VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Market Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the open market value and specific conditions of the tenancy.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value adjusted for specific conditions of the tenancy.

Topics

tenancy agreementsrent determinationmarket rent assessment

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 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 rent based on what a willing landlord would charge in the open market for a similar tenancy. The determination takes into account the periods of the existing tenancy and any relevant improvements or reductions in the property's value due to the tenant's actions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £1,060 per calendar month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the open market rent and specific conditions of the tenancy.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HX/MNR/2025/0707

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 91 Home Farm Highworth Swindon Wiltshire [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] 2nd [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1,060.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 26 June 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 26 February 2025

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises 3-bedroom semi-detached house

[NAME] of Decision 28 July 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HX/MNR/2025/0707 Property : 91 Home Farm Highworth Swindon Wiltshire [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 31st May 2025 Date of Decision : 28th July 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,060 per calendar month with effect from 26th June 2025.

HAV/00HX/MNR/2025/0707

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 23rd May 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £809.71 per month in place of the existing rent of £736.10 per month to take effect from 26th June 2025. This represented a 10% increase.

2. On 31st May 2025 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 Tenant had originally been the owner of the property when she had carried out a number of improvements but sold the property to the Landlord as part of a mortgage rescue scheme.

4. The Tenancy Agreement provides that the rent will not be more than 80% of a market rent assessed by the Rent Assessment Committee, now the First-Tier Tribunal, if it had jurisdiction to decide a market rent and the Landlord has a policy whereby rents are increased by no more than 10% in any one year. Inspection 5. 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. Evidence

6. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 7. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be £1,150 per calendar month.

8. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings to all be provided by the Landlord.

9. In this case the property is not let with white goods, carpets and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary.

10. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,150

HAV/00HX/MNR/2025/0707

Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of white goods

£30 Tenant’s provision of carpets/flooring

£50 Tenant’s provision of curtains/blinds

£10

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£1,060

11. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £1,060 per month.

12. The Tribunal understands that the Landlord, a Social Housing Provider, does not intend to charge this full market rent. Any new rent should take effect from 26th June 2025, this being the date specified in the 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 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 determined the open market rent for the property in good condition.
  • The tenant's provision of white goods reduced the total rent payable.
  • The tenant's provision of carpets and flooring reduced the total rent payable.
  • The tenant's provision of curtains and blinds reduced the total rent payable.
  • The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the landlord's notice.

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 £1,060 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable evidence and general knowledge of rental values in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property's rental value with similar properties in the area.

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 can expect their rent to be determined based on the open market value and specific conditions of their tenancy.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions provided by both parties and information freely available on the internet mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed within a month of receiving the summary reasons.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified 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.