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 new rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the rent at £1220 per month based on evidence of similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination based on current market conditions for similar properties.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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 a new rent based on what a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive for a similar property in the open market. The determination takes into account the periods of the existing tenancy and ensures that the terms of the new tenancy are consistent with the original, except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1220 per month for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and market conditions. The decision took effect on 27 June 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BC/MNR/2024/0334

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], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] JP

Landlord [RESPONDENT] 19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1220 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 27 June 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per n/a

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 28 June 2022

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs landlord

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Bed, two person sofa, small desk, two desk chairs

9. Description of premises One studio room with bathroom and kitchenette

[NAME] of Decision 4 November 2024

1

Case Reference

: LON/OOBC/MNR/2024/0334

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE].

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [ADDRESS]. [RESPONDENT] ([RESPONDENT])

Date of Objection : 12 May 2024

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] JP Determination following remote

video hearing and inspection

Date of Summary Reasons

: 4 November 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1220.00 per calendar month with effect from 27 June 2024 ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 11 May 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1220.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £ 1100.00 per month to take effect from 27 June 2024.

2. On 12 May 2024 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. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 12 May 2024.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

Evidence 4. For the Respondent, [RESPONDENT] of letting, and [RESPONDENT] Manager attended the remote video hearing. The Applicant did not attend. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions and submissions received through the remote video hearing.

The property was described by the Respondent as a studio flat with its own bathroom and kitchenette.

During the hearing [NAME] stated that within the block around 20 units had their rents renewed to £1220 per month within the block. These increases occurred between June 2024 to October 2024. Outside the block, a further letting of a similar property was noted, in [ADDRESS] by the Respondent was £1400 per month.

The Applicant raised in their submissions several concerns, including assertions of criminal drug taking in the area, and failure of the landlords in their provision of service. The assertions by the applicant in their submissions were put to the Respondents by the tribunal. The Respondents indicated they did not recognise these concerns and had no record of these specific issues.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £1200.00 per calendar month.

The property was recently built and there was no evidence of an adjustment required.

3

Decision 7. The Tribunal therefore determined that 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 was £1220.00 per calendar month.

8. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1220.00 to take effect on 27 June 2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 4 November 2024

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 12 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 tenant is entitled to a rent determination based on current market conditions.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment if the property is not in good tenantable condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent assessment based on comparable properties and improvements made by the tenant.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on the property's condition and market comparables.

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 £1220 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on evidence of similar properties in the area and current market conditions.

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 evidence of similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should gather evidence of comparable properties in the area.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparative evidence of similar properties in the area mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed within a month of the decision.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.