VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £700 for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the rent at £700 per month for an assured tenancy after considering the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent assessment based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancyproperty condition

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 rent based on what a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent at £700 per month based on the property's condition and location.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal set the rent at £700 per month for an assured tenancy based on the property's condition and market comparables, rejecting arguments about the property's state.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CN/MNR/2021/0077

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 73 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [NAME] [RESPONDENT] 33 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [APPELLANT] [NAME] & [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £700.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 15.01.2022

3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/A Per N/A

4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 15.04.2021

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11 LLT 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Unfurnished

9. Description of premises Three bedroom two storey end terrace Victorian house in Small Heath, [NAME] of Decision 28.2.2022

1

Case Reference : BIR/00CN/MNR/2021/0077

Property

: 73 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Appeal against a Notice proposing a new rent under an

Assured Periodic Tenancy under section 13(4) of the Housing

Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS

Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] B.Sc. FRICS ACIArb

Date and Venue of : Video Hearing on 21st February 2022. Hearing

Date of Decision : 28th February 2022

____________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Decision

1 The rent is determined at £700.00 (Seven Hundred Pounds) per month from 15th January 2022.

REASONS

Introduction

2 The tenants, [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME], hold a monthly assured shorthold tenancy of a house known as 73 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE].

The tenancy was granted on 15th April 2021 for six months at a rent of £550.00 per calendar month. The house is let unfurnished.

3 On 13th December 2021 the landlord served notice of increase under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988 proposing a rent of £725.00 per month to take effect on 15th January 2022. The tenants pay their own Council Tax and water rates.

4 On 27th December 2021 the tenants applied for the rent to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber.

5 On 29th December 2021 the Tribunal issued Directions requesting documents from the landlord by 18th January 2022 and comments from the tenant by 1st February 2022.

6 On 21st February 2022 the Tribunal inspected the property and held a video Hearing the same day. There was a question regarding the correct submission of evidence and counter- evidence and the Tribunal deferred its Decision until 28th February 2022 to allow for any further comments to be made. The Tribunal then proceeded to determine the rent at £700.00 per month on 28th February 2022 with effect from 15th January 2022.

7 On 7th March 2022 the Tribunal received a request for Reasons from the landlord.

The Law

8 Section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 states:

'(1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a rent assessment committee a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the committee shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the committee 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;...'

(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;

3

(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 the

immediate landlord ...'

9 The jurisdiction of the Rent Assessment Committee was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) from 1st July 2013.

Facts Found

10 The Tribunal inspected the exterior of the property on 21st February 2022. Unfortunately, the interior could not be inspected as the tenant advised she had covid.

11 The property comprises a two storey end-terrace house in a street of similar houses in Small Heath, a residential area three miles to the east of Birmingham city centre.

12 According to papers submitted by the landlord, the house comprises two living rooms, a kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom with central heating, double glazing, carpets, curtains and white goods provided by the landlord. It has a back garden that the Tribunal could see was overgrown. There is no off-road parking but street parking is available on both sides of the road.

Submissions

13 The Applicants' Submission

Mrs [NAME] for the Applicants based her case on the condition of the property and the following points in particular:

1 the side alley offered open access to the street as there was no lock on the gate;

2 the back garden was overgrown;

3 the bathroom had been partly renovated but was damp;

4 the kitchen had been partly renovated but was incomplete;

5 the back gate was insecure;

6 the first floor rooms needed decoration and

7 there was general damp in the house and the gutters needed cleaning.

The descriptions were supported by photographs submitted to the Tribunal that were not labelled, indexed or dated and it was difficult to establish the exact condition at the date of valuation.

No rents of comparable properties were offered in evidence.

14 The Respondent's Submission

Mrs [RESPONDENT] rebutted the Applicants' grounds as follows:

1 the side alley could not be locked as it is a shared access to the backs of

neighbouring properties in addition to the subject house;

2 the back garden was the tenants' responsibility;

3 the damp was due to condensation from lack of ventilation, not ingress from

outside;

4 the kitchen was in repair;

4

5 no particular comment was made;

6 any damp was due to lack of ventilation;

7 again, any damp was due to lack of ventilation due to the tenants' use of the house.

Mrs [RESPONDENT] submitted details of two houses for comparison; a terraced house in the same road that appeared similar, offered at £850 per month and a house nearby at No.[ADDRESS], No.207, advertised at £700 per month with the comment 'This is similar to the properties on [ADDRESS].'

Decision

15 The Tribunal took account of the location, accommodation and condition of the property together with the parties' written submissions and video hearing evidence before reaching its decision.

16 Much had been made about the condition of the house but it appeared to the Tribunal from the photographs that some renovation had been carried out to the kitchen and bathroom and it was not disputed that the house offered central heating and double glazing. The condition could not be assessed in detail without internal inspection which was impossible in this case, but there was evidence of paint peeling from radiators and it had clearly not been completely refurbished.

17 Taking all points into account and using its own general but not specific knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determined the rent at £700.00 per calendar month under section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 from the effective date in the landlord's Notice, 15th January 2022.

[NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS Chairman

Appeal

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision an application may be made to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Property Chamber (Residential Property) on a point of law only. Any such application must be received within 28 days after the decision and accompanying reasons have been sent to the parties (Rule 52 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

📊 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 the rent based on the property's location, accommodation, and condition, along with the parties' submissions.
  • The landlord's proposed rent of £725.00 was reduced to £700.00, suggesting the Tribunal found the landlord's initial proposal too high.
  • The landlord successfully argued that the side alley was a shared access, meaning it could not be locked.
  • The landlord successfully argued that the back garden was the tenant's responsibility to maintain.
  • The landlord successfully argued that any dampness was due to condensation from lack of ventilation, not external ingress.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenants' photographs supporting their claims about the property's condition were not clearly labelled, indexed, or dated, making it difficult to assess the exact condition.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent was set at £700 per month for an assured tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the property's condition and compared it to similar properties in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about the property's condition and market comparables was most important.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and compare it to similar properties in the area.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and descriptions of the property's condition were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an application may be made to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal 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 specific legal issues.

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.