VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy by evaluating the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the market.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the property's condition and market value.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancyproperty condition

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 under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, such an application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant 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 expect to receive for letting the property in the open market, taking into account the property's condition and market comparables.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on the property's condition and market comparables.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy by assessing the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the market.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/24UL/MNR/2022/0009

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 74 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] c/o [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 175.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 07 March 2022

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 17 June 1987

5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per section 11 of the Landlord & [APPELLANT] 1985

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises Double glazed 3 bedroom house with ground floor bathroom.

[NAME] of Decision 16 March 2022

1

Case Reference

: CHI/24UL/MNR/2022/0009

Property : 74 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[NAME].

Date of Application : 3rd February 2022

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

: 16th March 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 16th March 2022 will be £175.00 per week (pw) with effect from 7th March 2022.

2. By an application dated 3rd February 2022, the [APPELLANT] of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the landlord under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.

3. The landlord's notice, issued by the agent dated the 26th January 2022, proposed a rent of £190.00 pw with effect from 7th March 2022, in place of the current rent of £172.00 pw.

4. The tenancy is an assured tenancy. The tenancy agreement is in the form used by the Secretary of State for Defence at the time and is dated 24th June 1987. The tenancy is subject to the Landlord's repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985.

Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 11th February 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 residential area of mixed dwellings, many of which were occupied by service personnel, sited north east of Farnborough Airport. Local amenities are available.

8. In the First-tier Tribunal decision dated 3rd June 2019 the property was described as double glazed and built in the early 20th century of rendered brick under a slate covered roof.

9. The accommodation comprises: Ground Floor: Living Room, kitchen, bathroom/W.C. First Floor: 3 bedrooms. Outside: Front and Rear gardens. No off street parking.

10. The property is let unfurnished.

11. The Tribunal assumed that all mains services are connected. There is no central heating.

Hearing 12. A hearing was not requested.

Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 13. Tribunal Directions dated 11th February 2022.

3

14. Landlord: Tribunal Reply Form.

15. [APPELLANT]: Application and Reply Forms, Notice of Increase and Tenancy Agreement.

Landlord's Representations (summarised): 16. The Landlord says in the Reply Form and attachments:

a) There are no known items of disrepair. b) The kitchen and bathroom fittings have not been replaced under the current ownership. c) The [APPELLANT] is responsible for internal decorations.

17. No photographs or market rent evidence submitted.

[APPELLANT]'s Representations (summarised)

18. The [APPELLANT] says in the Application and Reply Forms:

a) The [APPELLANT] has improved/repaired the rear retaining wall to prevent rain water flooding into kitchen. b) No other improvements have been undertaken. c) The roof is in a poor state. d) Kitchen and Bathroom fittings are 35 years old. e) No central heating and only an old gas fire to heat the whole house. f) Low Energy Performance Certificate rating the property at F.

19. No photographs or market rent evidence submitted.

The Tribunal’s Deliberations 20. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the notice was a Notice under section 13 as prescribed by Statute.

21. 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 Landlord under an Assured Tenancy. The personal circumstances of the [APPELLANT] or Landlord are not relevant to this issue.

22. The Tribunal checked the [NAME] and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the property at F expiring on 22nd September 2030. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.

23. 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.

24. The Tribunal, acting as an expert tribunal, determined what rent the landlord 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

4

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 £300.00 pw.

25. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the current market conditions and the apparent condition of the subject property, determined to make a deduction in respect of issues identified by the [APPELLANT]:

a) No central heating: £25.00 b) Dated Kitchen and bathroom fittings: £50.00 c) Disrepair (including poor EPC rating): £35.00 d) Lack of carpets curtains and white goods: £15.00

Total deduction £125.00 pw

26. Accordingly the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is £175.00 pw.

27. The rent will take effect from 7th March 2022 being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.

Relevant Law 28. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

29. 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 ([NAME]) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] 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 [NAME] 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 rent level reflects current market conditions for similar properties.
  • The rent level reflects the property's condition and market comparables.
  • The rent level reflects the open market value of the property, adjusted for disrepair and lack of amenities.
  • The rent level reflects the property's condition and location.
  • The rent level reflects the market conditions and the state of the property.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A landlord may adjust the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on the property's condition and market comparables.
  • A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value of the property.

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 £175.00 per week.

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 market comparables.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and its comparability to similar properties in the market.

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 condition of their property and market comparables when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence regarding the property's condition and market comparables was 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 seek 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.