Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal set a new rent of £1,260 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the property's outdated condition and lack of modern amenities.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for the property's condition and amenities.
📖 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 the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent for the property, considering the property's condition and amenities. The new rent should reflect what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on the property's condition and lack of modern amenities.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal determined a new rent of £1,260 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting for the property's outdated condition and lack of modern amenities.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/43UH/MNR/2022/0016
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 65 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT], 104 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 1260.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 11 April 2022
3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 6 May 2003
5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly
6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985
7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
8. Description of premises
Semi-detached house comprising two reception rooms; kitchen; scullery; four bedrooms; bathroom. Garden and off road parking.
[NAME] of Decision 9 May 2022
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case reference : CHI/43UH/MNR/2022/0016
Property : [ADDRESS], Staines upon Thames,
Surrey, [POSTCODE]
HMCTS code : P:PAPEREMOTE
Applicant: [redacted] : None
Respondent: [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] of application : Determination of a Market Rent
Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal member(s) : [NAME]
[NAME] [NAME]
Mr [NAME] of determination : 21 April 2022 virtual hearing on the papers and venue
Date of decision : 9 May 2022
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2
Covid-19 pandemic: Description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing on papers. The documents that the Tribunal were referred to are in an electronic bundle, the contents of which have been noted. The order made is described below.
Decision of the Tribunal
On 9 May 2022 the Tribunal determined a market rent of £1,260.00 per calendar month to take effect from 11 April 2022.
Background
1. By way of an application received on the 24 February 2022 the Applicant, the Tenant of the Property, referred to the Tribunal an application (the application) referring a notice of increase in rent (the Notice) by the Landlord of the property under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).
2. The Notice is dated 21 February 2022 and proposed a new rent of £1,278.33 per calendar month instead of the existing rent of £1,240.00 per calendar month, to take effect from 11 April 2022.
3. The tenant succeeded to a periodic assured tenancy under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 on the 9 June 2003 following the death of his mother, a Rent Act tenant, who had occupied the property since 1964.
4. On 15 March 2022 the Tribunal issued Directions advising the parties that it considered the matter suitable for determination on papers unless either party objected, in writing, within 7 days. No such objections were received. The parties were advised that no inspection would be undertaken.
5. The Directions required the Landlord and Tenant to submit their completed statements by 29 March 2022 (Landlord) and 12 April 2022 (Tenant). No response was received from the landlord.
6. The tenant, within their completed statement, did not indicate that the landlord had been provided with a copy of his submissions.
7. The Tribunal reviewed the parties submissions and determined that it could fairly and reasonably proceed to a decision on the papers.
8. The matter was determined having regard to the evidence contained in the submissions and application.
3
Law 9. In accordance with the terms of Section 14 of the Act the Tribunal are required to determine the rent at which it considers the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy.
10. In so doing, and in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal ignores 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.
The Property
11. As stated, and in accord with current Tribunal policy, the Tribunal did not inspect the property, instead relying on the parties evidence and viewing the property via online portals.
12. The property is a bay-fronted two-storey semi-detached house, with brick and rendered elevations beneath a pitched and tiled roof. The property is located in a mixed residential and commercial area, close to public transport and the River Thames.
13. The town of Staines upon Thames is located on the left bank of the River Thames in Surrey and within the M25.
14. The accommodation comprises an entrance hall, kitchen, scullery, living room and dining room to the ground floor and four bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor.
15. To the front of the property is an enclosed garden area and off road parking for one vehicle. To the rear is a further garden area.
16. There is no garage.
17. Heating is provided by one gas fire. No central heating is installed.
18. White goods, carpets and curtains are provided by the tenant.
Submissions - Tenant
19. In his written evidence the tenant states the accommodation to be dated, lacking in landlords’ maintenance and in need of modernisation throughout.
20. He asserts that the bathroom and kitchen fittings have not been updated since his mother secured the tenancy in 1964.
4
21. He claims that only one gas fire is working in the property and that there is no central heating.
22. In support of his position that the property requires maintenance he draws the Tribunal’s attention to dampness under the front living room window.
23. The tenant contends that repairs and maintenance to the kitchen, toilet, bathroom and garden fencing were undertaken by him and that the landlord has failed to carry out any remedial works within five years.
24. The tenant provides no comparable rental evidence as similar properties are let with a modern bathroom and kitchen, central heating and good décor, and, accordingly, cannot be compared to a property unmodernised since 1964.
Submissions - Landlord
25. The landlord provided no written representations for the Tribunal’s consideration.
Determination
26. The Tribunal determines a market rent for a property by reference to rental values generally and to the rental values for comparable properties in the locality in particular. It does not take into account the present rent and the period of time which that rent has been charged, nor does it take into account the percentage increase which the proposed rent represents to the existing rent. In addition, the legislation makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot take into account the personal circumstances of either the landlord or the tenant.
27. The Tribunal assesses a rent for the property as it is on the day of the hearing, disregarding any improvements made by the tenant but taking into account the impact on rental value of disrepair which is not due to a failure of the tenant to comply with the terms of the tenancy.
28. Firstly, the Tribunal considered whether the landlord had been prejudiced if the tenant had failed to furnish them with a copy of their statement of case. Having confirmed that Directions were issued to the landlord and that those Directions did not permit a landlord’s response to the tenant’s filed submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the landlord had suffered no prejudice in the event that the tenant had omitted to provide them with a copy of their case.
5
29. The Tribunal finds the property to be a two reception, four bedroom and one bathroom semi-detached house in a sought after area. The Tribunal was not provided with any photographic evidence of the property’s condition or lack of modernisation and therefore rely on the submissions filed by the tenant.
30. As such, the Tribunal assesses the rental value of the property on an unmodernised basis with bathroom and kitchen fittings dating from around 1964. We also take into account the lack of central heating and the provision of only one gas fire for what can only be considered a sizeable property.
31. The Tribunal concurs with the tenant that adequate heating and modern fittings are considered standard in current open market lettings. The Tribunal therefore makes a rental deduction in this regard.
32. The tenant claims, and the landlord does not refute, that white goods, carpets and curtains are provided by the tenant. The Tribunal therefore make a rental adjustment in this regard.
33. Neither party provide any comparable rental evidence and, therefore, doing the best it can and having regard to the written submission, the Tribunal, using its own general knowledge and expertise of rental values in the area, assesses the rent for the subject property, in good condition, at £1,800.00 per month.
34. Using its experience, the Tribunal decided that the following adjustments should be made to the full open market rent to reflect the condition and provision of tenant’s white goods and curtains:
Condition
10% Lack of heating
10% Tenants’ provision of white goods 5% Tenants’ provision of carpets & curtains 5%
35. Deducting 30% from the full open market rent of £1,800.00 provides a rental figure of £1,260.00 per month.
36. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market would be £1,260.00 per calendar month.
37. The Tribunal identified no hardship grounds and, accordingly, this rent will take effect from 11 April 2022, being the date of the landlord’s notice.
[NAME] (Chairman) 9 May 2022
6
RIGHTS OF APPEAL 1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £950 for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for HMO Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Set for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) FTT Sets New Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New 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 property's bathroom and kitchen fittings were assessed as dating from around 1964, indicating a need for modernisation.
- The lack of central heating and the presence of only one gas fire in a sizeable property led to a rental deduction.
- The tenant's provision of white goods, carpets, and curtains resulted in a rental adjustment.
- The Tribunal used its own general knowledge and expertise of rental values in the area to assess the market rent.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It set a new rent of £1,260 per month 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 the property's condition and amenities, adjusting the rent accordingly.
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 the property lacked modern amenities and was in need of repair was crucial.
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 the condition and amenities of their property when negotiating rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Submissions from both the tenant and landlord regarding the property's condition 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?
Yes, it is recommended to get a solicitor for a case like this.
