VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They considered the current market rates and the condition of the property, reducing the rent due to issues with the property's condition.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord must consider the condition of the property and market rates when determining rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancyproperty 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. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This determination considers the periodic nature of the tenancy, the start date of the new period, and the terms of the original tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions and property condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions and property condition, taking into account the condition of the property and the terms of the tenancy. The decision was made by Judge P. Korn of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BE/MNR/2022/0206

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] Mrs [RESPONDENT] MA MRICS

Landlord [NAME] 27 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 700.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 15 November 2022

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable - Per -

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 31 December 2020

6. Length of the term or rental period 6 monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord No satisfactory information provided.

9. Description of premises Small second floor room in a terraced house with shared facilities.

[NAME] of Decision 14 February 2023

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/MNR/2022/0206 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord : [NAME] Tenant : Ms [APPELLANT] of application :

Market rent determination in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal members : Judge P. [NAME] (Chairman) [NAME] of decision : 14 February 2023 Date of Reasons : 6 March 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION PLUS CORRECTION OF ERROR UNDER RULE 50

2 Decision of the tribunal

The FTT determines the rent to be £700.00 per month, with effect from 1 January 2023. Background 1. On 2 December 2022 the Tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) referring a notice proposing a new rent under her assured periodic tenancy of the Property.

2. The notice, which was served under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) and was dated 15 November 2022, proposed a rent of £700.00 per month with effect from 1 January 2023.

3. The Landlord has sent written representations to the FTT. The Tenant’s representations are included within the application form.

4. The Tenant has an assured periodic tenancy of the Property under a tenancy agreement dated 26 May 2021. Representations 5. In written representations, the Landlord has argued that the rental increase reflects current market rates for similar properties, and it has provided comparable evidence in relation to similar rooms in or close to the area in which the Property is situated. It has also provided copy photographs of Room 5 and of other parts of the building.

6. The Tenant states that the Landlord disconnected the broadband/internet and terminated the cleaning services following an attempt to evict her. The Property contains an old double bed which is broken, there is a cockroach and mice infestation and there are unsealed gaps and holes in the kitchen with an exposed skirting board. The Landlord has ignored repeated repair requests. No Inspection 7. The FTT has not inspected the Property and has relied on the photographs and information provided by the parties. The Law

8. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Act, the FTT is required to determine the rent at which it considers the Property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy on the same terms as the actual tenancy

3 ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. The FTT is also required to take into account (a) the condition of the Property, save to the extent that any disrepair is due to the Tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy and (b) the terms of the tenancy. Valuation 9. The starting point is to determine the rent which the Landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the Property in the open market in the condition considered usual for a modern letting (“the initial valuation”). When calculating the initial valuation, the FTT noted the comparable evidence provided by the Landlord.

10. Having considered the comparable evidence provided together with its own general knowledge of market rental levels for comparable properties in the area, the FTT arrived at an initial valuation of £1,000.00 per week.

11. There is no evidence of tenant’s improvements or of any decrease in value due to tenant failure, and therefore adjustments only needed to be made to the initial valuation to take into account (a) the actual condition of the Property and (b) the differences between the terms of this letting and the terms of a standard assured shorthold tenancy.

12. Applying these principles to the Property, the main issue on the evidence before the FTT is the very small size of Room 5. This justifies reducing the monthly rent from £1,000 to £775. The FTT also notes the comments made by the Tenant regarding repair and considers that this justifies reducing the rent by a further 10%. It is not considered appropriate to make a larger reduction, particularly in the light of the photographic evidence provided by the Landlord. The letting terms are normal for an assured shorthold tenancy and so there is no reason to reduce or increase the rent on the basis of the letting terms.

13. A reduction of 10% from £775 gives a figure of just under £700 which (as valuation is not a scientific process) has been rounded to £700. Effective date of new rent 14. Under section 14(7) of the Act, the FTT can specify a rent commencement date which is later than that specified in the landlord’s notice if it appears to the FTT that starting the new rent on the specified date would cause the tenant “undue hardship”. In this case, the Tenant has not in advance of the determination date made any representations on the issue of undue hardship and therefore it is not open to the FTT to decide that the new rent should be delayed on this basis.

4 14. However, the effective date for the commencement of the new rent is stated in the FTT’s bare decision (the decision without reasons) as 15 November 2022. This, though, is a clear error, as the date specified in the Landlord’s notice is 1 January 2023. Under rule 50 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the FTT may at any time correct any accidental slip in a decision, and accordingly this slip or error is hereby corrected and the new rent will commence on 1 January 2023. Conclusion 15.

Accordingly, the current market rent for the Property is £700.00 per month, with effect from 1 January 2023.

Name: Judge P [NAME]: 6 March 2023

📊 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 landlord's argument that the rental increase reflected current market rates was accepted.
  • The landlord provided comparable evidence for similar rooms in the area.
  • The tribunal considered the property's small size, specifically Room 5, to justify a rent reduction.
  • The tenant's comments regarding repair issues justified a further 10% reduction in rent.
  • The effective date for the new rent was corrected to 1 January 2023, as specified in the landlord's notice.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's argument for delaying the new rent due to undue hardship was not considered because no representations were made in advance.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £700 per month, effective from 1 January 2023.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the current market rates and the condition of the property, reducing the rent due to issues with the property's condition.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property was the most important factor in the decision.

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

The decision was for the tenant, as the rent was reduced.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their property is well-maintained to avoid rent reductions.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and information provided by both parties were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is 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.