VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Market Rent of £280 Per Week for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair market rent of £280 per week for an assured periodic tenancy. The decision was based on several factors including the property's condition and location.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy as determined by the Tribunal.

Topics

tenancy determinationmarket rent assessment

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 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 a market rent of £280 per week for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a market rent of £280 per week for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account various factors such as the property's condition and location. The decision took effect from 1 April 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. GB/LON/00AN/MNR/2024/0239

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 194A [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [NAME] [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 280 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 April 2024

*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 20 April 2020

6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per terms

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises One bedroom basement flat containing a living room, a bathroom and a kitchen. No furniture provided by the Landlord and the Tenant has access to a private garden.

[NAME] of Decision 8 October 2024

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AM/MNR/2024/0239

Property : 194A [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Landlord : [NAME] of Objection : 31 March 2024

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

Tribunal

: Mrs [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 8 October 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £280 per calendar week with effect from 1 April 2024. ____________________________________

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

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 20 February 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £250 per week in place of the existing rent of £232.13 per week to take effect from 1 April 2024.

2. On 31 March 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. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 31 March 2024.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property and the neither party requested an inspection, but the Tribunal considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant. There were no written submissions provided by the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of our own expert and general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £400 per calendar week. From this level of rent we have made adjustments as per the valuation below:

6. The full valuation is shown below:

per week Market Rent

£400

Less Subject property being a basement flat

) 5% No white goods provided

) 5% No curtains / floor coverings provided

) 5% Deduction for garden improvements

) 15%

30%

£120

Adjusted Market Rent therefore

£280

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £280 per calendar week.

Decision 8. 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 £280 per calendar week.

3

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £280 to take effect on 1 April 2024, this being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

10. We should comment that the rent fixed by the Tribunal is the maximum rent and the Landlord may not charge a rent above that figure. However, in many cases when the Landlord is a Registered Social Landlord, the rent charged may be less than the rent fixed by the Tribunal. Indeed, the Landlord seems to be seeking a rent of £250 per week.

Chairman: [NAME]: 8 October 2024

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 Tribunal used its own expert knowledge of local rental values to assess the market rent.
  • The property's status as a basement flat reduced its market rent.
  • The absence of white goods in the property reduced its market rent.
  • The lack of curtains and floor coverings in the property reduced its market rent.
  • The need for garden improvements at the property reduced its market rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a market rent of £280 per week for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord, specifically Notting Hill Genesis.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the written submissions provided by the tenant and their own expert knowledge of rental values 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 argument that mattered most was the need to determine a fair market rent based on the property's condition and location.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect a fair market rent to be determined based on the property's condition and location.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions provided by the tenant were important, along with the Tribunal's own expert knowledge.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed, but the details of how to do so will be set out in the full reasons.

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

It is always recommended to seek 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.