First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy Based on Market Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on what similar properties in Luton are renting for. They set the rent at £1300 per month.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the open market value of the property under an assured tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to 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 might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions in Luton.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined that the rent for an assured periodic tenancy should be £1300 per calendar month, reflecting the open market value of the property in Luton, England.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/00KA/MNR/2023/0009 Property : 1a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] (Tenants) Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative : None Type of Application : S.13 Housing Act 1988 Determination of a new rent Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 21 March 2023 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) HMCTS Cambridge [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 21 March 2023
REASONS FOR
DECISION Background 1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 19 January 2023 from the tenant of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act). 2 The notice, dated 29 December 2022, proposed a new rent of £1300 per calendar month exclusive, with effect from and including 1 February 2023. This rent does not include other services.
2 3 The tenancy is an assured periodic monthly tenancy with effect from and including 1 February 2021. Parts of a copy were provided. 4 The rent payable up to and including 31 January 2023 was £1000 per calendar month. No services were included. Directions 5 Directions, dated 25 January 2023, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [NAME] [NAME]. Neither party asked for a hearing. Inspection 6 There was no inspection owing to Tribunal practice under the current health regulations. 7 From Google Streetview (@ June 2022) the Tribunal could see the front and side/ end elevations only. It appeared to the Tribunal that the house is a conventional 1980’s semi-detached house. It appeared to have been built on a former garage/ side garden adjacent to the former end terraced house at No.1 constructed in traditional materials, form and layout from the 1930’s. 8 This end house has brick walls and tiled, double pitched single lap concrete tiles on the main roof, on two levels. It was unclear if there was a side access to the rear garden. There were small front and rear gardens. Although there was an off-road driveway to the side of the house it appeared that this land was not included in the letting. Windows were double glazed and it is believed that space and water heater was by gas fired central heating boiler. 9 Externally the Property appeared to be in a fair to good condition. Directly across the road was a former non-residential building perhaps a large former public house car park and site, roughly fenced off. It appeared to be pending redevelopment. [ADDRESS] was sealed off to incoming traffic at its end by nearby traffic lights to the main road of Kingsway where a convenience store and vehicle stores were located. To the rear of the house and a separate small yard and storage appeared to be a substantial vacant mixed warehouse, office buildings and car park. The Property was in a mixed commercial and residential neighbourhood. Tenant’s and Landlord’s Representations 10 The tenants provided written submissions via the standard Application Form to the Tribunal. There appeared to be no further representations from the landlord, other than briefly contained in the initial notice
3 Law 11 In accordance with the terms of S14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the property 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 Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the Property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition. Decision 12 From the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Luton it determines that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1300 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order. From the representations there were no specific adjustments to be made to this figure. This leaves an unadjusted rent of £1300 pcm. Chairman N Martindale FRICS Date 21 March 2023
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy Based on Market Condition…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent Based on Market Conditions
- 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 New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £1000 pcm for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent Based on Market Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for New Property - Tenant Wins
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy
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 property's open market rent based on its general knowledge of market levels in the area.
- The property was valued as it stood, assuming it was in reasonable internal decorative condition.
- The tribunal found the property would let for £1300 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order.
- The tribunal considered the property to be a conventional 1980s semi-detached house.
- The property appeared to be in fair to good external 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 £1300 per month.
Who was involved?
The tenant 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 Luton.
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 market value of 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 expect their rent to be set based on the market value of comparable properties.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Google Streetview images and general knowledge of market rents in Luton were considered.
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 such cases.
