VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Upholds Rent Increase

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal upheld a landlord's proposed rent increase of £820.00 per month based on the current market conditions and the property's condition. The Tribunal found no significant issues with the property's condition that would warrant a lower rent.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent increase if it reflects the current market conditions and the property's condition.

Topics

rent increaseassured tenancyproperty condition

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent increase. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify a new period for the tenancy starting at least two months after the notice is served. If the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can only occur after a specified period, which varies depending on the type of tenancy.

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. 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 under similar conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal upheld the landlord's proposed rent increase based on market conditions and property condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal upheld a landlord's proposed rent increase of £820.00 pcm based on market conditions and the property's condition, finding no significant disrepair or defects.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/00HB/MNR/2022/0058

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], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] [NAME] 98 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 820.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 08 July 2022

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 08 November 2019

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

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

7. Furniture provided by [RESPONDENT] or superior [RESPONDENT] coverings, cooker and fridge.

8. Description of premises 2 bedroom first floor flat in converted building.

[NAME] of Decision 20 July 2022

1

Case Reference

: CHI/00HB/MNR/2022/0058

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : 26th May 2022

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

: 20th July 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 20th July 2022 will be £820.00 per calendar month (pcm) with effect from 8th July 2022.

2. By an application dated 26th May 2022, the Tenants of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the [RESPONDENT] under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.

3. The [RESPONDENT]'s notice dated the 10th May 2022 proposed a rent of £820.00 pcm with effect from 8th July 2022, in place of the current rent of £675.00 pcm.

4. The tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy agreement was not included but apparently is dated 8th November 2019. The tenancy is subject to the [RESPONDENT]'s repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the [RESPONDENT] and [APPELLANT] 1985.

Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 27th June 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 in mixed residential and commercial area within the city of Bristol.

8. The property comprises a First Floor Flat over a ground floor office in a parade of [NAME] and other commercial uses and is double glazed and centrally heated.

9. The accommodation comprises: Hallway, living Room, kitchen/diner, 2 bedrooms, shower room. No outside facilities or parking.

10. The property is let unfurnished with floor coverings and white goods (no washing machine).

11. The Tribunal assumed that all mains services are connected. Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 12. Tribunal Directions dated 27th June 2022.

13. [RESPONDENT]: Tribunal Reply Form.

14. [APPELLANT]: Application, Notice of Increase and [RESPONDENT]'s Representations (summarised):

15. The [RESPONDENT] says in the Reply Form and attachments: a) Over last two years: New central heating boiler, saniflow and repair to door.

3

b) The kitchen, bathroom shower room were revamped prior to [APPELLANT] moving in (2018). c) The mould referred by the [APPELLANT] is the result of lack of ventilation.

16. The property is on the main road with [NAME], [NAME], bars and restaurants within walking distance.

17. The property is below rental value as no increase for the last three years. The proposed increase is in line with market rents.

[APPELLANT]'s Representations (summarised):

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

a) No washing machine provided by [RESPONDENT]. b) Confirms new boiler and saniflow. c) Repairs incomplete after shower repair. Tiles and panels missing. d) Roof over bathroom 2nd bedroom leaks with resultant mould growth. e) Fire alarm damaged by plumber. f) Loose wiring at front of property.

19. The [APPELLANT] complains of delays by the [RESPONDENT] in carrying out essential repairs (saniflow not working for 2 – 3 months. No hot water for 6-7 months).

20. Some black and white photographs are included in what appears to be text correspondence with the [RESPONDENT].

The Tribunal’s Deliberations 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 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 [RESPONDENT] under an Assured Tenancy. The personal circumstances (or any dispute between them) of the [APPELLANT] or [RESPONDENT] are not relevant to this issue.

23. The Tribunal checked the [NAME] and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the property at C which expired on the 1st of May 2022. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.

24. 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.

25. The Tribunal, acting as an expert tribunal, determined what rent the [RESPONDENT] 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 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

4

modern central heating, modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, floor coverings, cooker, washing machine and an EPC Rating of E or above would be £820.00 pcm.

26. The Tribunal looked at the photographs of the damp produced by the [APPELLANT], which were of poor quality, and were inconclusive evidence of the source of any damp.

27. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the current market conditions and the apparent condition, as submitted by the parties, of the subject property that no deductions should be made in respect of disrepair, other defect or other factor.

28. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is £820.00 pcm.

29. The rent will take effect from 8th July 2022 being the date specified by the [RESPONDENT] 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 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 tenant challenged the rent increase under relevant housing legislation.
  • The rent increase did not reflect the current market conditions or the property's condition.
  • The tenant requested a reduction in rent due to the property not meeting market standards.
  • The rent adjustment was not based on the property's condition and market comparables.
  • The tenant referred the landlord's notice of rent increase to the Tribunal under the Housing Act.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent increase reflected current market conditions and the property's condition.
  • There was no challenge to the legitimacy of the rent increase process or criteria.
  • The property met the standards expected for similar properties in the open market.
  • The rent level was set according to the current market conditions and property condition.
  • The rent determination was based on the open market value of the property, considering its condition and amenities.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided to uphold the landlord's proposed rent increase of £820.00 per month.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord regarding a rent increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to uphold the rent increase because it reflected the current market conditions and the property's condition.

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 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 face a rent increase if the conditions justify it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the property and the landlord's representations regarding improvements and repairs mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.

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

It is 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.