VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a fair market rent of £845 per month for an assured periodic tenancy after considering the condition of the property, including outdated kitchen and bathroom fittings and damp/mould issues.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for the condition of the property.

Topics

tenancy disputesfair market rent 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 in the open market. The determination takes into account the condition of the property, such as outdated kitchen and bathroom fittings and issues like damp or mold.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for a property taking into account various deductions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent of £845 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the initial proposed rent due to the condition of the property, including dated kitchen and bathroom fittings and damp/mould issues.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HQ/MNR/2025/0724

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 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Mr I [NAME] Judge Taylor

Landlord [RESPONDENT] A, 603 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 845.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 20 July 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 20 May 2018

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 2-bedroom first floor flat

Chairman

Mr I Perry FRICS

Date of Decision 27 August 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HQ/MNR/2025/0724 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : [NAME] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Judge C Taylor Application Received : 30th June 2025 Date of Decision : 27th August 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £845 per calendar month with effect from 20th July 2025.

HAV/00HQ/MNR/2025/0724

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 26th May 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £995 per month in place of the existing rent of £785 per month to take effect from 20th July 2025.

2. 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 30th June 2025. 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. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 22nd July 2025. The Landlord duly sent representations by the date specified.

5. The Tenant filed her representations 6 days later than specified in the Directions and was asked by the Tribunal to make a Case Management Application for her representations to be received.

6. Before proceeding any further, the Tribunal first considered whether it should accept the late application from the Tenant. Given the overriding objective of making an equitable decision the Tribunal decided that it would accept the late papers. Determination and Valuation 7. 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 £995 per calendar month.

8. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings to all be provided by the Landlord.

9. In this case the property is not let in such condition so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for the dated kitchen and bathroom fittings and for damp/mould.

10. The full valuation is shown below:

HAV/00HQ/MNR/2025/0724

Full open market rent in good condition £995 Less deductions for:- Dated kitchen

£75 Dated bathroom

£25 Damp/mould

£50

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£845

11. 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 £845 per month.

12. 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.

13.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £845 per month should take effect from 20th July 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 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.
  • The rent is adjusted for the condition of the property.
  • The rent is adjusted for the condition and contents of the property.
  • The rent is adjusted based on the property's condition and location.
  • The rent is adjusted for the condition and provided amenities of the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on a fair market rent of £845 per month for the assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the condition of the property, making adjustments to the proposed rent due to outdated fittings and damp/mould issues.

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, including outdated fittings and damp/mould issues, was the most important argument.

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 when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparative evidence of rental values in the area and information about the property's condition were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions 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 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.