VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets £2,000 Rent for Assured Tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair market rent of £2,000 per month for an assured periodic tenancy. They took into account the condition of the property, such as the lack of double glazing, outdated bathrooms and kitchens, and issues with mould.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment based on the property's condition and features, as evidenced by the Tribunal's reduction from £2,500 to £2,000 due to dated facilities and poor condition.

Topics

tenancy agreementsrent determinationshousing act 1988

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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 their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market. This includes considering the condition of the property, such as the presence of double glazing, the state of the bathroom and kitchen, and any issues like mold.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £2,086 to £2,000 after considering the property's condition and lack of modern amenities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £2,000 per calendar month for an assured periodic tenancy, considering the condition of the property, including lack of double glazing, dated bathroom and kitchen, and mould issues.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. GB/LON/00BJ/MNR/2024/0661

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination or Section 22 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 36 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ £2,000 Per calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 24 October 2024

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

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 24 March 2014

6. Length of the term or rental period One month

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11 Landlord & Tenant Act, 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

9. Description of premises A period terraced house comprising a lounge, kitchen, two-bedrooms and bathroom.

[NAME] of Decision 18/02/2025

1

Case Reference

: LON/00BJ/MNR/2024/0661

Property : 36 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Objection : 11 September 2024

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

Tribunal Member : [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 18 February 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,000 per calendar month with effect from 24 October 2024. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

SUMMARY REASONS FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background

1. On 22 August 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,086 in place of the existing rent of £1,906.32 to take effect from 24 October 2024.

2. On 9 September 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 September 2024.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant. There were no written submissions from the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation

5. Having consideration of the evidence provided by the Tenant 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 £2,500 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

Lack of double glazing Dated bathroom and kitchen Mould and overall condition

6. The full valuation is shown below:

per calendar month Market Rent

£2,500

Less Lack of double glazing

) Dated bathroom and kitchen

) Total, approx. 20% Mould and overall condition

)

£ 500

£2,000

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,000 per calendar month.

3 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 willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £2,000 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £2,000 to take effect on 24 October 2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 18 February 2025

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 tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy.
  • The rent must be adjusted based on the condition of the property.
  • Specific conditions of the property affect the fair market rent.
  • The property's condition directly influences the adjustment of the rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a new rent of £2,000 per calendar month for the assured tenancy.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the appropriate rent for an assured tenancy given the property's condition and market value.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £2,000 per month after considering the property's condition, including lack of double glazing, dated bathroom and kitchen, and mould issues.

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 mattered most was the need to adjust the market rent based on the property's condition, particularly the lack of double glazing, dated bathroom and kitchen, and mould issues.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, as the rent was set at £2,000 per month.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, the decision suggests that the rent for an assured tenancy should be adjusted based on the property's condition and market value.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the written submissions provided by the tenant and the Tribunal's own expert knowledge of rental values in the area.

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.