VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy Set by First-tier Tribunal

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a monthly rent of £600 for an assured periodic tenancy after considering the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

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. However, such an 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, 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 letting the property in the open market, taking into account the property's condition and any relevant improvements or failures by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and property conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £600 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the open market rent based on the property's condition and lack of certain amenities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HB/MNR/2025/0696

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 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [NAME], 83 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 600.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 July 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced September 1994

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 semi-detached house

[NAME] of Decision 21 July 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HB/MNR/2025/0696 Property : 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Miss [COUNSEL] J [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : [NAME] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 18th May 2025 Date of Decision : 21st July 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £600 per calendar month with effect from 1st July 2025.

HAV/00HB/MNR/2025/0696

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 28th April 2025 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £600 per month in place of the existing rent of £500 per month to take effect from 1st July 2025.

2. On 18th May 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 Tenant and the Landlord. 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 tenantable condition would be £1,150 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.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,150 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of white goods

£30 Lack of central heating

£120 Tenant’s provision of carpets

£60 Tenant’s provision of curtains

£15 Dated kitchen

£100 Dated bathroom

£50 Lack of double glazing

£75 Poor decoration and damp associated mould

£100

____

HAV/00HB/MNR/2025/0696

TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£600

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 £600 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 £600 per month should take effect from 1st 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 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 Tribunal determined the open market rent for the property in good condition would be £1,150 per month.
  • The tenant's provision of white goods reduced the rent by £30.
  • The lack of central heating reduced the rent by £120.
  • The poor decoration and damp associated mould reduced the rent by £100.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a monthly rent of £600 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 comparable evidence and the property's condition, 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 comparison of the property to similar properties in the area.

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 can expect their rent to be determined based on the open market value and the condition of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from both parties and comparable evidence were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal this decision within a month.

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.