VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Semi-Detached House

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the fair market rent for a semi-detached house in Leicestershire. After considering the property’s condition and required repairs, they set the rent at £1,100 per month, adjusting from an initial proposed higher amount.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed increase in rent must reflect the property's actual condition and any necessary repairs.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period, which begins at least two months after the notice is served. Additionally, if the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can only occur after a specified period, which varies based on the type of tenancy.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent that a willing landlord might expect to receive for the property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a semi-detached house in Leicestershire, considering its condition and necessary repairs.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a market rent of £1,100 per month for a semi-detached house in Leicestershire. The decision considered the property's condition and necessary repairs, adjusting from an initial proposed rent of £1,200.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference

: BIR/31UE/MNR/2025/0722

Property : 24 Woodbank Burbage Leicestershire [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT] [APPELLANT] & [NAME]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] & [RESPONDENT]

Landlord’s agent : [COMPANY] of application : 27th May 2025

Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision : 2nd March 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,100.00 per month with effect from 1st July 2025. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 16th May 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,150.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,100.00 to take effect from 1st July 2025.

2. On 27th May 2025, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal inspected the property on 2nd March 2026.

4. The property is a semi-detached house. The accommodation comprises of entrance hall, lounge/dining room, fitted kitchen, three bedrooms, and bathroom being fitted with a bath, separate shower cubicle, wash hand basin and W.C.

5. There is gas fired central heating and double glazing throughout. The combination double glazing boiler is situated in a cupboard off bedroom 1. The Tribunal understands that carpets, curtains and white goods are provided by the Landlord.

6. There is a garden to the rear with patio, lawn and shed and a driveway to the front providing vehicle parking.

7. During the inspection the Tribunal noted that:

a) There were cracks to various areas of walls and ceilings. b) There was evidence of condensation mould around several widows and external doors. c) There was a leak from the filter to the boiler. d) The loft hatch had to be taped up to keep it in place. e) Some of the sealed double-glazing panes had failed with condensation being evident to them internally. f) There was damage by the W.C. pipe in the bathroom where rats had caused damage. g) The front door to the hallway and rear door from the kitchen from the kitchen to the garden were draughty.

Evidence

8. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenants and the Landlord.

9. In their written submission the Tenants submit: 1) There is a crack to the kitchen ceiling. 2) There is condensation to various windows. 3) There is mould to the blinds in bedroom 1.

3 4) The fence is broken. (It was noted at the inspection that this had been repaired) 5) There are holes to the kitchen and boiler room allowing rats to enter the property.

10. The landlord submits:

1) That pest control has attended on four occasions but holes to the kitchen and boiler room need to be blocked up to prevent rodents from entering the property. The rat problem was a wider problem in the area. 2) The landlord intended to have the fence panel repaired but was awaiting a second quotation. 3) The landlord was arranging for a contractor to attend to look at the various repairs noted.

11. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord together with its own inspection.

Determination and Valuation

12. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £1,200.00 per month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

a) Condition (as noted in paragraphs 7 and 9 above). b) The Tenant’s liability to redecorate.

13. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£1,200.00 per month

Less a) Items given under a) above

£40.00

b) Tenant’s internal decoration liability @ 5% £60.00 £100.00

£100.00 per month

Rental £1,100.00 per month

Decision

14. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £1,100.00 per month with effect from 1st July 2025.

Chairman: [NAME]: 2nd March 2026

4 APPEAL PROVISIONS

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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

5

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 24 Woodbank Burbage Leicestershire [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] c/o [COMPANY] 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

1. The rent is: £1,100.00 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1st July 2025

3. The amount included for services is/is not applicable N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 13th December 2024 5. Length of the term or rental period 6 months 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises A semi-detached house with entrance hall, lounge/dining room, fitted kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom. Gas central heating, Double glazing. Rear garden. Car parking to the front driveway.

[NAME] of Decision 2nd March 2026

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No.

BIR/31UE/MNR/2025/0722

📊 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 increase reflects the property's actual condition.
  • The rent increase is based on a fair market value as determined by the First-tier Tribunal.
  • The rent increase considers the state of repair and condition of the property.
  • The rent increase is supported by evidence of similar properties' conditions.
  • The rent increase takes into account necessary adjustments to the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined a market rent of £1,100 per month for a semi-detached house in Leicestershire.

Who was involved?

A tenant and landlord were involved in the dispute over the property's rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal inspected the property and considered its condition and necessary repairs to determine a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in this decision.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The property's condition, including cracks, condensation, and other issues, influenced the rent determination.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant as it set a lower rent than initially proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can challenge it based on the property's actual condition and necessary repairs.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The inspection report of the property and written submissions from both parties were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on points of law within 28 days.

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

It is advisable to seek legal 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.