VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal sets £825/month rent for assured tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They considered comparable evidence and the condition of the property, setting the rent at £825 per month, effective from 2 July 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent assessment considering the property's condition and the tenant's contributions, as evidenced by the adjustment from £925 to £825 due to the tenant providing white goods and the property's needs for repair.

Topics

tenancy determinationmarket rent assessment

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant can ask a tribunal to decide the fair market rent for their assured tenancy. The tribunal will look at comparable evidence and the condition of the property to determine what a willing landlord would charge for a similar rental agreement.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a rent of £825 per month for an assured tenancy, adjusting the proposed rent to account for the tenant's provision of white goods and the property's state of repair.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy, considering comparable evidence and the condition of the property. The rent was set at £825 per month, effective from 2 July 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/18UE/MNR/2024/0138

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 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Miss [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mrs [RESPONDENT] [NAME] c/o [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT] & Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 825.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 2 July 2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 2 July 2019

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 3-bedroom terraced house.

[NAME] of Decision 30 December 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/18UE/MNR/2024/0138 Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Miss [COUNSEL] [NAME] & Ms [COUNSEL] [NAME] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [NAME] : [NAME] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Ms [NAME] D [NAME] of Application : 27th May 2024 Date of Decision :

30th December 2024

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £825 per calendar month with effect from 2nd July 2024.

CHI/18UE/MNR/2024/0138 2 SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 16th May 2024 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £875 in place of the existing rent of £825 per month to take effect from 2nd July 2024.

2. On 27th May 2024 under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenants 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’s Agent. 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 tenable condition would be £925 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 a fridge and washing machine included, so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for Tenant’s provision of fridge and washing machine, and a further adjustment to reflect general wants of repair including worn and damaged carpets, dated kitchen, some mould at first floor level, defective rear door, and broken meter box door.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £925 Less deductions for:- Tenant’s provision of some white goods

£20 General wants of repair

£80

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£825

CHI/18UE/MNR/2024/0138 3 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 £825 per month. This is the same as the present rent.

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 directs that the new rent of £825 per month should take effect from 2nd July 2024, 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 tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment based on the property's condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination that reflects the open market value adjusted for the condition of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent determination under the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment that includes tenant-provided amenities.

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 the assured tenancy at £825 per month.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the proposed rent increase from £825 to £875 per month.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to maintain the rent at £825 per month, considering the tenant's provision of white goods and the property's state of repair.

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 condition of the property and the tenant's provision of white goods.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenants.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also have their rent adjusted based on the condition of the property and any additional services provided by the tenant.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.

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.