Market Rent Determination: Tenant's Case Successful
📌 In brief
A tenant successfully contested a proposed increase in rent, with the First-tier Tribunal setting the new market rent at £2400 per month instead of the landlord's suggested £2800. The decision was based on evidence of property condition and comparables.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair determination of market rent based on the property's condition and comparables.
📖 What the law says
This section allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will determine the rent at which the dwelling-house might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
This section implies a covenant by the lessor to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house, installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, and sanitation, and installations for space heating and heating water. The lessor must also ensure these installations are in proper working order.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy, adjusting it from £2800 to £2400 pcm due to disrepair and other factors.
📜 Headnote Official document
The tribunal determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy at £2400 pcm, adjusting from the landlord’s proposed £2800 pcm due to disrepair and other factors.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
LON/OOAE/MNR/2026/0131
[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME]
Tenant’s Representative none
Landlord [COUNSEL]
Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Landlord’s Representative
none
Date of Application
27 February 2026
Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members [NAME] [NAME] of Decision
18 May 2026
Rent Determined £2400.00 pcm
Date the new rent takes effect
18 May 2026
2
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Background
1. On 27 February 2026, the landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2800.00 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1700.00 pcm to take effect from 1 March 2026.
2. On 27 February 2026 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 tenancy commenced 1 March 2023 as twelve-month contractual assured shorthold tenancy terminating on 29 February 2024. The rental period is monthly payable on the 1st of the month, initially at £1700.00 pcm.
4. The tribunal has considered all evidence submitted within the timetable set out by the Directions and subsequent oral testimony. The tribunal has not recorded all evidence submitted within the decision. The omission of a piece of evidence should not be taken that it has not been taken into consideration.
5. The tribunal did not inspect the property and determined the matter on the papers.
Preliminary Matters
6. Material received outside the Directions has not been considered.
Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.
7. The tribunal has considered the written and verbal submissions of the parties.
8. The tenancy agreement notes under [104/230] “Alterations to the property and redecoration Clause C4.2 prohibits the tenant from making any alterations to the property or carrying out any redecoration without the landlord's permission.”
3
9. The tribunal finds in the absence of alternative contention the landlord is responsible for repairs, section 11 Landlord and Tenant 1985 responsibilities and the heating system and internal decoration.
Liability for Council Tax and [NAME]
10. The tribunal has considered the written and verbal submissions of the parties. The tribunal finds; the tenant is responsible for the payment of [NAME] and council tax in respect of the Property [97/230]
Inspection/Hearing
11. The applicant tenant requested an inspection [16/230] ;
“Inspection requested to assess glazing condition (failed window seals), garage access limitation, and overall condition relative to comparables. The tenants are actively seeking alternative accommodation due to Section 21 notice and the property being offered for sale. If the tenancy ends before inspection, the tribunal is respectfully requested to determine the matter based on documentary and photographic evidence provided.”
12. The tribunal identified from the application there were three main issues relating to condition (i) windows (ii) garage and (iii) roof repair.
13. Taking each into consideration. The windows, the applicant included several pictures of the windows in the bundle. The applicant asserts the windows seals are “blown”. The landlord [164/230] states “Blown seals on the windows ...were highlighted by the landlord's representative when the tenants came to view the property.
14. The tribunal finds on this point that both parties agree that seals in some windows are blown, the photographs also show this.
15. The garage, the tenancy agreement states [91/230] “address and description , 31 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], 3-bedroom , semi – detached house with rear extension, garage and garden.”
16. ...The landlord states [164/230] “ “the garage has never been a value adding feature of the tenancy and not marketed in such way.” 17. The tribunal finds the property was let with the garage, the value of which should appear in the rent determination but also offset by the inability to use part or all of it.
4
18. The landlord asserts [164/230] that the roof defect and repair was a matter the tenant was aware of at the start of the tenancy. The finds there is no conclusive evidence that the repair is defective to an extent that may cause nuisance within the property.
19. The tribunal finds, given the extensive details of the property that on the evidence an inspection would be disproportionate.
The Property
Extent and Specification
20. The tribunal from review of papers finds; the property is a a semidetached house with garage , principally with two living rooms and three bedrooms.
Floor Area
Ground Living room
Living room
First floor Bathroom
Bedroom 1
Bedroom 2
Bedroom [ADDRESS]
Improvements
21. No evidence of improvements by the tenant.
Disrepair
22. The tribunal notes the issues with the windows, and that a repair has been made to the flat roof.
23. The photographs supplied by the landlord sand the tenant do not indicate further disrepair.
24. The tenants [23/230] also note the kitchen door is warped.
Specification
25. From submissions the tribunal finds, from the pictures of the property as let, the landlord supplied the double glazing, central heating, white goods and curtains/carpets.
5
26. The property has;
Specification Provided by Central Heating LL Double Glazing LL Carpets and Curtains LL White Goods LL
Rental Evidence
The Landlord
27. The landlord proposed that the rental level of the property should be £2800.00 as at 1 March 2026.
28. The landlord included a number of comparables , ranging from £2500.00 to £2800.00 pcm.
Tenant’s rental evidence
29. The tenant submits the property the subject property does not have built in wardrobes unlike several of the comparables.
30. The tenant submits a number of comparables that fit between £2150.00 pcm and £2700.00 pcm.
Determination and Valuation
31. The valuation date is the effective date of the rent proposed in the Notice of Increase. This is 1 March 2026.
32. The tribunal values the property on the basis that;
(a) The condition of the property disregards any tenant's improvements; there are none in this case.
(b) That the terms of the tenancy are such that landlord has responsibility for repairs.
(c) The property has defective windows and kitchen door.
(d) The garage is not accessible through use by landlord.
6
33. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the landlord and the tenant, the tribunal determines that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £2600.00 pcm.
34. From this level of rent, the tribunal has made adjustments in relation to paragraph 32 above other than the garage.
The full valuation is shown below:
Starting Rent
£2600.00 pcm
Less
Paragraph 32 other than garage 5%
£130.00 pcm ----------------- £2470 .00 pcm
Rounded to reflect garage
£2400.00 pcm
Market rent
£2400.00 pcm
Undue hardship
35. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a tribunal makes its determination.
36. The tenant has asked the tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case. The tribunal has considered the representations of the tenant and the landlord and finds in this case undue hardship would occur and so determines a date the rent determination comes into effect of the date of the hearing.
Decision
37. Therefore, the tribunal determines the market rent at £2400.00 per calendar month with effect from 18 May 2026.
APPEAL PROVISIONS
7
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.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for HMO Room
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for HMO Room: £600 PCM
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Market Rent Due to Property Disrepair
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Social Housing Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for London Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
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 rent increase is justified by reliable comparables and evidence of property condition.
- The tenant's rent is determined by a tribunal after referring a landlord's notice.
- The market rent is adjusted downward due to the property being in a state of disrepair.
- The rent determination considers the condition of the rented property and comparable properties.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The rent increase is not supported by sufficient evidence of property condition or reliable comparables.
- The proposed rent increase was not assessed based on current market conditions and comparables.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal set a new market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy at £2400 pcm.
Who was involved?
A tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over rental value.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on evidence of property condition and comparables provided by both parties.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied to determine market rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's evidence of property disrepair and comparables influenced the decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it by providing evidence on property condition and comparable rents.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs, comparables, and verbal testimony were key pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Either party may appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal based on points of law.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
