VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £1000 PCM for Assured Tenancy in Salford

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal for a determination of their rental amount after receiving a notice from their landlord proposing an increase. After reviewing evidence on local property values, the Tribunal decided that the fair market rent should be £1000 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at a fair market value considering local comparables and property condition.

Topics

rent determinationmarket rental assessment

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to propose increases in rent for assured periodic tenancies through a notice in a prescribed form. The new rent can take effect at the start of a new period specified in the notice, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent at which the dwelling house might reasonably be expected to be let by a willing landlord under similar conditions.

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

📖 Technical summary

Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured tenancy in Salford based on comparable properties and expert valuation.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the market rent of an assured tenancy property located in Salford, considering comparable properties and expert valuation. The new rent was set at £1000 per calendar month.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00BR/MNR/2025/1005 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative n/a [APPELLANT] Landlord’s [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Landlord’s Representative n/a Date of Application 21st October 2025 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members [NAME] – Tribunal Judge [NAME], MRICS – Valuer Member Date of Decision 1st April 2026 Rent Determined £1000.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 23rd October 2025

REASONS FOR

DECISION Background to the application 1. On 8th August 2025, the Respondent Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1043.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £975.00 pcm to take effect from 23rd October 2025.

2. On 21st October 2025, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Applicant Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 23rd October 2024 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly. On 23rd October 2025 a statutory monthly periodic tenancy arose. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. N/A. Liability for Council Tax 6. The Tribunal understands the Applicant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.

Inspection and form of determination 7. Neither party requested an oral hearing.

8. The property was inspected on 1st April 2025.

9. The Applicant and officers of the [COMPANY] were present at the inspection.

10. The application has been determined on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties in advance of the inspection, the inspection, evidence at the oral hearing, and the Tribunal’s own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Law 11. The Tribunal considered and applied section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988). The Property 12. The Property is a purpose built one bedroom apartment with balcony within a high- rise development built in 2021. The apartment is situated on the 6th floor of an 8- storey block and comprises: entrance hall, cupboard hot water cylinder, kitchen diner, bathroom and one bedroom. The Tribunal understands the apartment to measure approximately 39 sqm (420 sq ft). The landlord provides the apartment fully furnished including all white goods, kitchen appliances, floor coverings, along with furniture. The tenant has confirmed that no defects have been apparent. No car parking is provided as part of the tenancy agreement however one can be allocated for an additional fee. The apartment has an inside courtyard aspect and views. The development has the benefit of a concierge service albeit this is not 24 hours, 7 days a week. It also has common facilities which include co-working spaces, gymnasium, sauna facilities etc. Issues

13. The following issues were identified for determination by the Tribunal: a. The market rent for the property which could be achieved if it were in good letting order; b. Whether there were any matters which made it appropriate to reduce the market rent, and, if so; c. The amount of any deductions from the market rent; d. The rent to be applied to the property in the light of any deductions; e. The commencement date for the rent, including potential undue hardship to the tenant. Relevant Evidence and the Tribunal’s Conclusions on the Issues 14. Both the Applicant and Respondent made written submissions.

15. The Applicant’s submissions/evidence was to the effect that an appropriate open market rent for the property would be £975.00 pcm, and evidence was provided of advertised properties in the Salford area, which the Applicant submitted were comparable to his property, with asking rents (in January/February 2026) of between £925.00 and £975.00 pcm.

16. The Respondent’s submissions/evidence included a report of [NAME] dated 4th December 2024, reviewing rent for the Respondent owned properties in the locality. That report suggested that a rent increase of almost 10% was indicated “by the various indices and databases”, and that accordingly, the Respondent’s proposed increase of 7% was “a very conservative uplift in Salford and Eccles…”.

17. The Respondent provided evidence of 1-bedroom properties of similar and larger measurements, let in the same building between October 2025 and January 2026, at rents between £1000.00 and £1070.00 pcm.

Determination and Valuation 18. Relying on its own expertise and general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Applicant and Respondent, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1000.00 pcm. This is the rent the Tribunal would expect the property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as the comparable properties including having white goods and curtains/floor coverings provided by the landlord.

19. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made no adjustments, and therefore the open market rent determined is: £1000.00pcm Undue hardship 20. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Respondent Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.

21. The Tenant submitted no evidence in relation to undue hardship. Decision 22. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1000 .00 per calendar month with effect from 23rd October 2025. APPEAL PROVISIONS 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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal. .

📊 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

  • Rent should be set based on fair market value considering local comparables.
  • Rent should be set based on fair market value taking into account the property's condition.
  • Rent should be adjusted based on improvements made during tenancy.
  • Rent setting should consider the condition of the rented property.
  • Rent adjustments should be made by the First-tier Tribunal based on relevant condition issues.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal set the new rental amount at £1000 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in a dispute over rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal reviewed comparable properties and expert valuation to determine the fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

Evidence on local property values and comparables was crucial in setting the market rent.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, as it set a lower rent than proposed by the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can apply to the Tribunal if they believe their rental amount is unfair.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparative property values and expert valuation reports were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party may appeal on a point of law within 28 days.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.

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.