VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £800 PCM

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the rent at £800 per month based on the landlord's proposal and similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent assessment based on the open market value of similar properties.

Topics

rent assessmentassured periodic tenancysection 14 determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market. The determination considers the periodic nature of the tenancy, the start date of the new tenancy, and the terms of the existing tenancy, excluding certain factors such as improvements made by the tenant or reductions due to non-compliance.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent at £800 pcm based on the landlord's proposal and available comparables.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent at £800 pcm based on the landlord's proposal and available comparables, following the Housing Act 1988 s.14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] No. BIR/00CT/MNR/2024/0127

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 159 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £800.00 Per pcm (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 01.06.2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced Succession Tenancy

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises 1930s 3 Bedroom Semi-[NAME] of Decision 17.09.2024

1

Case Reference : BIR/00CT/MNR/2024/0127

Property

: 159 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [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 : [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) [NAME] and Venue of : N/A Hearing

Date of Decision : 17 September 2024

____________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

1 The rent is determined at £800.00 (Eight Hundred Pounds) per calendar month with effect from 1 June 2024.

REASONS

Introduction

2 The tenant, [APPELLANT], holds a monthly assured tenancy by succession of 159 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE].

3 On 14 April 2024, the landlord at the time, [APPELLANT]., sent Notice of Increase to the tenant under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988 proposing to increase the rent from £725.00 pcm to £800.00 pcm with effect from 1 June 2024. This did not include any Council Tax, water rates or service charge.

4 On 22 April 2024 the tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal ([NAME]) to determine the rent.

5 On 23 May 2024 [NAME] sold the Freehold interest to [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [RESPONDENT].

6 On 11 June 2024 [RESPONDENT] [NAME] sent a Submission to the Tribunal.

7 On 17 September 2024 the Tribunal determined the rent at £800 pcm and sent the Decision to the parties.

8 On 2 October 2024 the landlord, [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]., requested Reasons.

The Law

9 Section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 ('the Act') 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;

(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 ...

3

10 The jurisdiction of the Rent Assessment Committee was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal ([NAME]) on 1 July 2013.

Facts Found

11 The Tribunal did not inspect the property and reached its Decision based on information provided with the application and views of the property on Google Streetview.

12 The property is a traditional brick and tile semi-detached house in Solihull, [RESPONDENT], with two reception rooms, three bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom. It has front and rear gardens and off road parking but no garage. The house has central heating and double glazing provided by the landlord. The tenant provided the white goods, carpets and curtains.

13 Neither party requested a Hearing.

Submissions

14 Applicant

The tenant, Miss [APPELLANT] made no submissions.

15 Respondent

The Respondent sent a Schedule of 14 semi-detached houses, mainly three bedroom but one two bedroom, in various locations across Solihull with rents listed between £791 and £1,550 pcm. The Schedule advised that these rents had been achieved but there were no signed confirmation notes from the agents who let the properties to confirm the rents stated. There were photographs of the comparables providing a broad picture of their status with comments ranging from 'average order' to 'good order' but it was not clear whether Mr [RESPONDENT] for the landlord had inspected them all inside personally or whether the descriptions were based on comments by other parties. Based on the Schedule, Mr [NAME] said the average open market letting of an average 3 bedroom semi-detached house in average condition in April - May 2024 would have been £1,418 pcm.

Decision

16 The Tribunal considered the evidence and accepted the landlord's Notice of Increase that the rental value in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 was £800 pcm to take effect on 1 June 2024.

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

Chairman

Appeal

In accordance with section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2010, the Tenant / respondent may make further application for permission to appeal to the

Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) on a point of law only. Such application must be made in writing and received by the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) no later than 28 days after the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent notice of this refusal to the

4

party applying for permission to appeal. Where possible, you should send your further application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL], as this will enable the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) to deal with it more efficiently.

Alternatively, the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) may be contacted at: 5th [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (tel: [PHONE]).

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a rent assessment based on the open market value of similar properties.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent assessment adjusted for the property's condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent assessment that considers the services provided.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent assessment under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent assessment that disregards improvements made by the tenant.

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 £800 per month starting from June 1, 2024.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the landlord's proposal and compared the property to similar ones 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 that mattered most was the comparison of the property to similar ones in the area.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the open market value of similar properties when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as the landlord's proposal and comparisons to similar properties mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, the tenant can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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

It is 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.