Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the fair market rent for a rental property in Reading, setting the rent at £975 per month from April 2024. The decision was based on the Tribunal's assessment of the property's condition and the local rental market.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy, as determined by the Tribunal's assessment of market conditions.
📖 What the law says
This section 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 might expect to receive for letting the property under similar terms.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the fair market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy in Reading.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the fair market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy in Reading, setting the rent at £975 per calendar month, effective from April 2024.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/00MC/MNR/2024/0076 Property :
46 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Applicants : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative : None Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 19 July 2024 (on Papers) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 19 July 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 30 March 2024 from the tenant of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent, served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).
2 The notice, dated 27 February 2024, proposed a new rent of £990 per calendar month with effect from and including 1 April 2024. The
2 passing rent was stated in the notice, as £900 per calendar month from 1 April 2023.
3 The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy. A copy of the tenancy and of the landlord’s Notice was provided.
Inspection
4 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property internally but viewed the exterior from a [ADDRESS] image of it as seen from the public road (taken @ November 2015). The Property is a first floor flat converted from a former two bedroom mid terraced house dating from the 1890’s. The former house is narrow with a cross staircase. Accommodation from the ground floor communal hallway is small c. 39m2. It forms part of a larger mixed but established residential area with a variety of sizes and layouts of accommodation, from a range of periods.
5 The external face of the walls is brick with a simple double pitched main roof over the house finished in a slate covering. There is a monopitch slated roof over the front ground floor bay. There is a small shared front yard but, no off street parking. There are on road parking restrictions.
6 The Property accommodation is on the first floor: Bedroom, bathroom/wc, kitchen and living room. There is plastic window framing with double glazing to shared front door and windows to front elevation. There is central heating. Landlord provided white goods a bed, and sofa. The tenant was said to have replaced the bed which had broken. Landlord provided carpets and curtains.
Representations
7 Directions, dated 16 May 2024, for the progression of the case, were issued by the Tribunal’s Legal [APPELLANT]. Neither party requested a hearing. The tenant filed a standard Reply Form together with details supplied in their initial application form. The tenant referred to some minor disrepair to the bedroom floor, and stair carpets to the common area. The tenant included a photograph which appeared to show a power cable draped across a disused fireplace in one of the rooms.
8 The landlord also filed a standard Reply Form with a floor plan showing room sizes and gross internal floor area. Neither party supplied any evidence related to the local current rentals market.
9 The Tribunal is grateful for and has carefully considered such written representations as it received, from parties.
3 Law
10 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that it is in a reasonable internal decorative condition.
Decision
11 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Reading, it determines that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £975 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order at the valuation date April 2024.
12 Though there was reference to some minor disrepair this appeared insufficient to justify any deduction from this starting figure.
13 The new rent of £975 per calendar month is payable from and including the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice, 1 April 2024. The landlord may charge any rent up to and including £975 pcm but, not a rent in excess of this figure.
[NAME] 19 July 2024
Rights of appeal
By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.
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 decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).
If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not
4 complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.
The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.
If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Deficient Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Northampton Property at £1000 pcm
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Due to Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent for Northampton Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Damaged Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Shorthold Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Due to Property Defects
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Rent Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Suburban Oxford Propert…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Sheltered Housing Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Tenant in Welwyn Garden City
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 property.
- The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting any landlord failings.
- The tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the open market value of the property, adjusted for deficiencies.
- The tenant can challenge a rent increase if the property does not meet reasonable condition standards.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set the fair market rent for the tenancy at £975 per month.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent increase.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on its assessment of the property's condition and the local rental market, setting the rent at a level that reflects fair market conditions.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied to determine the fair market rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the prevailing rental rates in the area.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, as the rent was set lower than what the landlord proposed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and the local rental market when disputing a rent increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as the condition of the property and the proposed rent increase notice were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if they are dissatisfied with the decision.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving disputes over rent increases.
