VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

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

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting it at £850 pcm. They took into account the property's condition and the local rental market.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent assessment based on the open market value of the property, adjusted for its condition.

Topics

rent assessmentassured periodic tenancyproperty valuation

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 expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the property's condition and local market conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent at £850 pcm based on the property's condition and local market conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £850 pcm, considering the property's condition and local market value, in accordance with the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CS/MNR/2024/0166

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 7 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [NAME] 126 High street West Bromwich [POSTCODE]

Tenant [APPELLANT]

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

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 05.08.2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 05.04.2019

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 System Built 3 Bedroom [NAME] of Decision 23.09.2024

1

Case Reference : BIR/00CS/MNR/2024/0166

Property

: 7 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

: [NAME] of Application : 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] B.Sc.(Hons.) MRICS

Date and Venue of : N/A. Paper determination Hearing

Date of Decision : 23 September 2024

____________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

1 The rent is determined at £850.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Pounds) per calendar month with effect from 5 August 2024.

REASONS

Introduction

2 The tenant, [APPELLANT], holds a monthly assured tenancy of 7 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] that commenced 5 April 2019.

3 On 3 July 2024, the landlord sent Notice of rent increase to the tenant under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988, proposing to increase the rent from £650 pcm to £900 pcm on 5 August 2024. This did not include any Council Tax, water rates or service charge.

4 The tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to determine the rent.

5 On 23 September 2024 the rent was determined at £850 pcm by paper decision.

6 On 1 October 2024 the tenant requested Reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

The Law

7 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 ...

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

9 The tenancy agreement submitted by the tenant indicated that the property had been let by [RESPONDENT] to [APPELLANT] for six months from 5 April 2019 at an initial rent of £650 pcm which had not been increased until the landlord's agent served Notice of Increase on 3 July 2024.

3

Facts Found

10 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.

11 The property is a two storey, semi-detached, former Council house on an estate of similar houses in West Bromwich. It is system built with rendering to the ground floor and panelling above with a pitched tile roof. Some houses in the locality have been refurbished but this house appears substantially original.

12 From the application form sent to the Tribunal, the accommodation comprises two living rooms, three bedrooms and a bathroom. There are front and back gardens.

13 Neither party requested a Hearing.

Submissions

14 Applicant

The tenant, Miss [APPELLANT], sent an email to the Tribunal on 7 August 2024 objecting to the increase as the house was an unimproved 'old tin house' with outstanding repairs. She had asked the landlord to carry out repairs but apparently nothing had been done.

Miss [APPELLANT] provided no rental evidence to support her case.

15 Respondent

The Landlord's agent, [NAME], sent an email to the Tribunal on 9 July 2024 advising that this was the first rent increase requested by the landlord since the start of the tenancy in 2019. While they considered the current market rental value to be £1,000 pcm, they had reduced the proposed rent to £900 pcm to take account of Miss [APPELLANT]'s circumstances.

Decision

16 The Tribunal applied its own general knowledge of market rents in the area and found that the rental value of traditionally built brick and tile semi-detached houses in the area in fair condition would have been at least £1,000 pcm. The subject house was system built and unmodernised but even allowing for these points, it would still have attracted a market rent of £850.00 pcm.

17 Accordingly, the Tribunal found the rental value in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 to be £850.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Pounds) per calendar month with effect from the date in the landlord's Notice, 5 August 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 [NAME] may make further application for permission to appeal to the

4

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 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 tribunal used its knowledge of local market rents to determine the property's value.
  • The property's system-built construction and unmodernised state were considered when setting the rent.
  • The landlord's proposed rent of £900 pcm was reduced to account for the tenant's circumstances.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £850 pcm.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and the local rental market value.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about the property's condition and market value 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 the property's condition and local market value when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Information about the property's condition and local rental prices was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, the decision can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.