VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £740 Per Month

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the rent for a property at £740 per month after inspecting the property and comparing it to similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have the rent for their property set at a fair market rate after considering the property's condition and comparables.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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 open market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under similar conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the open market rent for a property at £740 per month after considering the condition and comparables.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the open market rent for a property at £740 per month after inspecting the property and considering rental comparables under the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/OOEY/MNR/2025/0692 Property : 82 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenants : [NAME] & [RESPONDENT] Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of Application : s13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision : 6 May 2025 _______________________________________________

DECISION Decision 1. By a decision dated 6 May 2025, the Tribunal determined, in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, that the open market rent for the Property is £740.00 per month. Background 2. By a notice dated 24 February 2025, (“the Notice”), the Landlord proposed a new rent of £800.00 per month to take effect from 19 April 2025.

3. By an application dated 24 February 2025, the Tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal. Inspection 4. The Tribunal inspected the Property on 6 May 2025.

5. The Property is a two-storey mid-terrace house with a rear yard. The accommodation comprises: G/F: through reception room, kitchen; 1/F: bathroom, 3 x bedrooms. There is double-glazing and gas central heating.

6. The Property is let unfurnished with the exception of the gas hob and extractor which are provided by the landlord.

7. Upon inspection, the Tribunal noted several replastered areas awaiting repainting and double glazing unit failure. The extractor in the kitchen is reported not to be working, although passive ventilation is provided via wall vents. In the bathroom, ventilation is reported to be limited (the vent not passing through the external wall). Evidence 8. Limited submissions were made by the parties and included rental listings ranging between £800 and £850 PCM, all of which appeared to refer to a single comparable property on [ADDRESS] (the Tribunal assumes the asking rent for this comparable was reduced over time). 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. Relying on its experience and knowledge, the Tribunal determined that the open market rent for a comparable property to the Property in good condition was £750.00 per month.

16. The Tribunal determined that deductions totalling £10 per month were appropriate to reflect minor items of disrepair.

17. The Tribunal therefore determined that the open market rent for the Property in accordance with the statutory basis is £740.00 per month.

19. This rent will take effect from 19 April 2025 being the date stipulated in the Notice.

MR22 First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/OOEY/MNR/2025/0692 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 82 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] Landlord [APPELLANT] 44-46 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] & [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £740 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 19 April 2025 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Per 4. Date periodic/statutory periodic assured tenancy commenced 19 May 2023 5. Rental period Monthly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord N/A 8. Description of premises Mid-terrace house Kitchen, Through lounge, 3 Bedrooms, Bathroom Rear Yard Chairman S [NAME] of Decision 6 May 2025

📊 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

  • Rent should be set at a fair market rate.
  • Consideration of the property's condition is necessary.
  • Comparisons with similar properties in the area must be made.
  • Adjustments can be made for minor disrepair under the Housing Act 1988, s.14.
  • Tenant's financial situation should be considered for a reasonable rent level.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The open market rent for the property was set at £740 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the condition of the property and comparable rental prices.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and the availability of comparable rental prices were 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 the condition of their property and comparable rental prices.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property and rental comparables were 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 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.