VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Market Rent Determination for a Southampton Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a tenant's property in Southampton, setting it at £850 per month after considering comparable rents in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under similar conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a flat in Southampton.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a market rent of £850 per month for a tenant's property in Southampton, considering comparable lettings and the property's condition.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00MS/MNR/2025/0602

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] [NAME] [NAME] Judge Gethin

Landlord Places for [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT], 2 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £850.00 Per Calendar Month (To exclude Water Rates and Council Tax but to include any amounts in paragraphs 3 and 4)

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

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 16 October 2019

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs The landlord. The tenant is required to keep the inside of the premises and all fixtures and fittings in good and clean condition (reasonable wear and tear excepted).

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises [ADDRESS] is purpose-built block of flats over ground and two upper floors. It is of traditional brick construction with a pitched tiled roof. Flat 1 is on the ground floor with accommodation as follows, entrance lobby off common parts, reception room/kitchen, bedroom and bathroom/WC. Outside - private garden accessed from the reception room.

[NAME] [NAME] of Decision 10 March 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00MS/MNR/2025/0602 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : Places for People Homes Limited Representative : C/o [COMPANY] of Application :

Determination of a Market Rent - sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Judge D Gethin Date of Application : 29 December 2024 Date of Decision :

10 March 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £850 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Pounds) Per Calendar Month with effect from 1 January 2025.

HAV/00MS/MNR/2025/0602 2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 22 October 2024 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £762 per month in place of the existing rent of £693 per month to take effect from 1 January 2025.

2. On 29 December 2024 under Section 13(4) 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. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. 4. [ADDRESS] is a purpose-built block of flats over ground and two upper floors. It is of traditional brick construction with a pitched tiled roof. Flat 1 is on the ground floor with accommodation as follows: entrance lobby off the common parts, one reception room with open plan kitchen, one bedroom and one bathroom/WC. Outside – a private garden which is accessed from the reception room. Evidence

5. The Tribunal has considered the Rent Appeal Statement given by Mr [RESPONDENT] of [NAME] on behalf of the Landlord to the Tribunal and copied to the Tenant, dated 22 January 2025. In addition, the Tribunal has considered the Rent Appeal Statement given by the Tenant, Mr [APPELLANT], to the Tribunal and copied to the Landlord’s Agent, dated 3 February 2025. Both Statements were given in accordance with the Tribunal’s Directions, dated 22 January 2025.

6. Within Mr [NAME] are two documents in pdf (‘portable document format’); (1) a Schedule of condition, which includes various photographs of the property; and (2) a Price Guide for [POSTCODE] from 1 January 2024 to 22 January 2025.

7. With respect to the property, both parties in their Statements: confirm the accommodation; and detail that central heating, double glazing, carpets and curtains and white goods are provided by the Landlord. In addition, there is both a private garden and access to communal gardens. From the Price Guide, the Tribunal understands that off-street parking at [ADDRESS] is on a first- come, first-served basis.

8. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the Tenancy agreement dated 16 October 2019.

9. There are ten (10) properties in Mr [NAME] report with a range of letting values from £850 per calendar month to £995 per calendar month. Mr

HAV/00MS/MNR/2025/0602 3 [NAME] goes on to say ‘’3 of these properties lie within [ADDRESS] and were let for £850 and £895.’’ 10. In his Statement, Mr [NAME] confirms Mr [NAME] description of the property outlined at paragraph 6 above.

11. Mr [NAME] goes on to say ‘’…am awaiting on the mould in the bathroom to be done.’’ Determination and Valuation 12. After reviewing the comparable lettings’ properties in the Price Guide given by Mr [NAME], including those within [ADDRESS] and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the market rent for the property in good tenantable condition is £850 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Pounds) Per Calendar Month.

13. From the information and evidence given by the parties in their Statements, the property is in good tenantable condition and includes all those features associated with a residential letting.

Accordingly, the Tribunal has concluded that no adjustment is required to the market rent.

14. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £850 (Eight Hundred and Fifty Pounds) Per Calendar Month.

15. The Tenant has made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause him undue hardship.

16.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directs that the new rent of £850 Per Calendar Month should take effect from 1 January 2025. This being the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice proposing a new rent.

17. The new rent is higher than the sum of £762 per month sought by the Landlord in their Notice. It is at the Landlord’s discretion whether to seek in payment from their Tenant the Tribunal’s decision, or the sum which was applied for in their Notice.

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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

  • A tenant can refer a landlord’s notice of rent increase to the tribunal.
  • Rent should be determined based on current market conditions in the area.
  • Fair market rent should be adjusted for the condition of the property.
  • Rent must be set according to the Housing Act 1988.
  • Fair market rent should be adjusted for the property’s condition and amenities.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the market rent for a tenant's property at £850 per month.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court reviewed comparable rents in the area and determined that £850 per month was a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about comparable rents in the area was crucial.

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 should consider comparable rents in their area when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rent data and the condition of the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to get legal advice from a solicitor for such cases.

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.