VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £700 per Month

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set the rent for a semi-detached bungalow at £700 per month after considering comparable properties and the condition of the home.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on comparable properties and the condition of the premises.

Topics

rent determinationfair rentcomparable properties

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might 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 a rent of £700 per month based on comparable properties and the property's condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair rent of £700 per month for a semi-detached bungalow based on comparable properties and the property's condition.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/12UD/MNR/2019/0001

Property : 3, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Landlord : [NAME]

Tenant : Ms A [APPELLANT] of Application : to determine a rent under the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME] Valuer Member

Date of inspection : 7 March 2019

Date Decision Effective: 13 March 2019 _______________________________________________

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REASONS ____________________________________

DECISION The Tribunal determined a rent of £700.00 per month

THE PREMISES: Semi-detached post-war bungalow of brick and tile, with gardens front and rear, but no drive or garage: on-road parking. UPVC double-glazing. Accommodation; hall, sitting room, good-sized kitchen with modern fitted units and breakfast bar, 2 double bedrooms, bathroom/WC with electric shower, and conservatory with low polycarbonate roof. Gas central heating. The Landlord has provided a built-in oven and hob, and carpets, but no curtains or furniture.

CONDITION: External: satisfactory. The meter cupboard door is in poor repair, but this would not be of significance to the rental value. Internal: satisfactory. Some evidence of minor condensation issues, and the Tenant said the recessed ceiling lights in the sitting room and kitchen ‘blow’ frequently, but neither of these are of significance to the rental value

TENANT’S IMPROVEMENTS: None of significance to rental value.

LOCATION Located in a cul-de-sac close to the centre of a large village with a shop, Post Office and petrol station, approximately 2 miles from the town of March, and with a regular bus service to Peterborough.

THE LAW APPLIED: Section 14 Housing Act 1988

OPEN MARKET RENT: The market evidence provided by the Landlord was for two-storey properties not bungalows, and the Tribunal did not consider that such properties were comparable with the subject property. Taking into account the evidence provided by the Tenant of market rents for comparable bungalows, and the Tribunal members’ knowledge and experience, decided at £700.00 per month for a similar property.

DECISION: The Tribunal therefore determined a rent of £700.00 per month for the subject property.

Judge Lancaster

Important Note: This is a summary of the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision. Should you require more detailed reasons, they can be supplied but only if a written request for such reasons is received by the Panel Office within 21 days from the receipt of this document. The papers will then be returned to the Chair for such detailed reasons to be prepared.

Caution: For the purpose of reaching a decision the Tribunal inspected the subject property. Such inspection is not a structural survey and only takes a few minutes. Any comments about the condition of the subject property in this Statement of Reasons are made as a result of casual observation rather than a detailed inspection. Please do not rely upon such comments as a guide to the structural condition of the subject property.

3

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 set the rent at £700.00 per month for the property.
  • The tribunal considered the tenant's evidence of market rents for comparable bungalows.
  • The tribunal used its members' knowledge and experience to determine the rent.
  • The property's external and internal condition was deemed satisfactory, with minor issues not affecting rental value.
  • The property's location in a cul-de-sac near a village centre with amenities and bus service was noted.

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 at £700 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable properties and the condition of the premises.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about comparable properties was crucial.

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 comparable properties and the condition of their home.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Market evidence for comparable properties was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor.

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.