Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property Under Housing Act 1988
📌 In brief
The Tribunal decided on the rent for a property based on current market conditions, excluding any improvements made by the tenant. This decision was made under the Housing Act 1988.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent under an assured periodic tenancy, as determined by the Tribunal based on the current rental conditions in Birmingham.
📖 What the law says
Under the Housing Act 1988, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent, which should reflect what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the current market conditions. However, any improvements made by the tenant that increased the property's value are disregarded when setting this rent.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set the rent at £106.51 per week after considering the market conditions in Birmingham.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property based on the Housing Act 1988, considering the current market conditions and excluding the tenant's improvements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CN/MNR/2020/0014
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 21 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] (Hons) FRICS Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [NAME] [ADDRESS], Birmingham, West Midlands, [POSTCODE]
Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] [NAME]
1. The rent is: £106.51 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 06 April 2020
3. The amount included for services is
£2.42 Per Week
4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 30/05/2011
6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs L + T 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
9. Description of premises 2 bedroom mid terraced house
[NAME] (Hons) FRICS Date of Decision 14/05/2020
Page 1 of 3
Case Reference : BIR/00CN/MNR/2020/0014
HMCTS (paper, video : P: PAPERREMOTE audio) Property : 21 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Landlord : [NAME]
Tenant : [APPELLANT] of Application : An Application for a Determination under
Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Member : [NAME] – [NAME] (Hons) FRICS ACIArb
Date of Decision : 1 July 2020
_____________________________________________________
DECISION _____________________________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Page 2 of 3
BACKGROUND
1. By way of a notice dated 24 February 2020, the Landlord sought to increase the rental in respect of 21 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] to £106.51 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.42 per week) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) with effect from 6 April 2020.
2. The tenancy commenced in May 2011 and the rent payable at the time of the notice was £103.75 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.37 per week).
3. By an application received on 11 March 2020, the Tenants referred the Notice of increase of rent served by the Landlord to the Tribunal.
4. Due to the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency, the Tribunal advised the parties that it would determine the Market Rent for the property based on the written submissions by the parties; the Tribunal did not intend to hold an oral hearing (unless one was requested by the parties) or inspect the property internally. This is following Public Health England’s advice to avoid unnecessary travel and social interaction for the time being. In view of this, the parties were invited to make further submissions if they wished.
5. Neither party requested a hearing.
6. The parties were further advised that the Tribunal may use internet mapping applications to gather some information about the location of the property and may, in some cases, inspect externally without entering onto the property.
7. From the information provided and available to the Tribunal, the following information was noted about the Property.
The Property comprises a mid-terraced house with the following accommodation over two floors:
Kitchen; lounge; two bedrooms; bathroom
Externally, there are gardens and off-road car parking.
8. The Tenant provided some photographs and stated that they wished the rent to be reduced.
9. The Landlord did not make any submissions.
Page 3 of 3
THE LAW
10. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal must determine the rent at which it considers that the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
11. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), must ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant’s improvements as defined in section 14(2) 0f the Act.
VALUATION
12. The Tribunal had regard to the evidence and submissions of the parties, the relevant law and their own knowledge and experience as an expert Tribunal but not any special or secret knowledge.
13. The Tribunal’s determination considers what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the Property if it were let today. As it is a fixed service charge, the Tribunal considers the total amount charged to the Tenants i.e. the rent plus the service charge. It did this by using its own general knowledge of the market rent levels in Birmingham. Taking all factors into consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the likely market rental would be £140.00 per week. However, to allow for the condition the Tribunal makes a deduction of £10.00 per week. The Tribunal made a further deduction of £23.00 per week to reflect the Tenants’ white goods, carpets and curtains and decorating liability. This results in a rental of £107.00 per week including service charge. As this sum is not significantly different from that demanded by the Landlord, the Tribunal adopts that amount. The Tenant should note that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reduce the existing rental.
14. The rent determined by the Tribunal for the purposes of Section 14 is, therefore, £106.51 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.42 per week) with effect from 6 April 2020.
15. 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 (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.
[NAME] (Hons) FRICS
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £147/Week Rent for Assured Tenancy in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £99.33 Weekly Rent for Assured Tenancy in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £105.17/week rent for assured tenancy in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4170414
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £105.17/week rent for assured tenancy in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £105.17 Weekly Rent for Assured Tenancy in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £2,590 Rent for Assured Tenancy in Liverpool
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Reasonable Costs for Leasehold Reform
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £131.69/month pitch fee for assured tenancy in Alcester, Warw…
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 is set according to current market conditions.
- Improvements made by the tenant are excluded from rent calculations.
- Proposals must comply with relevant acts such as the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
- Reasonable costs for landlords are considered under specific acts.
- Rent determination is carried out under sections of the Housing Act 1988.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No specific losing factors listed in the provided similar cases.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £106.51 per week, including service charges.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over the rent increase proposed by the landlord to £106.51 per week.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to adopt the landlord's proposed rent of £106.51 per week, considering market rental values in Birmingham.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 s.14 was applied to determine the fair market rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the market rental value in Birmingham, which supported the proposed rent.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case, as the rent was set at the landlord's proposed rate.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider market rental values in their area when disputing a rent increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and statements from the tenant were considered, but the landlord did not provide any submissions.
