Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy in Birmingham
📌 In brief
The Tribunal set the rent for a flat in Birmingham after considering the proposed rent and service charges. The decision was based on the local rental market conditions.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent determination based on the open market value of a similar property in the area.
📖 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. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, tenants can also 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 property in the open market, taking into account the terms of the existing tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the rent for a flat in Birmingham based on its own knowledge of the local rental market.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the rent for a flat in Birmingham based on its own knowledge of the local rental market, considering the proposed rent and service charges.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CN/MNR/2022/0018
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] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS], Birmingham, West Midlands, [POSTCODE]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £124.27 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 04 April 2022
3. The amount included for services is £21.80 Per Week
4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 23 April 2007
6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs S. 11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
9. Description of premises First floor self-contained two bedroom flat with central hearing, double glazing and communal gardens.
[NAME] [NAME] of Decision 23 May 2022
1
Case Reference : BIR/00CN/MNR/2022/0018
Property
: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] : Appeal against a Notice proposing a new rent under an
Assured Periodic Tenancy under section 13(4) of the Housing
Act 1988
Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] [NAME].(Est.Man.) [NAME] and Venue of : N/A. Paper determination. Hearing
Date of Decision : 23rd May 2022
____________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
1 The rent is determined at £124.27 (One Hundred and Twenty Four Pounds Twenty Seven Pence) per week from 4th April 2022.
REASONS
Introduction
2 The tenant, Mr [APPELLANT], holds a monthly assured tenancy from the landlord, [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY], from 23rd April 2007.
3 On 8th March 2022 the landlord served notice of increase under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988 proposing a rent of £124.27 per week to take effect on 4th April 2022. The proposed rent included £21.80 per week for fixed service charges.
4 On 22nd March 2022 the tenant applied for the rent to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber.
5 On 23rd May 2022 the Tribunal determined the rent at £124.27 per week from 4th April 2022.
6 On 10th June 2022 the tenant requested reasons for the Tribunal’s decision by email which are the subject of this document.
The Law 7 Section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 states:
'(1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a rent assessment committee a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the committee shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the committee consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy -
(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to
which the notice relates;
(b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice;
(c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as
those of the tenancy to which the notice relates;...'
'(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded -
(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant;
(b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant
improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the
tenant, if the improvement-
(i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to the
immediate landlord ...
8 The jurisdiction of the Rent Assessment Committee was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) from 1st July 2013.
3
Facts Found
9 The Tribunal issued Directions inviting the parties to make any submissions they wished to make regarding the rental value and condition of the property with a timetable for action. It proposed 23rd May 2022 as the date for a Tribunal inspection subject to completion of a Risk Assessment Checklist introduced as a result of covid restrictions. The tenant sent a letter expressing general dissatisfaction with the cost of the service charge element, detailed below, but did not return the Risk Assessment form or contact the Tribunal further and the Tribunal had no alternative but to proceed to make its determination based on the information before it without an inspection.
10 From the tenant’s application form, the Tribunal was aware the property comprised a flat in a semi-detached house and from the Tribunal’s general knowledge of the area it is located in a popular and well established residential area. The house comprised three flats, one per floor, with the subject flat comprising a lounge, two bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom.
11 Neither party had requested a Hearing.
Submissions
12 The Applicant's Submission
The Applicant considered the service charge to be excessive. Mr [APPELLANT] said the management charges were too high, a new intercom had been fitted without consulting him, the gardening was never carried out, he had never seen a mobile caretaker and repairs were not being carried out.
13 The submission contained no comparable evidence of rents paid for any other flats.
14 The Respondent's Submission
No submissions made.
Decision
15 As neither party provided any evidence of rents paid for other flats in the area, the Tribunal reached its decision based on its own general knowledge of the locality.
16 The key point made by the Applicant was that he considered the service charge to be too high, but the items listed as part of the charge were no more than normally provided by commercial landlords in open market lettings. They included communal cleaning, electricity for communal areas, door entry systems, grounds maintenance, a mobile caretaker, tree maintenance, emergency lighting, a tv aerial, fire testing, a Ranger and a management charge. The total came to £21.80 per week. However, as a fixed charge it is part of the overall weekly rent and any comparison with market rents would assume these services were provided by other landlords without separate charge. In other words, the question for the Tribunal was to determine the weekly rent of the flat assuming these services were provided within the rent.
17 The Tribunal found that the open market rent of a similar flat in this area, with the same level of services, would rent for at least the asking rent proposed by the landlord of £124.27 per week and as no evidence had been provided to the contrary the Tribunal determined the rent at this level with effect from 4th April 2022.
[NAME] [NAME].(Est.Man.) FRICS Chairman
4
Appeal
If either party is dissatisfied with this decision an application may be made to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Property Chamber (Residential Property) on a point of law only. Any such application must be received within 28 days after the decision and accompanying reasons have been sent to the parties (Rule 52 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).
1
Case Reference : BIR/00CN/MNR/2022/0018
Property
: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Assured Periodic Tenancy under section 13(4) of the Housing
Act 1988
Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] [NAME].(Est.Man.) FRICS
Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and Venue of : N/A. Paper determination. Hearing
Date of Decision : 23rd May 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
2
REASONS
Introduction
The Law 7 Section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 states:
which the notice relates;
those of the tenancy to which the notice relates;...'
tenant, if the improvement-
immediate landlord ...
3
Facts Found
11 Neither party had requested a Hearing.
Submissions
12 The Applicant's Submission
14 The Respondent's Submission
No submissions made.
Decision
[NAME] [NAME].(Est.Man.) FRICS Chairman
4
Appeal
Housing Act 1988 Section 14
[NAME] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 04 April 2022
3. The amount included for services is £21.80 Per Week
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 23 April 2007
5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly
6. Allocation of liability for repairs S. 11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985
7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
8. Description of premises First floor self-contained two bedroom flat with central hearing, double glazing and communal gardens.
[NAME] [NAME] of Decision 23 May 2022
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent for Poorly Maintained Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Shorthold Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent at £675 for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Victorian House in Moseley
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent at £800 for Semi-Detached House
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rental Value at £775 Monthly
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Shared Room Including Bills
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent to Account for Tenant Improvements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent at £850 PCM for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Social Housing Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets 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 tenant is entitled to a rent based on the open market value of similar properties.
- The tenant's improvements to the property are often disregarded in rent assessments.
- The condition and amenities of the property are considered in determining fair rent.
- The rent is assessed to reflect what would reasonably be expected in the open market.
- The location and condition of the property influence the determination of a fair rent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set the rent for a flat in Birmingham at £124.27 per week.
Who was involved?
The case involved a tenant and a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on its knowledge of the local rental market, as no evidence was provided by either party.
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 lack of evidence provided by either party, leading the court to base its decision on its own knowledge of the local rental market.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should provide evidence of comparable rents in the area to support their case.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents mattered as none were provided by either party.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law only.
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 determinations.
