VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Market Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a new rent of £1,150 per month for an assured periodic tenancy. The decision was based on evidence comparing similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a market rent determination under the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a new rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This applies to periodic tenancies where the terms match the original tenancy except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1,150 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1,150 per month for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The decision was based on comparable evidence and the Tribunal's assessment of the open market rent in the local area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/40UB/MNR/2024/0602

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 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [NAME] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] & [RESPONDENT] c/o [NAME], 3 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1150.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 18 October 2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 18 October 2023

5. Length of the term or rental period Statutory Periodic Tenancy

6. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with agreement

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises A mid terrace two storey house built in 2012 forming part of the Icon Estate, Accommodation comprises: three bedrooms, living room, kitchen, cloakroom, bathroom, en-suite shower room, rear garden and allocated parking.

[NAME] [NAME] of Decision 21 November 2024

1

Case Reference

: HAV/29UB/MNR/2024/0602

Property : 2 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Miss [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [NAME] & Mrs [APPELLANT] & [RESPONDENT] c/o [NAME] of Objection : 10 September 2024

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 21 November 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,150 per calendar month with effect from 18 October 2024. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. On the 1 August 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,150 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,100 per month to take effect from 18 October 2024.

2. The Tenant’s application is dated 10 September 2024 and served 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.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions and photographs provided by the Tenant. Comparable evidence was provided by the tenant.

Determination and Valuation

5. Firstly, having consideration of the parties’ comparable evidence together with our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Street area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in its current condition would be £1,150 per month.

6. The Tribunal have not made an adjustment in relation to condition of the property based upon the evidence provided by the Tenant.

Decision

7. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy governed by the relevant clause in the agreement was £1,150 per calendar month.

8. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1,150 to take effect on the 18 October 2024. This being the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase The Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would not cause the tenant undue hardship as no such evidence was provided.

3

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 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 tenant is entitled to a market rent determination under the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment based on the property's condition and layout.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property, adjusted for specific conditions.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination based on the property's condition and market comparables.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided on a new rent of £1,150 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable evidence and their assessment of the open market rent in the local area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied, specifically section 14 for determining market rents.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparable evidence showing the fair market rent for similar properties.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant, who requested the determination of a fair market rent.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek a determination of a fair market rent if they believe the current rent is unfair.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparative evidence showing the fair market rent for similar properties in the area was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed if either party disagrees with the outcome.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determinations.

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.