across the road is a fenced hedged yard. It appears to be former railway sidings long since converted to commercial use, currently as a large open yard. It is used 7 days a week as a commercial car wash. Beyond this is the main railway to and from Felixstowe port.

7 The house is of traditional construction, rendered brick walls to front elevation to 2 levels. The main roof is double pitched finished to concrete single lap tile. It is set within the town, within streets of small 2 and 3 bedroom houses in short terraces built around the 1900’s, of similar age and construction. This terrace is of 4 houses divided in part from the next by a through pedestrian passageway.

8 The Property has 3 bedrooms, all on the first floor and on the ground floor there are 2 rooms, kitchen. The bathroom/ WC is a more recent single storey ground floor only back addition beyond the kitchen. There is gas fired central heating, with full double glazing, both provided by the landlord. The carpets, curtains, white goods are assumed also provided by the landlord.

Tenants’ and Landlord’s Representations

9 The tenant provided written submissions via the Application Form and the completed standard Reply Form. During the hearing the tenant referred to some minor maintenance works that had been requested and completed earlier in the year. These were not an issue for the Tribunal.

10 The tenant had supplied details of some 8No. houses to let in the town. The Tribunal went through these with the tenant at the hearing. Some

3 of them included reference to a location and others but not all, to the rent sought by the agent for those landlords, on new lettings. The tenant felt that they supported her argument that the rent should not be increased from its current level of £1100 pcm. The tenancy had been created in March 2024, so the rent paid had not yet been reviewed.

11 Ms [COUNSEL] appeared for the Landlord’s agent. The landlord did not attend. She was able to confirm the issue date of the S.13 Noitce as stated above and that the 4No. photographs of the interior of a house were of the property taken early in 2025 as part the standard management procedure.

12 The Tribunal is grateful for such information as was provided by both parties in the application, in the standard Reply Form and in person at the video hearing.

Law

13 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the Property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

14 From the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Ipswich and from its review of rents sought and achieved in the town, it determines that the subject Property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1000 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order.

15 From the representations the Tribunal found nothing of significance to warrant any reduction from this figure. The new rent will therefore be £1000 pcm with effect from 27 March 2025.

16 Although the landlord is not obliged to charge this rent and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation; they may not charge more than this figure after 26 March 2025. Any sums already paid over, in excess of this new rent for the period after 26 March 2025, should be credited to the account in the usual way.

[NAME] 12 May 2025

4

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

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 decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 rent level should reflect the open market value of the property.
  • Rent adjustments should consider the property's condition.
  • Tenants can refer rent increase notices to the tribunal for determination.
  • Improvements made by tenants should be considered in rent adjustments.
  • Minor defects in the property should be factored into rent levels.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1000 per calendar 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 based on the market conditions in Ipswich, ensuring the rent reflected what similar properties were renting for.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied to determine the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property's condition and market rents for similar properties.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting the rent at a level that reflects the open market value.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider market conditions and comparable rents when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as market rent comparisons and the condition of the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determination.

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.