Tribunal Sets £1425/month Rent for Assured Tenancy in West Croydon
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting the rent at £1425 per month after considering the property's market value and its history of successive tenancies.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the current market conditions and the historical context of the property.
📖 What the law says
Under this rule, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent they are paying. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, tenants can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers what a willing landlord would charge for a similar tenancy in the open market, taking into account the same terms and conditions as the original tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined a fair rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions and property history.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a rent of £1425 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the property's market value and its history of successive tenancies.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. GB/LON/OOAH/ MNR/2024/ 0622
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], West Croydon, Surrey, CRO 3PH
R Waterhouse FRICS
Landlord [APPELLANT]
Tenant [NAME]
1. The rent is: £ 1425 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 September 2024
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable n/a Per n/a
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 2000
6. Length of the term or rental period Periodic
7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord external structural
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord n/a
9. Description of premises One bedroom flat with kitchen, bathroom, separate WC and living room
Chairman R Waterhouse FRICS Date of Decision 14 November 2025
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : GB/LON/OOAH/MNR/2024/0622 Property : [ADDRESS], West Croydon, Surrey, CRO 3PH Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal member(s) : R Waterhouse FRICS, Venue : 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] determination of papers no inspection. Date of decision : 14 November 2025
DECISION
2
_______________________________________________
DECISION
The Tribunal determines a rent of £1425.00 per calendar month with effect from 1 September 2024 ____________________________________
SUMMARY REASONS
Background 1. On 1 August 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1500.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1300.00 per month to take effect from 1 September 2024. 2. Under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination
3 of a market rent. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 12 August 2024.
Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties. The application described the property as end of terrace, comprising one living room, one front room, one bathroom, and three bedrooms there is also a garden,
Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant the Landlord made no submissions. The tenant noted their family commenced their tenancy in 1921, this was then succeeded in 1960, and again in 2000.
Determination and Valuation 5. No comparable evidence was supplied nor any evidence on the condition of the property. At the last succession any improvements would have passed to the landlord, however there is no evidence of any such. Using its own expertise the tribunal considers a property in good tenable contemporary condition would attract at rental bid of £1900 per month.
6. The tribunal using its experience considers a property that has been the subject of two successions since 1921 is likely to have a specification below that of modern contemporary property. The tribunal makes an adjustment of 25 per cent to reflect.
7. The full valuation is shown below:
per calendar month Market Rent
£1900.00 per month
Less List any deductions estimated condition) ) approx. 25 % )
£1425.00 per month
7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £1425.00 per calendar month. Decision 8. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a
[NAME] under an assured tenancy was £1425.00 per calendar month. 9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1425.00 per month to take effect on 1 September 2024.This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.
Chairman: R Waterhouse FRICS
Date: 14 November 2025
APPEAL PROVISIONS
These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Due to Property Condition - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £1653.75 Rent for Assured Tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Gated Community Flat
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Damaged HMO Room
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £1615/month Rent for Assured Tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent of £2,200 Per Month
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Health and Safety Issues
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Reduced Due to Property Condition - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Adjusted for Property Condition - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £1821 Monthly Rent for Assured Tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £1655/month rent for assured tenancy in London
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 a rent of £1425.00 per calendar month.
- The property's long history of successions since 1921 suggested its specification was below modern standards.
- The Tribunal applied a 25% adjustment to the market rent to account for the property's estimated condition.
- The Tribunal used its own expertise to determine a market rent of £1900 per month for a property in good contemporary condition.
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 an assured periodic tenancy at £1425 per month.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over the proposed rent increase from £1300 to £1500 per month.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to set the rent at £1425 per month, considering the property's condition and market comparables.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the assessment of the property's condition and market comparables.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may benefit from a detailed assessment of their property's condition and market comparables.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the property's condition and market comparables mattered.
