VadeLab
DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a market rent of £805 per month for an assured periodic tenancy after considering a landlord's notice of rent increase. The decision was based on the property's condition and comparable rental values in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant may refer a landlord's notice of rent increase to the First-tier Tribunal for determination of a fair market rent.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancytribunal procedure

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to the First-tier Tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on the conditions of the tenancy and comparable rental values in the area.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a market rent of £805 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a market rent of £805 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, following a landlord's notice of increase under the Housing Act 1988. The Tribunal considered the property's condition and comparable rental values in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/00HX/MNR/2022/0124

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 64 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mr [RESPONDENT] c/o [NAME], 28-30 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 805.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 21 October 2022

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 21 July 2021

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises First floor flat within a modern block. Living room, Kitchen, 2 bedrooms, Bathroom, Car space.

[NAME] of Decision 15 December 2022

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/00HX/MNR/2022/0124 Property :

64 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Landlord : Mr [COUNSEL] :

[NAME]

Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] [NAME] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] I [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Inspection : None. Determined on the papers Date of Decision :

15th December 2022

DECISION

CHI/00HX/MNR/2022/0124 2

Summary of Decision

1. On 15th December 2022 the Tribunal determined a market rent of £805 per calendar month to take effect from 21st October 2022. Background 2. The case concerned the determination of a market rent for the subject property following a referral of the Landlord’s notice of increase of rent by the Tenant pursuant to sections 13 and 14 Housing Act 1988.

3. On 4th September 2022 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £805 per month in place of the existing rent of £675 per month to take effect from 21st October 2022. The notice complied with the legal requirements.

4. On 19th October 2022 the Tenant applied to the Tribunal under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.

5. The Coronavirus pandemic and considerations of health have caused a suspension of inspections and Tribunal hearings in person until further notice.

6. The Tribunal issued Directions on 11th November 2022 informing the parties that, unless either party objected, the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on written representations. The parties were invited to make submissions which could include photographs or videos.

7. Both parties submitted papers by the specified date and these were copied to the other party.

8. Neither party objected to the matter being determined without an inspection or an oral hearing, so the Tribunal determined the case on 15th December 2022 based on the written representations received. The Property 9. From the information given in the papers and available on the internet the property comprises a first floor flat within a modern purpose-built block of flats in a residential area about 1/3 mile from the centre of Swindon.

10. The accommodation is described as including a Living Room, Kitchen, two Bedrooms and a Bathroom with WC. There is an off-street parking space.

11. The property is said to have electric storage heating and double-glazed windows. Carpets, curtains and white goods are all provided by the Landlord. Submissions and Evidence 12. The initial tenancy began on 21st July 2021. The Tenant had painted the Bathroom ceiling, applied some mould treatment and replaced a bathroom carpet.

CHI/00HX/MNR/2022/0124 3 13. The Applicants submission dated 8th December 2022, which came to the Tribunal from a friend’s email address, suggested that he was prepared to pay £730 per month. The Applicant did not think that rents had risen in the past 12 months by the suggested approximate 19.25% as specified in the Notice.

14. The Tenant states that as of 7th December 2022 he had not received any copy submission form the Landlord’s Agent.

15. The Landlord’s Agent submission to the tribunal was sent by email on 22nd November 2022, copied to an email address for the Tenant. The submission included a floorplan and several photographs of the property together with details of three comparable properties in the general area with asking rentals ranging from £825-£850 per month. The Agent acknowledged that the Tenant had replaced the bathroom carpet.

16. The Energy Performance Rating for the property is ’C’. The Law

S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal

(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy-

(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.

(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded-

(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement

CHI/00HX/MNR/2022/0124 4 concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates, or the following conditions are satisfied, namely-

(a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling- house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit.

(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation.

Consideration and Valuation

17. The Tribunal first considered whether it felt able to reasonably and fairly decide this case based on the papers submitted only with no oral hearing. Having read and considered the papers it decided that it could do so.

18. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the parties are not relevant to this issue.

19. Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and associated correspondence and using its own judgement and knowledge of rental values in Swindon the Tribunal decided that the market rent for the subject property if let today in a condition that was usual for such an open market letting would be £805 per month.

20. 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.

CHI/00HX/MNR/2022/0124 5 Determination 21. 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 £805 per month. 22. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £805 per month should take effect from 21st October 2022, this being the date specified in the Notice.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 Tribunal could determine the case fairly based only on the submitted papers.
  • The landlord's agent provided details of comparable properties with similar asking rentals.
  • The landlord's agent provided a floorplan and photographs of the property.
  • The landlord's notice of rent increase complied with legal requirements.
  • The Tribunal used its own knowledge of local rental values to determine the market rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's suggested rent of £730 per month was not accepted by the Tribunal.
  • The tenant's belief that rents had not risen by 19.25% was not accepted.
  • The tenant did not claim that the new rent's starting date would cause undue hardship.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal set a market rent of £805 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The landlord and the tenant were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and comparable rental values in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparison of the property's rental value with similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should expect their rent to be determined based on current market conditions and comparable properties.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and details of comparable properties were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.