VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy by considering the current market conditions and comparing similar properties in the area. The decision was made based on the condition of the property and recent rental agreements in the vicinity.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value of the property.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

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 the rent based on what a willing landlord would charge in the open market for a similar property. The determination considers the condition of the property, recent rental trends in the area, and other relevant factors.

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 comparable properties.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions and comparable properties. The decision took effect from 13 November 2021. The Tribunal considered the condition of the property, recent lettings in the area, and statistical data on rental growth.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/18UG/MNR/2021/0131

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 The Granary, Edmeston Farm, Modbury, Ivybridge, Devon, [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mr [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT] & [COMPANY], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1300.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 13 November 2021

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 13 January 2017

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per section 11 of the Landlord & [APPELLANT] 1985

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Carpets, curtains and white goods.

8. Description of premises 3 bedroomed semi-detached barn conversion.

[NAME] of Decision 4 January 2022

1

Case Reference

: CHI/18UG/MNR/2021/0131

Property : The Granary, Edmeston Farm, Modbury, Ivybridge, Devon [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[RESPONDENT] (Landlord)

Date of Application : 5th November 2021

Type of Application : Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

: 4th January 2022

_____________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

2 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background 1. The Tribunal gave formal notice of its decision by a Notice dated 4th January 2022 in the sum of £1,300.00 per calendar month (pcm).

2. By an application dated 5th November 2021, the [APPELLANT] of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the landlord under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.

3. The landlord's notice dated the 27th September 2021 proposed a rent of £1,300.00 pcm with effect from 13th November 2021, in place of the current rent of £1,100.00 pcm.

4. The tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy agreement is in common form and is dated 10th January 2017. The tenancy is subject to the Landlord's repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985.

Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 17th November 2021 and the explanation contained therein, the Tribunal did not inspect the premises.

6. Extracting such information as it could from the papers supplied to the Tribunal by the parties, by reference to information publicly available on the internet and with the benefit of its knowledge and experience the Tribunal reached the following conclusions and found as follows:

7. The property is located in a rural area close to the [RESPONDENT] of Modbury.

8. The property comprises an oil fired centrally heated, double glazed semi - detached barn conversion.

9. The accommodation comprises: Ground Floor: 1 reception room, kitchen. First Floor: 3 bedrooms and bathroom. Outside: garage, and shared garden.

10. The property is let unfurnished but with dishwasher, cooker, fridge carpets and curtains.

11. The Tribunal assumed that mains services are connected.

Hearing 12. A hearing was not requested.

Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 13. Tribunal Directions dated 17th November 2021.

14. Landlord: Tribunal Reply Form.

15. [APPELLANT]: Application and Reply Forms, Letter from [APPELLANT], Notice of Increase and Tenancy Agreement.

3

Landlord's Representations (summarised): 16. The Landlord's agent says in the Reply Form and attachments:

a) New bathroom installed in 2016. b) New kitchen in 2000/2001. c) No outstanding repair issues reported. d) The Landlord pays for the maintenance of the common areas which are well maintained.

17. The property is located in a development of 6 barn conversions close to Modbury and on the main route to other locations including Plymouth.

18. As to the proposed rent, earlier in 2021 the agent let other properties on the development:

a) 3 bedroom Barn with slightly larger bedrooms but otherwise similar, backing onto the same communal gardens with same white goods and, kitchen but older bathroom. Let at £1,595.00 pcm.

b) The agent says Barns 2 and 3 next to the Granary are currently let at £1,300 pcm and are of similar size and condition.

c) Comparable properties on RightMove within 1 mile of the property:

3 bedroom Barn conversion on the same development. Let agreed (between June and July 2021) £1,595.00 pcm

3 bedroom [RESPONDENT] house Modbury. Let agreed (between August and September 2021) £1,350.00 pcm. 3 bedroom detached house Modbury. Let agreed (between July and August 2021) £1,350.00 pcm.

[APPELLANT]'s Representations (summarised) 19. The [APPELLANT] says in the Application Form, and Reply Form.

a) That the increase is not in line with rental growth across the UK over the last 5 years.

b) The increase proposed represents 33.3% since taking up the tenancy 5 years ago.

c) The [NAME] ([NAME]) index for the period February 2017 to October 2021 shows an 11.40% increase across the UK.

d) The current rent £1,100.oo pcm was set in November 2019. The proposed increase is 18.60% or approximated 9.00% pa. [NAME] statistics for the South West show an increase of 3.00% over the last 12 months.

e) The increase is unreasonable because of various issues: 1) Kitchen updated in 2000 is showing signs of age. 2) The hob had to be replaced in 2018 and again in 2019.

4

3) For a period of over 1 month the fridge was non-operational.

4) The central heating and hot water system is elderly and has broken down on 10 separate occasions (2 of which resulted in a flood).

5) Mice infestation when property empty during lockdown resulted in a beam having to be replaced, making 1 bedroom unavailable for a month.

6) In October 2021 the gutters failed causing water to cascade over the back door.

f) Three bedroomed properties in this area with equivalent facilities let for less than £1,000.00 pcm. Three examples are given at rents ranging from £875.00 to £1,000.00 pcm.

The Tribunal’s Deliberations 20. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the notice was a Notice under section 13 as prescribed by Statute.

21. The Tribunal is required to determine 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. The personal circumstances of the [APPELLANT] or Landlord are not relevant to this issue.

22. The Tribunal checked the [NAME] and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the property at D expiring on 3rd April 2029. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.

23. Based on the knowledge of its members the Tribunal finds that the market for this type of property is very sensitive to condition and inventory. The subject property appears to the Tribunal to be in a condition that would be likely to appeal to a prospective [APPELLANT].

24. The Tribunal, acting as an expert tribunal, determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the subject property in the open market if it were let today in the condition and subject to the terms of such a tenancy that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by having regard to the evidence supplied by the parties and the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels.

25. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the parties and makes the following observations:

a) The Tenants evidence relies heavily on average statistics for the UK and South West. The references to comparables relate to properties in less popular urban areas of Plymouth.

b) It appears to the Tribunal that the difficulties experienced by the [APPELLANT] are historic and that there are no current material issues which the Tribunal should take into consideration.

c) The Landlords evidence relies on actual lettings of properties within the immediate locality.

5

d) The Tribunal finds actual market evidence more persuasive than statistical evidence. Statistical evidence 'irons out' the differences between properties in urban areas and rural properties, which, like the subject property, are often individual in style.

26. Having done so, it concluded that such a likely market rent for a similar modernised property in fair condition with modern central heating, modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, floor coverings, and an EPC Rating above F would be £1,300.00 pcm.

27. Accordingly the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is 1,300.00 pcm.

28. The rent will take effect from 13th November 2021 being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.

Relevant Law 29. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

30. Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.620)

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision (on a point of law only) to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal [NAME] to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 proposed rent was accepted because it was supported by evidence of actual lettings in the immediate area.
  • The property's condition, including a new bathroom in 2016 and a new kitchen in 2000/2001, supported the proposed rent.
  • The property's location in a rural area close to Modbury and on a main route to Plymouth was a factor in determining the rent.
  • The Tribunal found that the market for this type of property is sensitive to its condition and inventory.
  • The property's EPC rating of D, which is above the legal minimum standard of E, was noted.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's claims about historic issues with the property, such as an old kitchen and heating breakdowns, were not considered material to the current rent determination.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting it at £1,300.00 per calendar month.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord, both represented in the proceedings.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the condition of the property and recent rental agreements in the area, finding that the proposed rent was reasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied in determining the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property's condition and rental prices with similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was against the tenant, who argued that the proposed rent increase was unreasonable.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For tenants in a similar situation, the decision suggests that rent determinations will consider the current market conditions and comparable properties.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as the condition of the property, recent rental agreements, and statistical data on rental growth were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.

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

It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determinations.

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.