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 after considering comparable evidence and making adjustments for the property's condition. The new rent took effect on 8 August 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent after adjustments for property conditions.

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 under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured periodic tenancy. The determination considers the property's condition and comparable evidence.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering comparable evidence and the property's condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy after considering comparable evidence and adjusting for the property's condition. The decision took effect on 8 August 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AJ/MNR/2024/0108

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] [RESPONDENT] JP

Landlord Mackenzie (Rub1x) [RESPONDENT], 480 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1402.75 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 8 August 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable Not applicable Per Not applicable

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 6 April 2021

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with lease covenants

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord 1 SOFA 1 BED 1 COFFEE TABLE 2 BEDSIDE CABINETS 1 TV CABINET ONE DINING TABLE AND 4 CHAIRS

9. Description of premises A first floor flat in a purpose built block situated in a mixed commercial and residential area. The accommodation comprises: Living/ Dining/ Kitchen, bathroom/Wc, bedroom . the property benefits from communal heating and hot water system.

[NAME] of Decision 8 August 2024

Case Reference

: LON/00AJ/MNR/2024/0108

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Ms [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Landlord : Mackenzie (Rub1x) [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 23 February 2024

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] JP

Date of Summary Reasons

: 8 August 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1402.75 per calendar month with effect from 8 August 2024. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 7th February 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,600 in place of the existing rent of £1,200 per month to take effect from 9th March 2024.

2. On 23rd February 2024 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 and hearing 3. The Tribunal held a hearing and carried out an inspection of the property on 8 August. Ms [RESPONDENT] attended in person with the Landlord represented by Mr [RESPONDENT] of [NAME], the Landlords agent.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in its current condition would be in the region of £1550 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments to reflect tenant improvements, any tenant furniture and floor coverings, dilapidation and obsolescence at the property. Other material and relevant rental considerations are also reflected in the valuation.

6. The full valuation is shown below:

Decision

8. 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 willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £1,402.75 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directed the new rent of £1,402.75 to take effect on 8 August 2024. The Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship.

Chairman: [NAME]: 8 August 2024

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. You can only appeal if the First-tier Tribunal decision was wrong on one or more points of law and you must say why the First-tier Tribunal was wrong in law.

📊 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 considered comparable evidence and its own expert knowledge of rental values in the area.
  • The tribunal adjusted the market rent to account for improvements made by the tenant.
  • The tribunal adjusted the market rent to account for any furniture provided by the tenant.
  • The tribunal adjusted the market rent to account for dilapidation and obsolescence at the property.
  • The tribunal set the new rent's effective date later than the landlord proposed to prevent undue hardship for the tenant.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed new rent of £1,600 was not accepted as the market rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

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

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered comparable evidence and adjusted the rent based on the property's condition.

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 rent 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 should gather comparable evidence to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable evidence and the property's condition were important in determining the market rent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed if there is a point of law that the First-tier Tribunal got wrong.

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

It is always 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.