VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets £166/week Rent for Assured Tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a tenant challenged a proposed rent increase. After considering the property's condition and features, the Tribunal adjusted the rent to £166 per week.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment, taking into account the property's condition and amenities, as evidenced by the Tribunal's detailed valuation adjustments.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a weekly rent of £166 for an assured periodic tenancy following a detailed valuation process.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £166 per week for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the proposed rent based on the property's condition and features.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AY/MNR/2024/0056

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 49 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr O Dowty MRICS Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [RESPONDENT], 104 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 166 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 15 January 2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced An unspecified date in 1992

5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs S11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

8. Description of premises 2 bed, period, mid-terrace house with garden.

Chairman Mr O Dowty MRICS Date of Decision 19 August 2024

Case Reference

: LON/00AY/MNR/2024/0056

Property : 49 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Mr [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] : [RESPONDENT] of Application : 9 January 2024

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

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME]

Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 30 September 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £166 per week with effect from 15 January 2024. ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 30 November 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £173.08 per week in place of the existing rent of £165 per week to take effect from 15 January 2024.

2. On 9 January 2024 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. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 11 January 2024.

3. The Tribunal previously made a decision in this matter (dated 21 May 2024). That decision was subsequently set aside in a decision dated 19 June 2024 by Judge MacQueen.

Inspection 4. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the property on 19 August 2024.

Evidence 5. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation 6. Having consideration of the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of our own expert, general 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 £415 per week. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

• The windows and doors at the property being single glazed, and both they and their surrounding frames, lintels and cills being generally in poor condition. • The lack of central heating at the property • The lease terms at the property being less attractive to a [NAME] than would generally be expected in the market as regards internal decorations. • The tenant’s provision of white goods, curtains and other similar furnishings – and the lack of floor coverings provided by the landlord. • The kitchen having been installed (and some other minor works carried out) by the tenant • The damp, mould and water ingress at the property (which, amongst other things, renders the second bedroom unusable as such) – and the external condition of it.

6. The full valuation is shown below:

Hypothetical Market Rent Per Week £415 LESS 15% single glazing & windows, doors and their surrounds in poor condition £62.25 LESS 10% no central heating £41.50 LESS 7.5% lease terms £31.13 LESS 5% no floor coverings and tenant's white goods, curtains etc £20.75 LESS 2.5% tenant installed kitchen & other minor works £10.38 LESS 20% damp, mould, water ingress (inc. issues in 2nd bedroom) and external condition £83.00

Market Rent Per Week £166

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £166 per week and this equates to approximately £719.33 per calendar month.

Decision 8. 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 [NAME] under an assured tenancy was £166 per week.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £166 to take effect on 15 January 2024; this being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: Mr O Dowty MRICS Date: 30 September 2024

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 property's condition is significantly better than at the start of the tenancy.
  • The property includes modern amenities that enhance its value.
  • Rent adjustments are based on the property's condition and the amenities provided.
  • Improvements made by the tenant have increased the property's value.
  • Rent reductions are granted due to the poor condition of the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal set a fair market rent of £166 per week for an assured periodic tenancy in London.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the appropriate market rent for an assured periodic tenancy given the property's specific conditions.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set a rent of £166 per week, considering factors such as the property's condition and market comparables.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically Section 14, was applied to determine the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument centered on the specific conditions of the property, including its state and comparables in the local market.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, setting a fair market rent of £166 per week.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect a fair market rent to be set based on the specific conditions of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents used, but it likely included written submissions and an inspection of the property.

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.