Market Rent Determination for a Leased Property
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair market rent for a leased property. They considered the condition of the property and recent improvements made by the landlord to determine the rent of £157.61 per week.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property, taking into account the condition and improvements made by the landlord.
📖 What the law says
This section allows landlords to propose increases in rent for assured periodic tenancies, except for relevant low-cost tenancies. The notice proposing the new rent must specify a new period of the tenancy starting at least two months after the notice is served.
A tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. The tribunal will determine the open-market rent the property could reasonably expect to fetch under similar conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined a market rent for a property under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a market rent of £157.61 per week for a property under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988. The decision was based on the condition of the property and recent improvements made by the landlord.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
Case Reference
: BIR/00FN/MNR/2024/0646
Property : 68 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Tenant
: [APPELLANT] [NAME]
Tenant’s agent : [COMPANY]
Landlord : [RESPONDENT]
Landlord’s agent : [NAME] of Application : Determination of a Market Rent under sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : [NAME]
Judge David R Salter
Date of Decision : 31 May 2025
_______________________________________________
DECISION
The Tribunal determines a rent of £157.61 per week with effect from 23 December 2024. ____________________________________
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background
1. On 20 November 2024, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) which proposed a new rent of £157.61 per week (pw), in place of the existing rent of £100.00 pw, to take effect from 23 December 2024. The original tenancy commenced on 17 December 2001 at a rental of £65.00 pw.
2. By an application form dated 10 December 2024, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Act, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.
3. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of its own inspection of the Property, the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and online research. Neither party requested an oral hearing.
Inspection
4. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the Property on 15 May 2025 in the presence of the Tenant, Mr [APPELLANT], the Landlord, Ms [APPELLANT] and Ms [APPELLANT] from [NAME], the Landlord’s agents.
5. The Tribunal found the Property to comprise as follows:
A mid-terraced house which offers the following accommodation:
GF Two living rooms, kitchen; FF Two bedrooms, bathroom;
Externally, a small rear yard with two external stores.
The Property benefits from double glazing and gas central heating.
The Property is situated approximately 2 miles to the north of the City Centre.
Evidence
The Landlord’s Submissions
6. The Landlord stated that the Property had relatively recently passed into sole ownership and following this, professional agents had been instructed to manage the Property. Following their advice, gas and electrical safety checks had been carried out. The Landlord stated that the invoice for the Electrical Installation Condition Report was dated 16 October 2024 and that as part of this process, the following remedial works were carried out:
3
Consumer unit change 2 socket replacements Extractor fan replacement Earth bonding on water pipe Light switch replacement
The Landlord also stated that the other repairs required are superficial, but some, such as the bathroom, are in hand. The boiler was replaced in 2024.
Copies of the most recent Gas Safety Certificate (dated 31 January 2025) and Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) (dated 10 November 2024) were exhibited.
Providing background history, the Landlord said that since the tenancy began in 2001, there had only been one rental increase and the current proposal was to bring the rental in line with market levels.
To this end, comparable evidence was provided in the form of a Right Move “Best Price Guide” which gave details of comparable properties at rentals ranging from £825.00 to £1,000.00 per calendar month (pcm).
The Tenant
7. The Tenant’s submissions focused on the condition of the Property and noted the following:
Little or no maintenance since the commencement of the tenancy. No smoke alarms or carbon monoxide detectors. No gas or safety checks. Issues with upstairs floors “caving in”. “Open” wires outside. Issues with the bathroom ceiling and decorating generally. Poor condition of the Property throughout.
The Tenant also commented that the Landlord had provided carpets originally. However, he (the Tenant) had replaced the carpets in the living rooms. The remaining carpets are now around 25 years old. In addition, the Tenant provided the curtains and the white goods barring the cooker.
8. At the time of the Tribunal’s inspection, the Property’s condition was consistent with a dwelling that had been let for over 20 years without any major upgrade particularly to the kitchen or bathroom facilities although it was noted that, as indicated above, the gas fired boiler had been recently replaced. In places, there was evidence of water ingress although it did not appear that this problem was
4 ongoing. The Tribunal noted that the Tenant’s assertion that there were no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors installed within the Property, was correct.
9. Of particular concern to the Tenant was the decorative condition of the Property as it appears that this is unchanged since the original grant of the tenancy in 2001 and his concerns that the Landlord has not done anything to remedy the same. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that clause 4.(8) of the tenancy agreement – Tenant’s covenants – states as follows:
4(8) To keep the premises or any part thereof in good state of repair and a good state of decorative condition and at least up to the standard obtaining when the tenant took possession.
There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement for the Landlord to redecorate the Property nor is there any statutory liability to maintain the same unlike the main fabric of the building and services.
Determination and Valuation
10. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal considers that the majority of achieved rentals appear to be in the order of £950.00 pcm (i.e. approximately £219.00 pw). The Landlord provided a number of comparables in evidence some of which were in the region of £900.00 - £950.00 pcm, but it was not always clear whether or not these were marketing rentals or rents that had been achieved. Therefore, the Tribunal adopts, as a starting point, the rental of £219.00 pw for the Property if it were in good condition.
11. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following:
a) Condition – lack of detectors (smoke and carbon monoxide), no significant improvement since 2001. b) Curtains, carpets and white goods that are fitted by the Tenant. The full valuation is shown below:
Per week Market Rent
£219.00
Less a) Items given under a) above
£50.00
b) Items given under b) above
£10.00 £60.00
Say
£159.00
5 Decision
17. The Tribunal’s opinion of the market rental value of the Property in its current condition is £159.00 per week, as set out above. As this is not significantly different from the rental specified in the Landlord’s Notice - £157.61 per week – the Tribunal confirms the Landlord’s Notice.
18. Therefore, in the absence of an application for hardship under section 14(7) of the Act, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £157.61 per week with effect from 23 December 2024.
Chairman: [NAME]
If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.
6
First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00FN/MNR/2024/0646
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 68 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Judge David R Salter
Landlord [NAME] [APPELLANT]
Tenant [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £157.61 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 23 December 2024
3. The amount included for services is not applicable
Per
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 17 December 2001 5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord
8. Description of premises Terraced house with 2 bedrooms
[NAME] of Decision 31 May 2025
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Listed Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Determination for Residential Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Due to Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Market Rent for Tenant Considering Property Condition and…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Residential Property
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 landlord's proposed rent was confirmed because the Tribunal's market rent opinion was not significantly different.
- The Tribunal determined a starting market rent based on its expert knowledge and comparable evidence.
- The Tribunal reduced the market rent due to the lack of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and no significant improvements since 2001.
- The Tribunal reduced the market rent because the tenant provided curtains, carpets, and white goods.
- The landlord recently replaced the gas-fired boiler, which was noted during the inspection.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's concern about the decorative condition was not accepted as the landlord's responsibility.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided on a fair market rent of £157.61 per week for a leased property.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the condition of the property and recent improvements made by the landlord.
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 condition of the property and recent improvements made by the landlord were the most important arguments.
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 consider the condition of their property and any recent improvements when determining a fair market rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the property's condition and recent improvements made by the landlord mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this 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 the determination of market rents.
