VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set at £295.05 Weekly

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the rent at £295.05 per week based on the open market value of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination based on the open market value of the property.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determinations

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 would charge in the open market for a similar periodic tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on the open market value of the property, setting it at £295.05 per week.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BG/MNR/2024/0656

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination or Section 22 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Judge S [NAME] [NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY], 4 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ £295.05 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 7th November 2024

*3. The amount included for services is n ot applicable 0.00 Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 29/2/2016

6. Length of the term or rental period Initial fixed term of 12 months extendable by 1 year and then continuing as a contractual periodic tenancy.

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Unfurnished

9. Description of premises First floor flat within a purpose-built block. 2 beds, open plan kitchen/living room, bathroom/wc, central heating, no outside space

[NAME] of Decision 14th January 2025

1

Case reference : LON/00BG/MNR/2024/0656 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord : [COMPANY] Tenant : Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] of application : Market rent determination in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : Judge S [NAME] [NAME] of decision : 14 January 2025 Decision of the Tribunal The FTT determines the rent to be £295.05 per week, with effect from 7 October 2024. Background 1. On 27 September 2024 the Tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) referring a notice proposing a new rent under his assured periodic tenancy of the Property. FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

2. The notice, which was served under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) and was dated 14 August 2024, proposed a rent of £295.05 per week with effect from 7 October 2024.

3. Neither party sent written representations to the FTT regarding the application, and neither party requested an oral hearing.

4. The tenancy commenced on 29 February 2016. The Tenant remains in occupation as a statutory periodic tenant. The current rent payable is £273.96 per week. Inspection 5. Neither party having requested an inspection, the FTT did not inspect the Property. The Law 6. 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 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 7. 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”).

8. There was no specific comparable rental evidence from the Landlord or the Tenant. When calculating the initial valuation, the FTT decided to rely upon its own knowledge and experience. The range of rents for 2- bedroom properties in the neighbourhood, unfurnished, and in good condition seemed to be in the region of £1,850 to £2,500 per month, or £427 to £577 per week.

9. Having considered its own general knowledge of market rental levels for comparable properties in the area in which the Property is situated, and taking into account the description of the accommodation including bedroom sizes and with a single bathroom, the FTT arrived at an initial valuation of £295.05 per week.

10. The FTT had no evidence or representations before it to enable it to consider making any Adjustments to this initial valuation to take into account (a) the actual condition of the Property and (b) the differences (if any) between the terms of this letting and the terms of a standard assured shorthold tenancy.

3

11. Accordingly, the Market Rent for the Property, determined by the FTT for the purposes of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, is £295.05 per week with effect from 7 October 2024, being the date that the new rent was to take effect pursuant to the Landlord’s notice. Chairman: [NAME]: 14 January 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-toappeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber.

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

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. Please note that if you are seeking permission to appeal against a decision made by the Tribunal under the Rent Act 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this can only be on a point of law.

4

If the First-tier Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 Tribunal determined the rent based on its own knowledge and experience of market rental levels.
  • The Tribunal considered the range of rents for similar properties in the neighborhood.
  • The Tribunal took into account the property's description, including bedroom sizes and a single bathroom.
  • The determined rent of £295.05 per week was effective from the date proposed in the landlord's notice.

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 £295.05 per week.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the open market value of the property, considering the usual rental prices for similar properties in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the open market value of the property, which was used to determine the fair rent.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their rent to be determined based on the open market value of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific comparable rental evidence was provided, but the court relied on its own knowledge and experience of market rental levels.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to seek 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.