VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £850 for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £850 per month after reviewing evidence of similar properties in the area. The decision was based on the landlord's evidence of recent rental agreements.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant may expect the rent for their assured periodic tenancy to be set at a level that reflects the open market value of similar properties.

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 the rent based on what a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive for letting a similar property in the open market. The determination considers the periods of the tenancy, the start date of the new tenancy, and the terms of the original tenancy, excluding certain factors like improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £850 per month based on evidence of comparable properties.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £850 per month after considering evidence of comparable properties. The Tribunal found the landlord's evidence more indicative of the open market rent.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00BU/MNR/2021/0001

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 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 850.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 31 January 2021

3. The amount included for services is Not applicable Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 31 January 2020

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Yes – integrated white goods

8. Description of premises Purpose built 3rd floor flat comprising 2 bedrooms (1 double / 1 single), Bathroom, open plan kitchen / living room, balcony, understairs storage place, hall and 1 parking space.

[NAME] of Decision 8 November 2021

1

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference :

MAN/00BU/MNR/2021/0001

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant : Ms M [APPELLANT]

Landlord : Northwood South Manchester

Type of Application :

s13 Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members :

Tribunal Judge C [NAME]

Tribunal Member J Faulkner

Date of Decision :

8 November 2021

Date of Reasons :

18 January 2022 _______________________________________________

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

2

Decision 1. By a decision dated 8 November 2021, the Tribunal determined, in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, that the open market rent for the Property is £850.00 per month. Background 2. By a notice dated 7 December 2020, (“the Notice”), the Landlord proposed a new rent of £850.00 per month to take effect from 31 January 2021.

3. By an application dated 30 December 2020, the Tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal. Inspection 4. Due to covid-19 restrictions, the Tribunal made an external inspection only of the Property.

5. The Property is an apartment in a large modern development of apartments with communal gardens and on-site parking.

6. The Tenant states that the accommodation comprises 2 bedrooms, (1 double and 1 single), open plan kitchen (with integrated white goods) and dining area, hall, bathroom, understairs storage and a balcony. There is access to the communal gardens and to an allocated parking space.

7. Further information was made available to the Tribunal by the photographs included within the Landlord’s submissions. Evidence 8. Both parties made written representations to the Tribunal.

9. In the Applicant’s submissions, evidence was provided of the rents payable in respect of 4 other 2-bed apartments within the development, 3 of which were of substantially the same footprint as the Property, and where the 4th was a “triplex” located over 3 floors and offering larger accommodation. The respective rents were £760, £765, £775 and £875 per month.

10. The Landlord’s submissions included a series of online searches for comparable properties, all of which comprised 2-bed apartments within the development. Three properties had lets agreed at £850 per month, a 4th at £895 per month and a 5th at £975 per month. The Law 11.1 The Tribunal must first determine that the Landlord’s notice under section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. 11.2 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. 11.3 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.

3

11.4 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. 11.5 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 12.1 The Tribunal determined the Notice to be valid. 12.2 The Tribunal therefore had to decide only whether or not the rent proposed by the Landlord was fair and reasonable. In doing so it must comply with section 14 (1) of the Housing Act 1988 as referred to above.

12.3 The Tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the Applicant did not include any details of when the rents referred to had been agreed. By contrast, the Landlord’s evidence was of properties marketed (and rents agreed) from September 2020 to January 2021. As such, the Tribunal preferred the Landlord’s evidence as being more indicative of an open market rent for the Property as at 31 January 2021 than that of the Applicant.

12.4 There was limited information of the reasons for the higher rents payable in respect of 2 of the apartments referenced in the Landlord’s evidence but the Tribunal considered that it was reasonable to conclude that the apartments were larger than the Property.

12.5 The Tribunal therefore concluded that the rent at which the Property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market if the same were in good condition would be £850 per month.

12.6 The Tribunal then noted that there was no evidence provided as to whether any deductions should be made to account for the condition and characteristics of the Property.

12.7 The Tribunal therefore determined that the open market rent for the Property is £850 per month.

12.8 This rent will take effect from 31 January 2021 being the date stipulated in the Notice.

Judge C [NAME] 18 January 2022

📊 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 rent for a property should reflect its condition and any disrepair issues.
  • The determination of rent must consider comparable properties in the area.
  • The Tribunal should assess the rent based on fair market rates.
  • Landlords must consider the property's condition, excluding tenant improvements.
  • Rent adjustments should account for the standard of the property's condition.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The proposed rent increase is based solely on open market value without considering the property's condition.
  • The landlord seeks to increase rent without providing evidence of fair market value adjustments.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £850 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on evidence of comparable properties, favouring the landlord's evidence.

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 evidence provided by the landlord regarding comparable properties.

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

The decision was against the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should gather evidence of comparable rental prices in the area.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and rental agreements for comparable properties mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.