VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Social Housing Property Based on Market Rates

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the appropriate rent for a social housing property. The Tribunal set the rent at £210 per week, reflecting the open market rate for similar properties. The decision was made on May 7, 2024, by Judge Shepherd and Sarah Redmond MRICS.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market rate for similar properties.

Topics

rent determinationsocial housingmarket rent comparison

Provisions

📖 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. The tribunal will determine the rent at which the dwelling house might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord.

Housing Act 1988 s.13

The Housing Act 1988, Section 13 allows landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent to tenants under certain conditions. These conditions include the type of tenancy and the timing of the notice.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the appropriate rent for a social housing property based on market rates.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the appropriate rent for a social housing property located at 46 Welland Place, Ely, based on market rates. The decision was made by Judge Shepherd and Sarah Redmond MRICS on May 7, 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER

Case Ref:

CAM/12UC/MNR/2024/0049

Type of Determination: Hearing no inspection

Property:

46 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Landlord:

[COMPANY]

Tenant:

[APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] of application: Determination of rent under s.14 Housing Act 1988

Tribunal members: Judge Shepherd

Sarah Redmond MRICS

Date of determination: 7th May 2024

2

Background

1. The Applicants referred a rent increase to the Tribunal pursuant to ss13 and 14 Housing Act 1988 on 26th March 2024. The proposed rent was for the premises at 46 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The premises”) and was £135.77 per week. The landlord of the premises is [COMPANY] a social landlord. The Applicants are the assured tenants of the premises. Their tenancy began in 2013.

2. In their application the Applicants raised concerns about the steadily increasing rent since 2021. They were also concerned that the present year is being treated by the Respondent as a 53 rent week year as a result of the leap year. Once explained to the Tribunal we accept that this was lawful.

3. It became clear during the hearing that there were a number of issues raised by the Applicants many of which did not directly impinge on the decision we were making. Nonetheless the hearing was productive because it opened a dialogue between the parties which appeared positive for the future.

4. The Respondent was limited by government policy in relation to rent increases. The premises were classed as social housing rather than “affordable” housing. The Respondent set the rents for social housing at 60% of market rents. The effect of the Respondent’s rent setting strategy is that providing the rent set by the Tribunal is above that proposed the Respondent will only charge the rent proposed.

The premises 5. This is a two - storey terrace house in a residential road, built in 2001 with off road parking and small gardens front and rear. There is central heating and double glazing. Accommodation comprises on the ground floor - small kitchen, living room with door to rear garden, WC, and on first floor 2 x double bedrooms and family bathroom. The kitchen had been refurbished by the landlord in 2022 and the rear door had been replaced. There were no outstanding issues of repair.

6. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the premises pursuant to s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The law 7. Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 sets out how rent should be increased by a landlord of an assured periodic tenant. For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent

3

to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice.

8. Section 14 deals with determination of rent by the Tribunal when there has been a reference. The Tribunal determine the rent at which, subject to qualifications they consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy (a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.

4. The qualifications are that the Tribunal will disregard (a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement—(i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to [NAME], or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to [NAME] being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwellinghouse attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

Determination 9. From our inquiries market rents for property of this type rent for anything between £202 and £254 a week. On the basis of our knowledge and experience of properties providing similar accommodation and in similar condition to let on the open market there having been no comparable evidence produced by the parties we consider that £210 per week is the appropriate rent. Chairman: Judge Shepherd

Dated: 7th May 2024

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions

4

1. A written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional tribunal office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional tribunal office within 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties.

3. 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.

4. The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. All applications for permission to appeal will be considered on the papers 5. Any application to stay the effect of the decision must be made at the same time as the application for permission to appeal.

📊 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 accepted that the landlord's treatment of the current year as a 53-rent-week year due to the leap year was lawful.
  • The Tribunal determined the appropriate rent based on its knowledge and experience of similar properties in the open market.
  • The Tribunal found that market rents for properties of this type ranged between £202 and £254 per week.
  • The Tribunal considered £210 per week to be the appropriate rent for the property.

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 social housing property at £210 per week, based on market rates.

Who was involved?

The tenant of the social housing property and the landlord, Samphire Homes.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on market rates for similar properties, ensuring the rent was fair and reasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 11.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the rent should reflect market rates for similar properties was crucial.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a fair rent based on market rates.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their rent to be determined based on current market rates.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Market rental data for similar properties was important in determining the appropriate rent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made within 28 days of receiving the decision.

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 determinations.

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.