VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting the rent at £1,100 per month after considering the property's condition and amenities.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value adjusted for the property's condition.

Topics

rent determinationtenancy agreementproperty condition

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. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers what a willing landlord would charge for the property in the open market, taking into account the property's condition and the terms of the existing tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new rent based on comparable evidence and adjustments for the property's condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1,100 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the open market rent based on the property's condition and provided amenities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/29UL/MNR/2025/0624

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]

Mr I Perry BSc FRICS Mr J Reichel BSc MRICS Judge Gethin

Landlord [NAME] 41 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1100.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 February 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 February 2024

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 2-bedroom first floor flat

Chairman

Mr I Perry BSc FRICS

Date of Decision 23 April 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/29UL/MNR/2025/0624 Property : 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : Ms [COUNSEL] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr I R Perry FRICS Mr J S Reichel MRICS Judge Gethin Date of Application : 30th January 2025 Date of Decision : 23rd April 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,100 per calendar month with effect from 1st February 2025.

HAV/29UL/MNR/2025/0624 2 SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 31st December 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,000 per month in place of the existing rent of £950 per month to take effect from 1st February 2025.

2. On 30th January 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. Inspection 3. 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

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 5. 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 £1,200 per calendar month.

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

7. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with all white goods supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for the lack of provision of a washing machine and fridge, for minor repairs and for a low Energy Performance Rating.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,200 Less deductions for:- Tenant’s provision of washing machine and fridge £20 Minor repairs

£30 Poor EPC rating

£50

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£1,100

HAV/29UL/MNR/2025/0624 3 9. 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 £1,100 per month.

10. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship.

11.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £1,100 per month should take effect from 1st February 2025, this being the date specified in the notice.

12. The Tribunal is aware that this rent is higher than the rent proposed by the Landlord within the Notice. The Landlord is not obliged to charge this higher figure.

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 tenant is entitled to a rent determination reflecting the open market value.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination adjusted for the property's condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination based on comparable evidence and local rental values.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment that reflects the actual conditions of the property, including tenant-provided amenities.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a new rent of £1,100 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 adjustments for 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 condition and amenities with similar properties.

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 consider the condition and amenities of their property when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable evidence and information about the property's condition and amenities mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.