VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Determination for New Property - Tenant Wins

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal to challenge a rent increase notice from the landlord. The Tribunal considered market conditions and minor defects in a person and decided on a new rent of £1750 per calendar month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value of a person, adjusted for any minor defects.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. If a landlord serves a notice under Section 13(2) to increase the rent, the tenant can also apply to the tribunal to challenge the proposed new rent. When making a determination, the tribunal considers the open market value of the property, adjusted for minor defects, and sets the rent accordingly.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new rent for a a person based on market conditions and minor defects.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal received an application regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988. The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1750 per calendar month, taking into account market conditions and minor defects in the property.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : CAM/00KC/MNR/2025/0644 [NAME] : 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [COMPANY] (Agent) Type of Application : S.13 Housing Act 1988 Determination of a new rent Tribunal : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 3 June 2025 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 3 June 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 12 March 2025, before the effective start date of the new rent sought, from tenants of [NAME], regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice dated 21 January 2025, proposed a new rent of £1775 per calendar month exclusive, with effect from and including 27 March 2025. This rent does not include other services.

2 3 The tenancy is now an assured periodic calendar monthly tenancy which originally began for a fixed 12 months term on 27 March 2024 for an initial rent of £1675 pcm. A copy was provided.

4 The rent payable up to and including 26 March 2025 was £1675 per calendar month.

Directions

5 Directions, dated 3 April 2025, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [NAME]. Neither party asked for a hearing.

Inspection

6 There was no inspection. [NAME] is a 2 level detached house dating from around 2020 with small gardens. (Google Streetview July 2019). At this date the estate development of which [NAME] forms a part is only shown as just commencing.

7 The house is anticipated to be of traditional construction, brick fair faced and/or render walls to elevations on 2 levels. The main roof is anticipated to be double pitched. It is anticipated to be set within a street of very similar, small modern houses, mainly four bedroom but generally semi-detached rather than detached as at [NAME] on an estate of the same.

8 [NAME] has 4 bedrooms to the first floor with the bathroom/WC; and ground floor living room, kitchen. Central heating, with full double glazing, floor finishes and white goods are all apparently provided by the landlord.

Tenants’ and Landlord’s Representations

9 The tenant provided written submissions via the Application Form, the completed standard Reply Form and a covering email of 3 April 2025. The tenant referred to three houses to let: a 4 bedroom terraced house in Houghton Regis LU5 available at £1600 pcm, and two more 4 bedroom houses, one semi detached at Dunstable £1650 pcm and an end of terrace Houghton Regis available at £1700 pcm; all within the LU5 postal district. These were reported as all being within more established built up areas with good transport links unlike [NAME].

10 The tenant referred to a number of snagging defects that had not been dealt with (or which had developed later) by the landlord prior to letting. These included defective shower heads and defective ironmongery on doors within [NAME]. The tenant reported that they had dealt with them at their own expense in the foregoing year.

11 The respondent landlord provided a copy of the report by [NAME], of Manchester based on [NAME] data. The report was

3 undated but was said to be for properties ‘marketed between 17 January 2025 and 17 April 2025’ within a 1 mile radius of [NAME] postcode. 6No. properties were mentioned all semi-detached with rents ranging from £1775 to £1810 pcm. The report also referred to rents from 5No., 3 and 4 bedroom houses in a wider area outside of the immediate estate. Four of these ranged from £1900 pcm to £2000 pcm as let and a further home of 3 bedrooms end terrace, was available for £1800 pcm.

12 The Tribunal is grateful for such information as was provided by both parties in the application and in the standard Reply Forms.

Law

13 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider [NAME] might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. [NAME] falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that [NAME] to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

14 From the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Houghton Regis and Dunstable it determines that the subject [NAME] would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1775 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order.

15 From the representations the Tribunal found that what was a very new home had not been properly snagged following completion. Whilst it appeared that the tenant had arranged and paid for these irritating but minor defects the Tribunal concluded that these could still arise for a further year of occupation and might reasonable be expected to still have to be corrected by the tenant, based on the earlier experience. Accordingly it makes a modest deduction to reflect this ongoing expectation of further minor snagging faults arising in the next 12 months, in the sum of £25 pcm The new rent will therefore be £1750 pcm with effect from 27 March 2025.

16 Although the landlord is not obliged to charge this rent and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation; they may not charge more than this figure.

[NAME] 3 June 2025

4

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, [NAME], and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

5 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. CAM/00KC/MNR/2025/0644

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 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT]. Address

Tenant [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1750 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 27 March 2025

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable nil Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 27 March 2024

6. Length of the term or rental period periodic calendar monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs per tenancy

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises 2020’s detached house on street of very similar mostly semi-detached houses. Small gardens and off road parking. Google Streetview July 2019 shows the start of the new development only. Accom. on 2 levels: first - 4 bedrooms, bathroom, ground - living room, kitchen. Modern fittings and good condition assumed, save for small snagging repairs including shower heads, loose door ironmongery, carried out by tenant in default. House is less than 5 years old. Public transport links limited.

6 [NAME] of Decision 3 June 2025

📊 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 to be £1775 per calendar month.
  • A modest deduction of £25 per calendar month was made to account for minor snagging defects.
  • The new rent was set at £1750 per calendar month, effective from 27 March 2025.
  • The property was considered to be a 2-level detached house, approximately 5 years old, with 4 bedrooms.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1750 per calendar month for the property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on market conditions and minor defects in the property.

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 market value of the property and the presence of minor defects.

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 market conditions and any defects in their property when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of market conditions and documentation of minor defects in the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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 disputes.

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.