VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for a shared flat in London. They set the rent at £800 per month, starting from July 1st, 2025. This decision was based on the open market value of similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

The rent for a property may reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

Topics

rent determinationassured shorthold tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant under an assured tenancy can 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 would expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the periods of the tenancy and ensures that the terms of the new tenancy match the original except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for a shared flat in London.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for a five-bedroom flat shared by tenants, considering the open market value and the condition of the property. The rent was set at £800 per month, effective from July 1st, 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BG/MNR/2025/0857

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]

Judge S [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY], 2 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 800 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 01.07.25

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable 0 Per

*

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 01.09.24

6. Length of the term or rental period 3 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord The furniture provided according to the tenancy agreement includes beds, wardrobes, chests of drawers and curtains.

9. Description of premises The property is a five-bedroom flat, with tenants in the flat sharing a kitchen, toilet and one bathroom. There is no living room.

MR22 Chairman Simon Brilliant Date of Decision 06.10.25

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BG/MNR/2025/0857 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] : Determination of a Rent under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Judge S [NAME] and Venue of Meeting

: 30 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Written Reasons : 06 October 2025

DECISION

Decision of the Tribunal Background

1. On 12 June 2025, the [APPELLANT] of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the property”) referred to the Tribunal a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

2 2. The landlords’ notice, which proposed a rent of £1,100 per month with effect from 01 July 2025, is dated 01 June 2025.

3. The previous rent was £735 per month.

4. The [APPELLANT] holds the property under the terms of an assured shorthold tenancy dated 01 September 2025. Section 11 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985 applies to the lease.

5. Neither party request a hearing or an inspection.

The property

6. The property is a five bedroom flat, with tenants in the flat sharing a kitchen, toilet and one bathroom. There is no living room. The furniture provided according to the tenancy agreement includes beds, wardrobes, chests of drawers and curtains. The rent includes utilities, council tax, and cleaning said to be unsatisfactorily done.

The law

7. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

Valuation

8. The rental range in the immediate area for a double room is £800 per month to £1,400 per month. The top of the range is for double rooms in a modern flat with an ensuite bathroom. There is evidence of £800 per month to £950 per month for double rooms sharing facilities with two to four other people. A number have a dining kitchen and access to a garden.

9. Based on our knowledge and experience, a comparable property which was let on an assured shorthold in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting, would attract a rent of £800 per month.

The decision

1o. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £800 per month.

11. This rent will take effect from 01 July 2025, being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.

3

[RESPONDENT]: 06 October 2025

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

i. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

ii. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

iii. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), 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 Tribunal determined the rent based on what the property would reasonably fetch on the open market under an assured tenancy.
  • The rental range for a double room in the immediate area was considered, from £800 to £1,400 per month.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the rent for a shared flat at £800 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant of a shared flat and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the open market value of similar properties 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's rent to similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a lower rent than what the landlord proposed.

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 of the rental range for similar properties in the area was important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a party can appeal this 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 cases involving rent disputes.

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.