Rent Determination for Tenancy: First-tier Tribunal Decision
📌 In brief
The Tribunal decided on the appropriate rent for a property based on comparable properties in the area, taking into account the tenant's improvements. The decision was made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the open market value of the property, adjusted for any tenant improvements.
📖 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. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent, considering the reasonable expectation of what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market. The determination excludes certain factors such as the effect of granting a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in property value due to tenant improvements, and decreases in value due to tenant non-compliance.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the appropriate rent for a property based on comparable properties in the area.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the appropriate rent for a property based on comparable properties in the area, adjusting for tenant improvements. The decision took effect from the date of the landlord's notice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00FY/MNR/2022/0061
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], Mapperley, Nottingham, [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [NAME] 2b - 4b [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £800.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 29 August 2022
3. The amount included for services is not applicable --- Per ---
4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 29 January 2020
6. Length of the term or rental period six months
7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Landlord & Tenant Act
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord none
9. Description of premises An end terrace townhouse comprising entrance hall, cloakroom off. Rear lounge / dining room. Fitted kitchen. Landing. Bedroom 1 with en-suite shower room. Two further bedrooms. Family bathroom. Full double glazing. Gas central heating. Gardens to front and rear.
[NAME] of Decision 14 October 2022
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/00FY/MNR/2022/0061 Property : 4 [NAME] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] : [NAME] of application : Application under Section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 referring a notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy to the Tribunal Tribunal members : [NAME] S [NAME] Mrs [NAME] and Date of Determination : 14th October 2022 Date Reasons issued : 8th November 2022
DETAILED REASONS
2
BACKGROUND
1. On 8th August 2022, the Applicant (tenant of the above property) referred to the Tribunal, a notice of increase of rent served by the Respondent (landlord of the above property) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
2. The Respondent’s notice, which proposed a rent of £900.00 per month with effect from 29th August 2022, is dated 26th July 2022.
3. The date the tenancy commenced is stated on the Application Form as being December 2013 although the Tenancy Agreement provided by the Applicant confirms the commencement date as being 29th January 2020 and is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The current rent is stated as being £725.00 per month.
INSPECTION
4. The Tribunal inspected the property on 14th October 2022 in the presence of the Applicant. The Respondent did not attend the inspection. The property comprises of a modern end town house of brick construction surmounted by a pitched tiled roof.
5. Briefly the accommodation comprises of a canopy porch and entrance hall with stairs off to the first floor. There is a cloakroom with low-level W.C and wash hand basin. The hallway leads to the lounge/dining room with laminate floor and store off and to the kitchen fitted with a range of base and wall units incorporating a stainless-steel sink unit, oven and hob.
6. To the first floor the landing leads to double bedroom 1, small double bedroom 2 and single bedroom 3. There is an en-suite shower room to bedroom 1 being fitted with a shower, wash hand basin and low-level W.C. There is a family bathroom having a three-piece sanitary suite with shower mixer over the bath and tiled splashbacks.
7. The property has upvc double glazing and gas fired central heating. There is an open plan lawned front garden and driveway to the side giving vehicle parking. To the rear is a private lawned garden with patio and timber shed.
8. At the time of the Tribunal’s inspection, we were informed that the Applicant had provided the blinds and curtain rails to the lounge/dining room and all the rails and curtains to the first floor. The Applicant also provided the washing machine (to replace the one provided by the Respondent which had broken), fridge, dishwasher and had re-covered the shed roof.
9. The property was found to be in generally good condition throughout commensurate with its age and type.
EVIDENCE
10. The committee received written representations predominantly comprising of comparable lettings from both parties which were copied to the other party. These included:
Applicant’s Comparables
1) 7 [NAME] – a three-bedroom house with two bathrooms offered at £825.00 per month
3
2) 3 [NAME] – a three-bedroom detached house offered at £825.00 per month. 3) A nearby three-bedroom house offered at £750.00 per month. 4) A nearby house with four bedrooms offered at £800.00 per month.
Respondent’s Comparables
1) A three-bedroom established semi-detached house in [ADDRESS] offered at £1,150.00 per month 2) A three-bedroom town house in [ADDRESS] offered at £925.00 per month. 3) A three-bedroom terraced house in [ADDRESS] offered at £1,025.00 per month. 4) A three-bedroom house in [ADDRESS], Mapperley offered at £950.00 per month.
11. Neither part requested a hearing and the matter was therefore dealt with by a paper determination.
THE LAW
12. In accordance with the terms of section 14 Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
13. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
14. The Tribunal determined that the property was modern and well maintained. It was situated in a convenient attractive area which would appeal to a wide range of tenants.
15. The Tribunal noted that the white goods (except the oven/hob unit) and most curtain rails and curtains were provided by the Applicant.
16. The Respondent is now proposing a rent of £900.00 per month. The property includes an oven, hob and carpets but curtains are not included.
17. The Tribunal determined that an open market rent of £850.00 per month would be appropriate for the property as offered if in good condition but that deductions were required to reflect the above.
18. The Tribunal therefore considered the various monthly deductions to reflect the items referred to above as follows:
White Goods 30.00 Curtain rails and curtains 20.00 Total £50.00
4
19. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal had regard to the comparables provided by the parties and the members' own general knowledge of market rent levels in the area of Nottinghamshire. The Tribunal concluded that an appropriate market rent for the property would be £800.00 per month (£850.00 - £50.00)
20. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £800.00 per month.
21. The rent will take effect from 29th August 2022, being the date of the Respondent’s notice.
APPEAL
22. Any appeal against this Decision must be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this Decision, (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal, and stating the result sought by the party making the application.
[NAME] First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property)
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Registration for Assured Periodic Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decisi…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Norwich Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Rent Increase Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Considered Tenant Improvements and Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Market Rent for Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Semi-Detached House Near Industrial…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
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 property was modern, well-maintained, and in an attractive area, which increased its rental appeal.
- The tenant provided white goods, curtain rails, and curtains, which reduced the market rent.
- The Tribunal considered comparable properties and its own knowledge of market rents in the area.
- The Tribunal deducted £50.00 per month from the open market rent to account for tenant-provided items.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided on the appropriate rent for the property based on comparable properties in the area.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on comparable properties in the area and adjusted for any tenant improvements.
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 comparison of the property with similar properties in the area.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, setting a lower rent than the landlord proposed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider comparable properties in the area and any improvements they have made.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparables from both the tenant and the landlord were important in determining the rent.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
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 determination.
