Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rent for a property, taking into account its condition and market value. The rent was set at £1,700 per month, adjusted for minor defects and the landlord's history of slow repairs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the property's condition and market value.
📖 What the law says
Under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a new rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This determination takes into account the condition of the property and its market value.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined a new rent for a property based on its current condition and market value.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined a new rent for a property based on its current condition and market value, adjusting for minor defects and landlord's slow repairs.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CAM/26UH/MNR/2025/0782
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 19 St. [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
[NAME]
Landlord Dr [APPELLANT] & Mrs [APPELLANT] [NAME]
Tenant [NAME]
1. The rent is: £ 1700 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 30 October 2025
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable Nil Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 30 July 2011
6. Length of the term or rental period periodic calendar monthly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs per tenancy
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
9. Description of premises Late 1990’s detached on compact street and estate of similar houses. Google Streetview May 2009.. Single lap concrete double pitched main roof and front GF monopitch, fair faced brick wall appears fair condition, double glazing, central heating, carpets. Accom. on 2 levels: FF - 4 bedrooms (1 v. small), 2 bathrooms/wcs, GF - Living room, kitchen. WC. Dated but functional fittings. Minor persistent issues with shower and bath, damage to door glass, wear to stair carpets spindles. Cause disputed. L. has history of slow repairs..
[NAME] of Decision 12 January 2026
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/00UH/MNR/2025/0782 Property : 19 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Slough [POSTCODE]
Applicants : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Mrs [COUNSEL] [NAME] (Landlords)
Representative : [COMPANY] of Application : S.13 Housing Act 1988 Determination of a new rent Tribunal : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 12 January 2026 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 12 January 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application form dated 23 November 2025 from the tenant of the Property after the effective date of increase 30 October 2025, regarding a notice of increase of rent dated 26 September 2025 served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act). However the Directions were issued by 31
2 October in response to the application so the date of application form must be in reality, earlier. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a new rent here.
2 The notice proposed a new rent of £1730 per calendar month exclusive, with effect from and including 30 October 2025 in place of the passing rent of £1300 pcm. This rent does not include other services.
3 The tenancy is now an assured periodic calendar monthly tenancy which originally began for a fixed 12 months term, copy provided.
Directions
4 Directions for the progression of the case, were issued on 31 October 2025 by Legal [NAME]. A party requested a hearing which was held on 12 January 2026 by telephone. The tenant appeared in person, the landlords were represented by [COMPANY].
Inspection
5 There was no inspection. The Property is a 2 level detached house dating from the late 1990’s with front garden. (Google Streetview October 2009). Its in a road of similar houses of the same age on e new residential estate, mostly detached. The plots are small. There is some street parking, a small driveway and garage with the Property.
6 The house is anticipated to be of traditional construction, brick fair faced wall to front elevation. The main roof is double pitched, single lap concrete tiled. There is a small monopitch tiled roof to the front ground floor bay.
7 The Property has 4 bedrooms to the first floor (1 is very small), with 2 bathrooms/WCs; and ground floor, a living room, kitchen, WC. There is full central heating and double glazing. The fitted floor finishes, (mainly carpet) are the landlords and window coverings are said to be the tenants. White goods are included in the letting. No furniture is provided by the landlord.
Tenants’ and Landlord’s Representations at the Hearing
8 The tenants provided written submissions via the Application Form and the standard Reply Form with some monochrome photographs. The theme of the photographs in two periodic November 2024 and April 2025 are mostly inside and showed a few minor defects, including defects to a bathroom/ shower area, bath panel, toilet seat, tiled areas, staircase and fitted wardrobe doors. The tenant provided backgrdoun and detail to these issues at the [NAME] during the video hearing on 12 January 2026.
9 The respondent landlord’s agent provided brief details of other local lettings and availability in support of the proposed rent of £1730 pcm
3 for a house of this size type and location and easily a higher figure, in their view. They supplemented these during the hearing.
10 Neither party referred full details, of other local recent lettings to the Tribunal. However the Tribunal is grateful for information provided by both parties, in the application and in the standard Reply Form and for their oral representations at the hearing.
11 The tenant provided details of his gross and net pay for a typical month. He did so to show the difficulty for him of affordability for a rent increase. There were no details of income for the other 4 occupiers. There was no other information from other sources of income or outgoings other than rent.
Law
12 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider 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. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the Property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.
Decision
13 From the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Stevenage it determines that the subject Property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1,800 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order.
14 From the representations the Tribunal found that what was a now dated home from the later 1990’s was only in fair condition. There were some minor persistent defects including those listed by the tenant and the likelihood was that these would continue or that new ones would emerge and be found to be dealt with by the landlord slowly. The white goods and fitted floor finishes were said to be the landlords; curtains - the tenants. For these various minor limitations the Tribunal makes a deduction of £100 pcm. The new rent will therefore be £1,700 pcm with effect from 30 October 2025. The Tribunal had insufficient information to give effect to any hardship relief from the immediacy of the increase sought.
15 Although the landlord is not obliged to charge this rent and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation; they may not charge more than this figure.
[NAME] 12 January 2026
4
5 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 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 decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).
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.
If the 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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £1000 pcm for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Under Housing Act 1988
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Refurbished Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Property Disrepair
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
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 property's age and fair condition, with dated but functional fittings, reduced its market value.
- Minor persistent defects, including those listed by the tenant, justified a deduction from the market rent.
- The likelihood of continued or new defects, and slow landlord repairs, supported a lower rent.
- The Tribunal's general knowledge of market rent levels in the area was used to determine a baseline rent.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set a new rent of £1,700 per month for the property.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over rent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court considered the property's condition and market value, adjusting the rent for minor defects and the landlord's slow repairs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied to determine the new rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the landlord's history of slow repairs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, who argued that the rent should be reduced due to the property's condition.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and the landlord's maintenance record when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and descriptions of the property's condition were important in the decision.
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 recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determination.
