First-tier Tribunal Upholds Rent Increase to £1225 Per Month
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that increasing the rent from £1175 to £1225 per month was fair based on the current housing market in Thetford. The decision took into account the size and condition of the property compared to similar homes in the area.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a reasonable rent increase based on local market conditions and comparable properties.
📖 What the law says
This section allows landlords to propose rent increases for assured periodic tenancies, provided they follow a prescribed notice procedure. The notice must specify a new rent and a new period for the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served. Additionally, if the rent has been increased before, the next increase can only occur after a certain period, which varies depending on the type of tenancy.
This section permits tenants to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy by applying to an appropriate tribunal. The tribunal will then determine a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market under similar conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal upheld a rent increase from £1175 to £1225 per month, considering local market conditions and comparable properties.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined that a rent increase from £1175 to £1225 per month was reasonable, considering the local market conditions and comparable properties in the Thetford area.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/33UG/MNR/2023/0085
Property : 5 [NAME], Thetford, Norfolk, [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] : Challenging rent increase Tribunal Members :
Judge Shepherd Gerard F. Smith MRICS FAAV
Date of Determination : 31st August 2023
Determination
1. The Applicants referred a rent increase to the Tribunal on 3rd July 2023. They are the Assured tenants of premises at 5 [NAME], Thetford, Norfolk, [POSTCODE] (“The premises”). The landlords are [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]. They are represented by [NAME].
2. The Applicants tenancy at the premises began on 17th February 2021 when the rent was £1175 per month. The premises consist of a four - bedroom house, with living room, kitchen and bathroom /WC.
3. The landlords served notice pursuant to s.13(2) Housing Act 1988 to increase the rent to £1225 per month. This was an increase over the previous rent of £25 per month. The notice is valid and sought to increase the rent with effect from 17th July 2023.
Description of the premises 4. The property is a modern, semi-detached house constructed in or around 2004/2005 situated on the Cloverfields development, a large residential development with amenities including a Tesco superstore situated on the Eastern side of Thetford.
5. The house is of modern construction with brick elevations and double- glazed windows. The accommodation is arranged over three floors: 4 bedrooms, with en-suite to the master bedroom, family bathroom. Ground floor: cloakroom, lounge/diner, kitchen.
6. The property has a single garage and there is additional parking; to the rear is an enclosed garden.
7. The EPC rating for the property is C(75) with a measured (EPC) floor area of 119m². Evidence 8. Both parties provided evidence to the Tribunal:
9. The landlords represented by [NAME] relied upon a best price guide from Rightmove.co.uk which provides a list for values within Thetford. It was noted that a number of the comparables included were detached and properties that were substantially larger though the two properties at [ADDRESS], both 4 bedroom terraced houses, are of a comparable size being 111m², with a mid-terrace advertised at £1,300 pcm and the end terrace £1,550 pcm.
10. The Applicants made representations, including time-lined communication with the Landlords and their Agents. They challenged, in some detail, the comparables provided by the Landlord’s Agent. Some of the observations were valid in particular where the comparable was detached, where was an extra reception room, a utility room and double garage or bedroom. The Applicants also stated that some of the comparables were of superior quality and better maintained. The Tribunal were unable to verify this.
11. The Applicants provided a list of comparable properties of which some were within a 40 mile radius (Sutton Bridge), others were in Dereham and Watton, Soham, Cotteshall, Harleston, Foulsham and Diss. The expectation is that comparables are within the close vicinity of the subject property. Given the size of the Cloverfields development and other developments within a short distance within Thetford the expectation is that over a 6 - month period there would be such evidence available.
12. The Tribunal, being an expert panel with experience of lettings within the Thetford marketplace and wider areas, is aware of properties that have let within the Cloverfields and wider development within the last 6 months. Four - bedroom properties which are semi-detached or end of terrace, as opposed to detached or garage linked, and of a size between 100m² and 110m² have let within the £1,250 pcm to £1,400 pcm range. Whilst the properties may have different accommodation arrangements and room sizes overall, they offer a similar floor area. Within the wider (1 mile radius) Thetford area, 4 bedroom semi-detached houses at the upper end are let at around £1,500 pcm.
13. We consider that the premises could be let for £1300 however in all likelihood some deduction would be made for the condition of the premises and £75 per month is a reasonable deduction. Accordingly, we consider that the proposed rent of £1225 per month is reasonable. The rent increase is effective from 17th September 2023.
Judge Shepherd
31st August 2023
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL Appealing against the tribunal’s decisions
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.
First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CAM/33UG/MNR/2023/0085
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 5 [NAME], Norfolk, [POSTCODE]
Judge Shepherd Gerard F. Smith MRICS FAAV
Landlord [RESPONDENT] [NAME] and [NAME] 5 [APPELLANT] [NAME], Thetford, Norfolk, [POSTCODE]
Tenant [APPELLANT] and [NAME]
1. The rent is: £ 1225 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 17th September 2023
*3. The amount included for services is not applicable
Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 17th February 2021
6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly periodic
7. Allocation of liability for repairs Per s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord
9. Description of premises 4 bedroom house with lounge, kitchen, bathroom/WC
Chairman Judge Shepherd Date of Decision 31st August 2023
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent at £675, Rejects £900 Proposal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Limitation Ruling by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Lift Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Can Buy Freehold When Landlord Is Untraceable
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Stack Pipe Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy Challenged in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Premium When Landlord Missing
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy at £1,675
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Environmental Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
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
- Rent increases are allowed if they reflect local market conditions.
- Rent adjustments can be made based on the condition of the property.
- Landlords can receive dispensation from consultation requirements if it is reasonable.
- The tribunal can manage funds for a missing landlord.
- Tenants' contributions to service charges are capped at £250 without proper consultation.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision upheld a rent increase from £1175 to £1225 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 based on the local market conditions and comparable properties in the Thetford area.
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 comparison of the property to similar properties in the area.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should gather evidence of comparable properties in the area to support their case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of comparable properties in the area and the local market conditions mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court within 28 days.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent increases.
