VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Market Rent Determination for a Flat with Tenant Improvements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new market rent for a flat, considering the improvements made by the tenant. The rent was set at £1505.00 per calendar month from 1 May 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their improvements considered when a new market rent is set under the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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 open-market rent, considering factors like the periods of the tenancy and any relevant improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new market rent for a flat taking into account various improvements made by the tenant.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new market rent for a flat, taking into account improvements made by the tenant. The rent was set at £1505.00 per calendar month from 1 May 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference

: HS/LON/OOBK/MNR/2025/0777

Property : Flat 8 Dibdin House, Maida Vale, W9

1QE

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Objection : 1 April 2025

Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: [NAME] of Full Reasons : 10 March 2026

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1505.00 per calendar month to be paid from 1 May 2025 under the Housing Act 1988 section 13. ____________________________________

Full Reasons

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 Background

1. A Notice dated 20 March 2025 was served by the Landlord under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1698.33 per calendar month in place of the existing rent of £1040.00 per calendar month to take effect from 1 May 2025.

2. An application dated 1 April 2025 was made under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

3. The application was accompanied by the Notice of Increase of Rent and, a copy of the tenancy agreement which was initially commenced on 8 February 1994 at a rent of £380.00 per calendar month.

4. Directions were issued to the parties on 15 January 2026.

Inspection

5. The Tribunal did not inspect the property and did not consider an inspection proportionate.

The Determination

6. The determination was carried out on the papers neither party requested a hearing or inspection, the tribunal considered this proportional.

Submissions

The Property

7. The property is a two-bedroom flat, with living room/ kitchen, and one bathroom with WC. The flat has central heating and double glazing. The flat is located on the 3rd floor of a purpose-built block constructed in the 1940s.There is no lift, or car parking.

[NAME]

8. The [NAME] in their application notes they are responsible for internal decorations. The Landlord as per the application form is said to be responsible for electrics, plumbing, heating, WC and the bathroom and the kitchen.

9. The Tenant in their application form , notes that when they took residency of the flat they undertook works comprising; replacing faulty polyester ceiling tiles , fixing defective door handles, installing a new kitchen, and addressing on-going issues like mould on the walls , which is said requires regular painting and treatment, removed old fire places , installed new internal doors, carpets , taps, boxing in pipes and curtain poles , bathroom including toilet system tiles in kitchen and bathroom.

3 10. The tenant notes that the previous year challenge resulted in a rent determination of £1o70 pcm. The tenant notes a number of other passing rents in the building.

[NAME]

11. The Respondent did not make any submissions.

Analysis and Value

Findings

12. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy having regards to the specific conditions s14 of the 1988 Act. The starting point, is therefore, what rent might reasonably be expected to be achieved in the open market for the property in a modern tenantable state. If required, this is then adjusted to reflect the specifics of the subject property, including disrepair, disregards and improvements. The personal circumstances of the Tenant are not relevant to this issue.

13. The tribunal noted the rents of properties the tenant referred to in the block. The tribunal can only take into regard open market lettings. The background to these rents are not known in particular what the conditions of the properties were when let and the terms of the letting, so the tribunal places little weight on these. The starting point needs to be an open market letting of a property in good condition from which adjustments can be made to reflect the spefcics of the subject property.

14. The tribunal has had regard to levels of rent in the area and determines that the property if let in a good tenantable condition are the relevant date it should command a rent of £2150.00 per month.

15. In this case having considered the representations, the tribunal considers it reasonable to make adjustments to reflect the tenants' improvements, and issues with mould.

The valuation is shown:

Market rent per calendar month £2150.00

Less Bathroom improvements Kitchen improvements Carpets, Curtains and White goods Condensation and mould Tenants decorating liability Deduct 30%.

£645.00

4 Determined rent

£1,505.00

Undue Hardship 16. The Tenant has not made an application for hardship so in the absence of such the Tribunal finds the effective date of the rent increase in the notice that is, 1 May 2025. Decision 17. The Tribunal determines £1505.00 per calendar month from 1 May 2025 in accordance with section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 Chairman: [NAME]: 10 March 2026

Appeal to the Upper Tribunal A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Property Chamber) on a point of law must seek permission to do so by making a written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case which application must: a. be received by the said office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision. b. 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. If the application is not received within the 28 –day time limit, it must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for it 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.

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HS/LON/OOBK/MNR/2025/0777

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]

Landlord

[APPELLANT]

Tenant [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1505.00 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 May 2025

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per n/a

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 8 February 1994

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord external and internal

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord none

9. Description of premises Third floor flat, two bedrooms, one living room, one bathrooms WC and kitchen

[NAME] of Decision 10 March 2026

📊 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 adjusted the market rent to account for the tenant's improvements to the bathroom and kitchen.
  • The Tribunal determined a market rent of £2150.00 per month for the property in good tenantable condition.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord did not submit any arguments or evidence for the Tribunal to consider.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on a new market rent for a flat, taking into account the improvements made by the tenant.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set a new market rent of £1505.00 per calendar month, considering the improvements made by the tenant.

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 improvements made by the tenant, which were taken into account when determining the new market rent.

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 may also have their improvements considered when a new market rent is set.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the improvements made by the tenant mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal 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 a case like this.

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.