VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and items provided by the tenant. The rent was set at £930 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value adjusted for the property's condition and tenant-provided fixtures.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers what a willing landlord would charge for a similar tenancy in the open market, adjusted for certain factors such as improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £930 per calendar month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the open market rent for the property's condition and tenant-provided fixtures.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/21UD/MNR/2024/0617

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 18A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Ms [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT], 28-30 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] & Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 930.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 26 October 2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 26 November 2018

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 19 December 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/21UD/MNR/2024/0617 Property : 18a [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenants : Ms [COUNSEL] and Mr [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : Ms [COUNSEL] : [RESPONDENT] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 22nd October 2024 Date of Decision :

19th December 2024

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £930 per calendar month with effect from 26th October 2024.

HAV/21UD/MNR/2024/0617

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 18th September 2024 the [NAME] served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,050 per month in place of the existing rent of £875 per month to take effect from 26th October 2024.

2. On 22nd October 2024 under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenants 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 [NAME]. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenable condition would be £1,100 per calendar month.

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. The Tribunal has made further reductions for the condition of the bathroom and for other general wants of repair including window handles as evidenced by photographs provided.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,100 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of flooring and curtains

£40 Tenants’ provision of white goods

£30 Condition of bathroom

£50 Window locks and general repair

£50

HAV/21UD/MNR/2024/0617

3

Total deductions

£170 TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£930

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 and in its present condition was £930 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 £930 per month should take effect from 26th October 2024, 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:

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 open market rent for the property in good condition was determined to be £1,100 per month.
  • The tenants provided the flooring and curtains, warranting a deduction from the rent.
  • The tenants provided the white goods, leading to a reduction in the rent.
  • The poor condition of the bathroom justified a deduction from the rent.
  • Issues with window locks and general repairs led to a further deduction in the rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on a fair rent of £930 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 based on the property's condition and the items provided by the tenant, adjusting the open market rent accordingly.

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 need to adjust the open market rent for the property's condition and tenant-provided fixtures.

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 condition of their property and any items they provide when seeking a fair rent determination.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the property and written submissions from both parties mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed within a month of receiving the summary reasons.

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 determination.

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.