VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Reduces Proposed Rent Increase for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for an assured tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and the amenities provided by the tenant.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the actual conditions and amenities of the property.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancymarket rent

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). The tribunal will then determine a fair rent reflecting what a willing landlord might expect to receive in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent after considering the proposed increase and various deductions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £650 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, reducing a proposed increase due to the property's condition and tenant-provided amenities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00ML/MNR/2025/0636

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] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] Judge Percival

Landlord [NAME] c/o [NAME], 169 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 650.00 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 March 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced January 2009 by succession

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises One bedroom basement flat

[NAME] of Decision 7 May 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00ML/MNR/2025/0636 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord :

Mr [COUNSEL] : [NAME] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] Judge R Percival Date of Application : 17th February 2025 Date of Decision : 7th May 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £650 per calendar month with effect from 11th March 2025.

SUMMARY REASONS

HAV/00ML/MNR/2025/0636

Background 1. On 27th January 2025 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,250 per month in place of the existing rent of £625 per month to take effect from 11th March 2025.

2. On 17th February 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 did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be £1,100 per calendar month.

6. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings to all be provided by the Landlord.

7. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with white goods, carpets and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for lack of central heating/ poor EPC rating, Tenants’ provision of carpets, curtains, kitchen and bathroom fittings and internal decoration.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,100 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of white goods

£30 Lack of central heating/poor EPC

£100

Tenant’s internal decoration

£50 Tenant’s carpets and curtains

£50 Tenant’s kitchen fittings

£110 Tenant’s bathroom fittings

£75 General condition

£35

HAV/00ML/MNR/2025/0636

TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£650

9. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £650 per month.

10. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship.

11.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £650 per month should take effect from 11th March 2025, this being the date specified in the notice.

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 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 tribunal determined a market rent of £1,100 per month for the property in good tenantable condition.
  • The tenant's provision of white goods reduced the rent by £30.
  • The lack of central heating and a poor EPC rating reduced the rent by £100.
  • The tenant's internal decoration reduced the rent by £50.
  • The tenant's provision of carpets and curtains reduced the rent by £50.
  • The tenant's provision of kitchen fittings reduced the rent by £110.
  • The tenant's provision of bathroom fittings reduced the rent by £75.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided on a rent of £650 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and the amenities provided by the tenant.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the amenities provided by the tenant.

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 may also have their rent adjusted based on the property's condition and the amenities provided by the tenant.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions and comparable evidence provided by both parties mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed within a month of receiving the summary reasons.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.