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

Tribunal Sets New Rent Based on Comparable Evidence

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal set a new monthly rent of £1,865 for an assured shorthold tenancy based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge, adjusting for discrepancies in provided amenities. The decision reflects the market conditions and rental values in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord must provide evidence of actual rents achieved in similar properties when proposing a new rent under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to propose an increase in rent for assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. The landlord can serve a notice in a prescribed form to suggest a new rent that takes effect at the start of a new rental period, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

This section implies a covenant by the landlord to repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, including drains, gutters, and external pipes, as well as installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation. It also includes the obligation to repair and maintain installations for space heating and heating water.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge, adjusting for discrepancies in provided amenities. The new rent took effect from December 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

HAV/29UD/MNR/2025/0817

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant/Applicant Mr [COUNSEL]

Tenant’s Representative None

Landlord [COMPANY]

Landlord’s Address

Landlord’s [NAME] of Application 18th November 2025

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

Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision 11th March 2026

Rent Determined £1,865 per month

Date the new rent takes effect 22nd December 2025

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 7th November 2025, the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,900 per calendar month (“pcm”) in place of the existing rent of £1,795.00 pcm to take effect from 22nd December 2025.

2. On 18h November 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.

3. The assured shorthold tenancy commenced on 22nd December 2024 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly.

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. No additional charges.

Liability for Council Tax

6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.

Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.

7. None

Inspection/Hearing

8. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise.

3

The Property

9. The Property is a semi-detached ‘Rose’ style house within a nearly new development of 98 residential properties all of which are owned and operated by the Landlord, offering the following accommodation:

Hall, open plan kitchen/living room, two bedrooms, and bathroom with WC.

Outside: Parking space, gardens.

The Property benefits from heating from an electric air source heat pump, double glazing, free Broadband and a dedicated property manager for the whole development. The Energy Performance Rating is ‘B’.

The Property is situated approximately 1.5 miles east of the centre of Dartford, close to parkland, local amenities and excellent transport links.

Evidence

10. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms.

The Tenant.

11. The Tenant made the following comments:

a) In his application the Tenant states that, contrary to agreement, no blinds were provided at the start of the tenancy.

b) The Tenant did not provide any evidence of rents for similar properties.

The Landlord

12. The following comments were made by the Landlord’s Agent:

a) The Agent states that blinds and curtain poles were provided to all windows, except for the patio doors.

b) The Agent had completed two new lettings on this house type between 1st September 2025 and 21st January 2026 at £1,875 pcm and £1,895 pcm, and completed two renewals of tenancy agreements between 10th August 2025 and 21st January 2025 at £1,885 pcm and £1,875 pcm.

4

c) The Agent also provided details of similar properties to rent available on Zoopla or Rightmove with asking rents between £1,950 and £2,100 per month.

Determination and Valuation

13. The Tribunal considers that there is a particular micro market for rental properties on this development. The homes are nearly new and energy efficient.

14. The only evidence provided of actual rents achieved are recent lettings and renewals arranged by the Agent.

15. The Tribunal is faced with differing evidence regarding the provision of blinds but concludes that the Tenant would be unlikely to claim to provide blinds if he had not done so. Accordingly, the Tribunal has adjusted a new open market rent of £1,875 by £10 per month to reflect this.

16. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparable evidence provided by the Parties, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject property is £1,865 per month.

Market rent

£1,865 pcm

Undue hardship

12. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the 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.

13. No evidence of undue hardship was provided.

Decision

14. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,865.00 per calendar month with effect from 22nd December 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

5

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

  • The rent must be set at a fair market value based on comparable properties.
  • The proposed rent increase must be supported by evidence of comparable properties' rental values.
  • The rent adjustment must consider the actual condition of the property.
  • The rent assessment must be based on current market conditions and the state of repair of the property.
  • The market rent should reflect actual comparable rental values.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • A landlord's request for rent increase was dismissed due to lack of evidence showing actual rents in similar properties.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a new monthly rent of £1,865 based on comparable evidence and expert knowledge.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable rental prices for similar properties and adjusted for discrepancies in provided amenities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 s.13 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The evidence of actual rents achieved in similar properties was crucial to determining 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 adjusted the proposed rent downward.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase should gather evidence of comparable rental prices and discrepancies in provided amenities.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of actual rents achieved in similar properties and details about the property's amenities were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal on any point of law arising from this Decision.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal guidance.

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.