VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Rent After Landlord's Increase Notice

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on a fair rent of £745 per month for a tenant after the landlord proposed a significant increase to £1,100 per month. The decision was based on the current market conditions and the property's state.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent determination based on the current market conditions and the property's state.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. This determination takes into account the property's condition and the current market conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent after considering the proposed increase and the current market conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a fair rent of £745 per month for a tenant after considering a proposed increase to £1,100 per month. The decision was based on the current market conditions and the property's state.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/29UN/MNR/2025/0637

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]

[NAME] [NAME] Judge [RESPONDENT] 63A [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 745.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 15 March 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced Not provided

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

9. Description of premises 2-bedroom flat

[NAME] of Decision 7 May 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/29UN/MNR/2025/0637 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] :

None

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

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] Judge R Percival Date of Application : 26th February 2025 Date of Decision :

7th May 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £745 per calendar month with effect from 15th March 2025.

HAV/29UN/MNR/2025/0637

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 13th February 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,100 per month in place of the existing rent of £460 per month to take effect from 15th March 2025.

2. On 26th February 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. There were no additional written submissions from either party. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to 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 £800 per calendar month/week.

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 all white goods and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In addition, the Tribunal made an adjustment to reflect the Tenant’s improvements.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £800 Less deductions for:- Tenant’s improvements

£25 Tenant’s provision of white goods

£20 Tenant’s provision of curtains

£10

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£745

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 [NAME] under the terms of this assured tenancy was £745 per month.

HAV/29UN/MNR/2025/0637

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 £745 per month should take effect from 15th March 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 based on current market conditions.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination that considers the property's condition and provided amenities.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for the specific conditions of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent determination reflecting the open market value adjusted for the property's condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent based on comparable evidence and local rental values.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a fair rent of £745 per month for the tenant.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the current market conditions and the property's state, adjusting the proposed rent accordingly.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied in determining the fair rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the current market value of similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the current market conditions and the state of their property when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the papers provided by both parties and information freely available on the internet.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed if the parties request full reasons and follow the detailed appeal process.

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.