VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy Dispute

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set a new market rent for an assured periodic tenancy after the tenant challenged a landlord's proposed increase. The tribunal considered comparable evidence and local rental values to determine the fair rent of £5100 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have a market rent set by the First-tier Tribunal if they dispute a landlord's proposed increase under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket 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 the appropriate tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. This includes challenging a new rent proposed in a notice under section 13(2) or 13A(2). However, applications cannot be made if the rent is already determined under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge of rental values in the area, setting a new monthly rent as requested by the tenant.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HS/LON/00BD/MNR/2023/0315

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 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS] , Walton on Thames , [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] & [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 5100.00 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 15 July 2023

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable

Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 15 March 2021

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement and s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises 4 bedroom semi detached house built circa 2011

[NAME] of Decision 27 September 2023

1

Case Reference

: HS/LON/00BD/MNR/2023/0315

Property : 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Mr [APPELLANT] & [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 13 July 2023

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

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 27 September 2023

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £5100.00 per calendar month with effect from 15 July 2023. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 6 June 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £ 5200.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £ 3333.33 per Month to take effect from 15 July 2023.

2. On 13 July 2023 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 13 July 2023

Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the hearing and papers provided by the parties.

Evidence 4. The tribunal held a hearing attended by the Landlord. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord’s written and oral evidence at the hearing.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties in particular the letting of the next door property which is a mirror image of the subject property at a rent of £5100.00 per month and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in it’s the condition we are required to assume would be in the region of £5100.00 per calendar month.

Decision 6. The Tribunal therefore determined 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 was £5100.00 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directed the new rent of £5100.00 to take effect on 15 July 2023. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 27 September 2023

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,

3 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 property's condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for specific property conditions.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment considering the condition of the property and their repair obligations.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent based on comparable properties in the area.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for amenities.

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 new market rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £5100 per month.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal decided based on comparable evidence of rental values for similar properties in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 was applied to determine the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant's argument based on comparable rental evidence for similar properties in the area was key.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a new market rent as requested.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a disputed rent increase can challenge it through the First-tier Tribunal and seek a fair market determination.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rental evidence and local knowledge of property values were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can often be appealed to higher courts.

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

It is advisable to seek legal 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.