AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·29 October 2025

Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a rent of £1,150 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, reducing the proposed rent of £1,250 because the tenant had provided some white goods and curtains, and there were general repairs needed.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the actual condition and amenities of the property.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.14

📖 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 a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the periods of the existing tenancy and takes into account any improvements made by the tenant or any failures to comply with the tenancy terms.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent after considering the proposed increase and the current state of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £1,150 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the proposed rent of £1,250 due to the tenant's provision of some white goods and curtains, and general needs of repair.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/29UG/MNR/2025/0726

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] Kent [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] Judge [RESPONDENT] c/o Mr [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1,150.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 24 July 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 24 September 2019

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

[NAME] of Decision 27 August 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/29UG/MNR/2025/0726

Property : [ADDRESS] Kent [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] Mr [NAME] Judge C Taylor Date of Application : 3rd July 2025 Date of Decision : 27th August 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,150 per calendar month with effect from 24th July 2025.

HAV/29UG/MNR/2025/0726

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 5th June 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,250 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,150 per month to take effect from 24th July 2025.

2. On 3rd July 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 Parties. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own [NAME], 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 £1,250 per calendar month/week.

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 white goods, carpets and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for the Tenant’s provision of curtains and some white goods, and general wants of repair.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,250 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of some white goods

£20 Tenant’s provision of curtains

£15 General wants of repair

£65

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£1,150

HAV/29UG/MNR/2025/0726

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 £1,150 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 £1,150 per month should take effect from 24th July 2025 this being the date specified in the notice.

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 11 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed11 cases

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 that the open market rent for the property in good condition would be £1,250 per month.
The tenant was credited for providing some white goods, reducing the rent.
The tenant was credited for providing curtains, reducing the rent.
The rent was reduced due to general wants of repair in the property.
The new rent took effect from the date specified in the landlord's notice because the tenant did not claim hardship.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided on a rent of £1,150 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 to reduce the proposed rent because the tenant had provided some white goods and curtains, and there were general repairs needed.

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 condition of the property and the tenant's provision of some white goods and curtains.

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 actual condition and amenities of their property when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions and comparable evidence provided by both parties mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed if either party requests full reasons and follows the appeal procedure.

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.