First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured shorthold tenancy, considering market conditions and minor issues with the a person. The rent was set at £800 per month.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal must determine the rent at which a property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market under an assured tenancy, ignoring any changes in value due to tenant improvements or failures to comply with tenancy terms, according to the Housing Act.
📖 What the law says
Under this rule, a tenant can ask a special court to decide if the rent they are paying for their home is fair compared to what similar homes are renting for in the open market. However, the tenant cannot make this request if the current rent was already set by a previous decision under this rule, or if more than six months have passed since they started living in the home.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal determined the appropriate rent for the property based on market conditions and minor deficiencies.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured shorthold tenancy based on market conditions and minor deficiencies, setting the rent at £800 per calendar month.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : CAM/00JA/MNR/2023/0010 [NAME] : 78 Reepham, Orton Brimbles Peterborough [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] (agent) Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 18 July 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 11 January 2023 from the tenants of the [NAME], regarding a notice of increase of rent, served by the landlord’ agent, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).
2 The notice, date 4 December 2022, proposed a new rent of £800 per calendar month with effect from and including 1 February 2023. The passing rent was stated in the notice, to be £700 per calendar month.
2 3 The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy. A copy of the tenancy was provided. A copy of the Landlord’s notice was provided.
Inspection
4 The Tribunal did not inspect the [NAME], but the Tribunal had regard to [ADDRESS] images of the [NAME] from the public road (@ June 2022). The [NAME] is within a housing estate and forms part of a small terrace of houses dating from the 1990’s.
5 The external face of the walls are brick with a double pitched main roof finished in single lap concrete roof tiles over and it is similar in style to neighbouring properties. There is no garage but a private off road parking space and small garden.
6 The [NAME] is a compact 2 bedroom home with no communal parts. Accommodation comprises, first floor two double bedrooms and bathroom (shower over)/ WC, and ground floor living room, dining room /kitchen and WC. Windows are plastic framed double glazed. Water and space heating is fed from a self contained gas fired system. One of the windows has been cracked and had a defective handle. It was unclear if this had yet been repaired but this appeared to be the case.
7 The building terrace of which the [NAME] forms part appears to be in good to fair condition. The Tribunal saw that the [NAME] appeared in good condition reflecting its relatively new build, however overall the building is beginning to look tired.
8 The [NAME] was let with some white goods (cooker) to the kitchen, but none otherwise. The windows, heating system and all kitchen and bathroom fittings are let with the [NAME]. All fitted floor coverings and finishes are the landlords. Curtains and other window coverings appeared not to be included.
9 It was unclear to the Tribunal why about half of the final bundle appeared presented in an inverted (180’) format, making the submissions and other documents more difficult to follow and read.
Representations
10 Directions, dated 25 January 2023, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [APPELLANT] [NAME]. Neither party requested a hearing. The tenant made brief representations with the application including photographs and general correspondence on what are now historic items of disrepair. The Tribunal received no representations from the landlord. The tenant provided a complete standard Reply Form issued with the Directions. The Tribunal carefully considered such written representations as it received in the application and subsequently.
3
Law
11 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers the [NAME] might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the [NAME] falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the [NAME] to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.
Decision
12 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Peterborough and surroundings, it determines that the subject [NAME] would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £850 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order. Although the tenant referred to longstanding items of minor disrepair it appeared to the Tribunal that these had finally been remedied and were now of essentially historic nature as far as the rent increase was concerned.
13 There were no significant tenant’s improvements or additions and only minor landlord’s historic failings to consider. There appeared to be no curtains supplied with the letting. Some white goods, fridge, freezer, washing machine and drier did not appear to be supplied either. The Tribunal therefore makes a deduction of £50 per calendar month to reflect these minor deficiencies, leaving £800 pcm as the new rent.
14 The new rent is payable from and including the date set out in the Landlord’s notice, from and including 1 February 2023 is therefore at the new sum of £800 pcm.
[NAME] 20 March 2023
4 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. CAM/00JA/MNR/2023/0010
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 78 Reepham, Orton Brimbles, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire [POSTCODE]
[NAME]
Landlord [NAME]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 800 Per Per calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 February 2023
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable nil Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included n/a
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 November 2016 6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly periodic 7. Allocation of liability for repairs Per tenancy 8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Includes floor coverings some white goods, carpets.
9. Description of premises Small self contained dwelling within a short purpose built modern 1990’s terrace of similar houses in a 1990’s housing estate located near to Peterborough. Accommodation: 2 double bedrooms, living room, diner/kitchen, bathroom/wc, GF wc. Includes small garden and off road parking space. Double glazed, full central heating. Not inspected. Some historic minor disrepair predated the review date and appeared to remedied.
5 [NAME] of Decision 18 July 2023
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Tenant in Welwyn Garden City
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Norwich Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent Based on Market Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent for Northampton Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Due to Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Due to Property Defects
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Ipswich Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Property Based on Market Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Rent Increase
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 open market rent for the property to be £850 per calendar month if fully fitted and in good order.
- The Tribunal made a deduction of £50 per month from the market rent due to the absence of curtains and some white goods.
- The new rent of £800 per calendar month is effective from the date specified in the landlord's notice.
- The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy, which was confirmed by a provided copy.
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 shorthold tenancy was set at £800 per calendar month.
Who was involved?
A tenant and a landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on market conditions and minor deficiencies in the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the current market rent level for similar properties.
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 market conditions and any deficiencies in their property when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as market rent levels and the condition of the property were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, 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 involving rent disputes.
