VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy at £650 pcm

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting it at £650 per month, starting from February 2022. The decision was based on the current market conditions and the condition of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent for their assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions and property condition.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.14Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015

📖 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. This determination considers the market conditions and the condition of the property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £650 pcm, effective from February 2022.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £650 pcm, effective from February 2022, considering market conditions and property condition.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/18UD/MNR/2022/0005

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 Flat 1, 120 [NAME], Tiverton, Devon, [POSTCODE]

Mr R Brown FRICS Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [RESPONDENT], Churchstanton, Taunton, Somerset, [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT] & [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 650.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 21 February 2022

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 21 October 2021

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per section 11 of the [RESPONDENT] & Tenant Act 1985

7. Furniture provided by [RESPONDENT] or superior [RESPONDENT], curtains with cooker and washing machine.

8. Description of premises 2 bedroom flat in converted house close to roundabout on a busy main road.

Chairman Mr R Brown FRICS Date of Decision 19 April 2022

1

Case Reference

: CHI/18UD/MNR/2022/0005

Property : Flat 1, 120 [NAME], Tiverton, Devon [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

(Tenants)

Respondent: [redacted] : 23rd January 2022

Type of Application : Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: Mr R T Brown FRICS Chairman Mr J Reichel BSc MRICS Mr S Hodges MRICS

Date

: 19th April 2022

_____________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

2 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background 1. The Tribunal gave formal notice of its decision by a Notice dated 19th April 2022 that the rent will be £650.00 per calendar month (pcm) with effect from 6th February 2022.

2. By an application dated 23rd January 2022, the Tenant of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the [RESPONDENT] under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.

3. The [RESPONDENT]'s notice dated the 14th November 2021 proposed a rent of £670.00 pcm with effect from 21st February 2022, in place of the current rent of £600.00 pcm.

4. The tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy agreement is in common form and is dated 24th September 2021 although there is reference to the original agreement commencing in March 2020. The tenancy is subject to the [RESPONDENT]'s repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the [RESPONDENT] and Tenant Act 1985.

Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 9th March 2022 and the explanation contained therein, the Tribunal did not inspect the premises.

6. Extracting such information as it could from the papers supplied to the Tribunal by the parties, by reference to information publicly available on the internet and with the benefit of its knowledge and experience the Tribunal reached the following conclusions and found as follows:

7. The property is located in a mainly residential area at a roundabout on the main A3126 north to south through Tiverton.

8. The property comprises a double glazed Ground Floor Flat in a converted house.

9. The accommodation comprises: Living Room, kitchen, bathroom/WC and 2 bedrooms. Outside: Communal garden and off-street parking.

10. The property is let part furnished with carpets, curtains, cooker and washing machine.

11. The Tribunal assumed that all mains services are connected.

12. The Tribunal noted: a) Heating was via electric panel heaters.

Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 13. Tribunal Directions dated 9th March 2022.

14. [RESPONDENT]: Tribunal Reply Form.

3

15. Tenant: Application Reply Forms, Inventory, Notice of Increase and Tenancy Agreement.

[RESPONDENT]'s Representations (summarised):

16. The [RESPONDENT] says in the Reply Form and attachments: a) Digital photographs of the flat are included showing the condition of the flat in March 2020 before the current tenants took up occupation. b) The garden fence was renewed in 2020 and the garden tidied up. c) The property was converted into 3 flats in 2008 and each flat was: replastered, rewired, soundproofed, decorated with new kitchen and bathroom fittings. d) A report from Red Panda stating that the company had cleaned the flat prior to the current tenants taking up occupation. Red Panda visited the property on more than one occasion to investigate blocked drains which were not in fact blocked. e) A subsequent report from Red Panda stating that after being called to attend a radiator falling off the wall that it did in fact look more like it had been pulled away. f) Mr [NAME] reported that he was called out to attend at the property due to blocked drains and found that they were blocked with moisturising wipes which do not decompose. g) The shower was replaced a few months ago.

17. The property is short walk from Tiverton town centre where there is a bus to the railway station.

18. The [RESPONDENT] has not found a comparable 2 bedroom flat with direct access to the garden that also allows dogs. Two bedroom flats without garden or allowing dogs let for between £620.00 and £695.00 pcm.

19. A smaller 2 bedroom flat in [ADDRESS] is currently advertised at £650.00 pcm. It looks smaller than Flat 1. There is also another 2 bedroom flat in [NAME] with no garden or pets advertised for £650.00 pcm.

20. The ‘[NAME]’ calculator shows that a 2 bedroom flat without garden or pets is £690.00 pcm. If offering this flat the [RESPONDENT] would hope to achieve £720.00 pcm.

21. £670.00 is a very fair rent.

Tenant's Representations (summarised)

22. The Tenant says in the Application and Reply Forms:

a) Defects include: Ongoing issues with the plumbing including occasional lack of hot water, faulty shower and waste backing up into shower. Radiator falling off wall. b) Tenants repaired: curtain rail, removed ants, plugged holes around windows.

4

c) The flat is in need of an upgrade: no power to shaver socket, sockets in kitchen do not work, kitchen units need repair. Bathroom has no window and the extractor is somewhat dated leading to a build up of mould. d) The flat is located outside a main roundabout that leads to Exeter with traffic flying by all night.

23. Undated photographs are included.

24. The tenants had viewed a 3 bedroom house in better condition and offered for £700.00 pcm. Other smaller 2/3 bedroom properties have been valued closer to £630.00/650.00 pcm. Properties which seemed ‘tired’ were almost always under £620.00 pcm.

The Tribunal’s Deliberations 25. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the notice was a Notice under section 13 as prescribed by Statute.

26. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing [RESPONDENT] under an Assured Tenancy. The personal circumstances of the Tenant or [RESPONDENT] are not relevant to this issue.

27. The Tribunal checked the [NAME] and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the property at D expiring on 2oth November 2026. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.

28. Based on the knowledge of its members the Tribunal finds that the market for this type of property is very sensitive to condition and inventory.

29. The Tribunal, acting as an expert tribunal, determined what rent the [RESPONDENT] could reasonably be expected to obtain for the subject property in the open market if it were let today in the condition and subject to the terms of such a tenancy that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by having regard to the evidence supplied by the parties and the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels. Having done so, it concluded that such a likely market rent for a similar modernised property in fair condition with modern central heating, modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, floor coverings, cooker, washing machine and an EPC Rating of E or above would be £700.00 pcm.

30. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the current market conditions and the apparent condition of the subject property determined to make deductions in respect of issues identified:

a) Electric heaters as opposed to full central heating: £15.00 b) Location on main roundabout: £25.00 c) Partial white goods: £10.00

Total deduction £50.00 pcm

5

31. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is £650.00 pcm.

32. The rent will take effect from 21st February 2022 being the date specified by the [RESPONDENT] in the notice of increase.

Relevant Law 33. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

34. Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.620)

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision (on a point of law only) to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 property's condition is taken into account when determining the rent.
  • Market comparables are used to set a fair rent level.
  • Modernisation needs of the property influence the rent adjustment.
  • Tenants can refer a landlord's rent increase notice to the Tribunal.
  • Rent adjustments reflect both the property's condition and market conditions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The proposed rent increase does not consider the property's condition.
  • The rent increase is based solely on the open market value without considering the property's condition.

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 £650 per month, starting from February 2022.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the current market conditions and the condition of the property, setting the rent at £650 pcm.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 and the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 2015 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the current market conditions for similar properties.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting the rent at £650 pcm.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might expect the rent to be set based on the current market conditions and the condition of the property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the property, reports on the property's condition, and comparable rental prices were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determination.

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.