VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a fair market rent of £975 per month for an assured periodic tenancy. They considered the property's condition and amenities before making their decision.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for the condition of the property and provided amenities.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent for the property, considering the conditions and amenities available. This determination takes into account the property's state and the terms of the existing tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £975 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and amenities. The decision was based on the Housing Act 1988, section 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HEMNR/2025/0737

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 24 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mr [RESPONDENT] c/o [COMPANY], 14 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 975.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 August 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 October 2022

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 Flush fronted 2-bedroom terraced house

[NAME] of Decision 12 September 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HE/MNR/2025/0737 Property : 24 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : Mr [COUNSEL] : [COMPANY] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 22nd July 2025 Date of Decision : 12th September 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £975 per calendar month with effect from 1st August 2025.

HAV/00HE/MNR/2025/0737

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 6th June 2025 the [NAME] served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,150 per month in place of the existing rent of £900 per month to take effect from 1st August 2025.

2. On 22nd July 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 There were no written submissions from 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 £1,200 per calendar month.

6. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets/floorings, 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 all white goods all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for lack of modern white goods, dated kitchen fittings, dated bathroom fittings and general wants of repair including damp and mould growth.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,200 Less deductions for:- Lack of modern white goods

£20 Dated kitchen

£75 Dated bathroom

£50

General wants of repair

£80

____

HAV/00HE/MNR/2025/0737

Total deductions per month £225 TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£975

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 £975 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 £975 per month should take effect from 1st August 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 11 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.
  • Rent should be adjusted for the condition of the property.
  • Rent should be adjusted considering the provided amenities.
  • Comparable evidence should be used to determine fair rent.
  • Responsibilities of the tenant should be considered when determining rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £975 per month for the assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Housing Act 1988, considering the property's condition and amenities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and the amenities provided were crucial arguments.

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 should consider the condition of their property and the amenities provided when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from the tenant and information freely available on the internet were considered.

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 involving rent disputes.

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.