VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on a fair market rent of £2,000 per month for a property, considering its condition and comparable rents in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property based on its condition and comparable rents in the area.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent 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 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.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property considering its condition and comparable properties.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a fair market rent of £2,000 per month for a property, taking into account its condition and comparable rents in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AK/MNR/2024/0607

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 37 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

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

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 3 January 2025

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

*4. Service charges are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 3 September 2019

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly Assured Periodic Tenancy

7. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises A 1930s built two storey mid terrace house. Accommodation comprises: three bedrooms, 2 living rooms, kitchen, bathroom/WC, rear garden.

[NAME] of Decision 24 February 2025

1

Case Reference

: LON/OOAH/MNR/2024/0607

Property : 37 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] of Objection : 20 November 2024

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 24 February 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,000 per calendar Month with effect from 3 January 2025 ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. On the 11 November 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,500 per month in place of the existing rent of £2,000 per month to take effect from 3 January 2025.

2. The Tenants application is dated the 20 November 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.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has consideration of the comprehensive written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord together with a photograph, the tenancy agreement and 7 letting agents’ details of comparable evidence from the Landlord which, as the Landlord noted, ranged from £2,000- £3,000 per month.

The Inspection

5. The Tribunal members inspected the property on the 24 February 2025 in the presence of the tenant and his family. The Landlord was not present. The property is a 1930’s mid-terrace three-bedroom house located in an established road with rear garden.

Determination and Valuation

6. Firstly, having consideration of our expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Thornton Heath area, The Tribunal considers that the open market rent for the property if it were in good marketable condition with reasonably modern kitchen and bathroom, modern services, carpets and curtains and white goods supplied by the landlord would be £2,3o0 per month.

7. The Tribunal now needs to adjust this rent to allow for the dated fittings, no white goods or curtains provided by the Landlord, defective window units and stained and poor-quality carpets. Using its own expertise the Tribunal considers that a deduction of £300 (approximately 13%) should be applied. This reduces the rental figure to £2,000 per month.

3

Decision

8. The Tribunal therefore determines 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 in its current condition is £2,000 per calendar month.

8. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £2,000 per month to take effect on the 3 January 2025. This being the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 24 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 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 based on the condition of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent considering comparable rents in the area.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent based on the condition and comparable properties in the area.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent based on comparable rental values in the area.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's claim was dismissed if the comparison was solely based on rental prices without considering the property's condition.

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 £2,000 per month for a property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the property's condition and comparable rents in the area.

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 comparable rents were the most important factors.

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

The decision was in favour of 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 comparable rents when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs, the tenancy agreement, and details of comparable evidence from letting agents mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed through the appropriate legal channels.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.