VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Upholds Landlord's Proposed Rent Increase

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant challenged a landlord's proposed rent increase from £670.00 to £740.00 per month. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the property's condition and market conditions and decided to uphold the increase.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to challenge a landlord's proposed rent increase under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

rent increaseassured shorthold tenancytribunal procedure

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to propose rent increases for assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. Landlords can serve a notice proposing a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal upheld the landlord's proposed rent increase under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) upheld a landlord's proposed rent increase from £670.00 to £740.00 per calendar month under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988, considering the property's condition and market conditions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

1

Case Reference : CAM/42UG/MNR/2021/0054

Property : 225 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent

: [redacted]

Date of Application : 6th September 2021

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

Tribunal

: [NAME]

: 15th November 2021

_____________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

2 S E C FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background 1. The Tribunal gave formal notice of its decision by a Notice dated 8th November 2021 in the sum of £740.00 per calendar month (pcm).

2. By an application dated 6th September 2021, the tenant 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 dated the 20th August 2021 proposed a rent of £740.00 pcm. with effect from 20th October 2021, in place of the current rent of £670.00 pcm.

4. The tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy agreement is in common form and commenced on 20th May 2016. The tenancy is subject to the Landlord's repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 13th September 2021 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 mixed commercial and residential area not far from the seashore.

8. The property comprises a terraced house.

9. The accommodation comprises: 1 reception room, 1 dining room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms, bathroom and w.c. Outside: garden.

10. No inventory was supplied to the Tribunal. The Tribunal assumes that the property was let unfurnished originally with carpets and white goods.

3

11. The Tribunal assumed that all mains services are connected.

Hearing 12. A hearing was not requested.

Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 13. Tribunal Directions dated 13th September 2021.

14. Landlord: No submissions.

15. Tenant: Application Form, Notice of Increase and Tenancy Agreement.

Landlord's Representations (summarised): 16. The Landlord made no representations.

Tenant's Representations (summarised) 17. The Tenant made no representations other than completing (partly) the Application Form, enclosing the tenancy Agreement and Notice of Increase.

18. The Tenant made no representations with regard to the level of rent.

The Tribunal’s Deliberations 19. 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.

20. The personal circumstances (or any dispute between them) of the Tenant or Landlord are not relevant to this issue.

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

22. The Tribunal checked the National Energy Performance Register and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the energy performance at the property at D expiring on 15th April 2026. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.

23. Based on its knowledge the Tribunal finds that the market for this type of property is very sensitive to condition and inventory.

4

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 (none in this case) and the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels.

25. Having done so, it concluded that such a likely market rent for a similar modernised property in fair condition with central heating, modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, floor coverings, curtains and an EPC Rating above F and after careful consideration of the property, current market conditions determined that the market rent for a similar property is £850.00 pcm.

26. The Tribunal noted that neither party had provided any details of the condition of the property or the inventory of contents. Nor had the parties provided any comparable evidence of current rents.

27. It appeared to the Tribunal that the Landlord had acknowledged that the property was perhaps not in the condition usual for current market lettings and proposed a rent of £740.00 pcm.

28. Given that the Tribunal was presented with no evidence that this figure was incorrect the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is £740.00 pcm.

29. The rent will take effect from 20th October 2021 being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.

Relevant Law 30. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

31. 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 (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal

5

by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First- tier Tribunal Regional office 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 is adjusted based on the property's condition and market comparables.
  • The rent reflects the open market value of the property.
  • The rent takes into account the condition and amenities of the property.
  • The rent is set according to the fair market conditions and the property's state.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent for an assured periodic tenancy is set without considering 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?

The First-tier Tribunal upheld the landlord's proposed rent increase from £670.00 to £740.00 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to uphold the rent increase because they considered the property's condition and market conditions reasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the current market conditions.

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

The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also have their rent increase upheld if the property's condition and market conditions support it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as the property's condition, market conditions, and the tenancy agreement mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if permission is granted.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent increases.

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.