VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Market Rent Determined: £485 pcm from June 2025

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a new rental price of £485 pcm for an assured tenant's flat in Bridgnorth. The decision was based on comparable properties and specific features of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed new rent must be assessed against comparable properties in the area, considering specific property features and location.

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served. The new rent can only take effect if the tenant does not challenge it within the tribunal.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy if the rent is proposed in a notice under section 13. 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 similar conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy based on comparables and adjustments.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy based on comparables and adjustments, setting it at £485 per calendar month effective from June 1, 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

BIR/00GG/MNR/2025/0739

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[COUNSEL] [NAME] n/a

Landlord

[COUNSEL] Landlord’s Address c/o [RESPONDENT], Proud Cross Ringway, Kidderminster, Worcestershire

Landlord’s [RESPONDENT] of Application

29 May 2025 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members Judge [NAME] of Decision 27 February 2026

Rent Determined

£485.00 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

1 June 2025

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 23 April 2025, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £485.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £440.00 pcm to take effect from 1 June 2025.

2. On 29 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 assured tenancy had commenced on 8 May 2009 for an initial term of six months. The rental period is monthly.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same

5. n/a

Liability for Council Tax

6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.

Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent

7. n/a

Inspection/Hearing

8. Neither party requested an oral hearing and the Tribunal did not carry out an inspection. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise.

3

The Property

9. The Property is a second floor flat above a commercial premises, offering the following accommodation:

Landing, lounge with kitchenette, one bedroom, one bathroom with washbasin and bath (with shower attachment) and separate w.c. off landing area.

The Property benefits from heating via electric heaters and a towel rail in the bathroom.

The Property is situated in the centre of Bridgnorth town centre within close proximity of amenities.

Evidence

10. The Landlord’s Representative returned the Tribunal’s Reply form on behalf of the Landlord and also provided a plan of the Property and comparable evidence of similar property lettings.

The Tenant

11. The Tenant made the following comments in the application form:

a) The Tenant confirmed that they had changed all of the light bulbs to new efficient LED bulbs.

b) The Landlord was responsible for all repairs.

The Landlord

12. The Landlord’s representatives made the following comments:

a) The Property was in good condition.

b) The Property benefitted from a built-in chrome electric hob and single oven in the kitchen area.

c) The bedroom and living areas were carpeted, with vinyl flooring in the kitchen area, the bathroom and in the separate w.c.

d) Permit parking was available to purchase from the local council.

4

13. The Landlord’s Representative provided details of a range of properties they stated were comparable. The most expensive to rent was a one-bedroom apartment in [ADDRESS], newly refurbished with communal gardens previously advertised to let at £775.00 pcm; the least expensive was a one bedroom first-floor flat in [ADDRESS], fully electric, with a bath and shower, parking and gardens, previously advertised to let at £575.00 pcm.

Determination and Valuation

14. The Tribunal considered the comparables provided by the Landlord were relevant, however, as they were not directly comparable to the Property, adjustments were required.

15. These included the desirable location of the Property (being in the centre of Bridgnorth) but the lack of any garden or inclusive parking; the fact that the Property only comprised a kitchenette rather than a separate kitchen; the lack of double glazing and central heating (compared to some of the comparables provided) and the fact that the w.c. was separate from the bathroom and was accessed directly from the landing.

16. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Landlord, but taking into account the above, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property would be £485.00 pcm.

Market rent

£485.00 pcm

Undue hardship

17. The Tenant provided no evidence of undue hardship.

Decision

18. The Tribunal determines the market rent at £485.00 per calendar month with effect from 1 June 2025 (the start date in the Landlord’s Notice).

APPEAL PROVISIONS

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 (Rule 52(2) of The Tribunal Procedure

5

(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:

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

  • Rent should be set at a fair market value based on comparable properties in the area.
  • Rent determination must consider the condition of the property.
  • Environmental factors affecting the property's value should be taken into account.
  • Rent should be adjusted based on compliance with local licensing requirements.
  • Rent proposals must be reviewed under sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the market rent for the tenancy should be £485 pcm.

Who was involved?

The tenant and landlord were involved in a dispute over the rental price of an assured tenancy.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable properties and specific features of the property to determine the market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in determining the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparability of similar properties and specific features of the property were crucial to the decision.

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

It was against the tenant, as the proposed new rent was upheld.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider comparable properties and specific features when disputing rental prices.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of comparable properties and details about the property's condition were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal on a point of law within 28 days.

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.

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.