VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Set at £575 Per Month for Semi-Detached House in Willenhall

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for a semi-detached house in Willenhall after considering the property's condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area. The rent was set at £575 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent assessment that reflects the fair market value of their accommodation, taking into account the condition and features of the property.

Topics

rent assessmentfair market valueproperty condition

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, no application can be made if the rent is pursuant to a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for a semi-detached house in Willenhall, considering various factors including the condition of the property and comparable market rents.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal assessed the rent for a semi-detached house in Willenhall, considering the property's condition and market comparables, setting the rent at £575 per month.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference : BIR/00CW/MNR/2018/0050

Property

: 27 [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] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS

Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and Venue of : Not Applicable, paper determination Hearing

Date of Decision : 4 December 2018

____________________________________________________________

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

1 The rent is determined at £575.00 (Five Hundred and Seventy Five Pounds) per calendar month from 19 September 2018.

REASONS

Introduction

2 The tenants, [APPELLANT] and [NAME].[APPELLANT], hold a monthly assured shorthold tenancy of 27 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. The original tenancy had been for a term of twelve months from 19 August 2017 at £525.00 per calendar month.

3 On 18 August 2018 the landlord served notice of increase under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988 proposing a rent of £600.00 per calendar month to take effect on 19 September 2018. Neither the previous nor proposed rents included any amounts for Council Tax, water rates or fixed service charges.

4 On 6 September 2018 the tenant applied for the rent to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber.

5 On 29 October 2018 the Tribunal inspected the property and determined the rent at £575.00 p.c.m. with effect from 19 September 2018.

6 On 5 November 2018 the Tribunal received a request for Reasons from the tenants.

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 inspected the property on 29 October 2018 with the tenants. The landlord was not present or represented.

10 The property comprised a traditional 1960s two storey semi-detached house in a well established residential area. The accommodation comprised an enclosed porch, hall, through lounge / dining room and kitchen on the ground floor with a landing, three bedrooms and bathroom on the first floor. Outside, there was a front garden with room to park two cars, a back garden with lawn and dilapidated brick garage.

11 The house was of brick and tile construction with decorative cedar board cladding and rendering to the rear elevation.

12 It was in fair internal condition with double glazing and central heating. However, a gas fire in the living room had been condemned by a Gas Safe Engineer and the tenants advised that there were draughts around the double glazed windows as they had been inadequately fitted. The rear bedroom was particularly affected.

Submissions

13 Neither of the parties requested a Hearing. They sent written submissions and the case was determined on paper.

14 The Applicants' Case

In summary, the Applicants made eight points:

1 there were draughts around the double glazing;

2 the central heating boiler was inefficient;

3 the gas fire in the living room had been condemned;

4 there was insufficient heating in the Kitchen for a room of its size;

5 one of the light switches was only working intermittently;

6 there was inadequate heating in the bathroom;

7 the landlord's managing agent had sent an email to the effect that he considered

the proposed increase to be unreasonable which was included in the submitted

papers;

8 the Applicants referred to three properties advertised to let on the open market

for rental comparison:

i) [ADDRESS], Willenhall

A similar three bedroom house next door to the subject property advertised at an

asking rent of £600 per calendar month. It had a fitted kitchen, through lounge,

central heating and double glazing. The tenants considered the house was better

than theirs as it had more modern double glazing, kitchen and bathroom suites.

ii) [ADDRESS], Willenhall

A 1930s three bedroom semi-detached house with very little other information

provided which was advertised at £675 per calendar month.

iii) [ADDRESS], Willenhall

A modern, possibly 1980s, three bedroom semi-detached house with garage

advertised at £550 per month.

4

15 The Respondent's Case

The Respondent Landlord submitted that:

1 a three bedroom semi-detached house with drive of this quality in the area should

have let for £625.00 per month and

2 the landlord had a mortgage and tax to pay.

Decision

16 The Tribunal considered the property and its accommodation and found it to be the sort of property that would be in demand if advertised vacant and to let in the open market. It offered modern three bedroom accommodation with central heating and double glazing, albeit not to the highest specification and the Tribunal accepted the points made by the tenants regarding the standard of window fitting, but overall the house was in fair order. The garage was dilapidated but there was ample street parking available when the Tribunal inspected and off-road parking to the front of the house.

17 The rent achieved a year ago was £525.00 per calendar month but rents in the market had risen since then. The Tribunal considered the Landlord's asking rent of £625.00 pcm to be optimistic bearing in mind that the neighbouring house, a better specification according to the tenants, was openly advertised at £600.00 pcm and set the ceiling.

Accordingly, taking the parties' points into consideration and applying its own general knowledge of the market, the Tribunal determined the rent at £575.00 pcm for the purposes of section 14 of The Housing Act 1988.

[NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS Chairman

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).

📊 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 rent assessment reflects the open market value of the property.
  • The condition and amenities of the property are taken into account.
  • Comparables in the area are used to determine fair market rent.
  • The rent reflects the reasonable market rent for the property's condition.
  • The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determines the fair rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent is determined at a level that does not sufficiently reflect the open market value of similar properties.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for a semi-detached house in Willenhall was set at £575 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and comparable market rents were the most important arguments.

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 seek a rent determination if they believe the proposed rent is unfair.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence included the condition of the property and comparable market rents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an application may be made to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal on a point of law.

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

It is 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.