Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy. The tenant challenged the landlord's proposed increase, and the Tribunal set the rent at £400 per week, effective from 29 October 2019.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant may challenge a landlord's proposed rent increase through the First-tier Tribunal.
📖 What the law says
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. The tribunal will then determine a new rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. Additionally, a tenant can also challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2) of the same act.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new rent of £400 per week for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from 29 October 2019, after considering comparable rental evidence and the condition of the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
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 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]
[COMPANY] 27 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 400.00 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1st November 2019
*3. The amount included for services is/is
negligible/not applicable Nil Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 14th November 2015
6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs Section 11
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord 1 Dinning table, 4 Dinning Chairs, 1 Wardrobe, Kitchen cupboards, 1 Cooker, 1 Fridge, 1 washing machine.
9. Description of premises A Second Floor flat with the following accommodation: 1 Living Room, 2 bedrooms, Shower room/Wc, Kitchen
Chairman
Date of Decision 31/07/2020
First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AG/MNR/2019/0138
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/NNR/2019/0138P Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : 21 September 2019 Type of application : Determination of the market rent under Section 14 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] Mr J [NAME] of and venue of determination : 31 July 2020 Paper hearing
DECISION
This has been a remote hearing on paper which has not been objected by the parties. A face to face hearing was not held because all issues could be determined on paper. The documents referred to in this Decision are in a submitted bundle of 149 pages the contents of which are noted.
The Tribunal determines that the rent payable is £400 per week effective from 29 October 2019
Background 1 The landlord made an application on the 21 September 2019 to increase the rent from £110 per week to £250 per week effective from 1 November 2019. 2 The tenant made an application to the Tribunal dated 29 October 2019 for this to be determined. 3 The parties did not request an oral hearing. 4 Directions were sent to both parties by the Tribunal on 6 November 2019 and these were followed by subsequent revised Directions dated 4 March 2020. These asked the parties to submit relevant information to the Tribunal to assist in their determination. 5 A written representation was received from the landlord dated 29 November 2020, which explained and described the property and provided additional comparable rental evidence. 6 The tenant made a written representation dated 12 December 2019, in which he drew attention to the comparable rental transaction evidence taken from the same development. The tenant also highlighted the significant increase that was being proposed and the extent of space offered by the subject property. 7 An initial jurisdiction determination was made by the Tribunal. It was determined that although there was a minor error in the Notice this did not constitute a fatal flaw and the Notice was valid. 8 The landlord contends that the property has a market rental in present condition in the range £450-£500 per week. This is based upon market appraisals carried out by three local letting agents. The landlord also relied upon an indicative valuation prepared by the Valuation Office under reference No FR/0051872/18 of Flats A and C. No date is provided for these rental valuations or supporting explanation. The law 9 The Tribunal must first determine that the landlord’s notice under section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. 10 The Housing Act 1988, section 14 requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy. 11 In so doing the Tribunal, is required by section 14(1), to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act. 12 A copy of the relevant legislation is at Appendix A.
Valuation 13 Using the evidence supplied by the landlord on comparable rental transactions and their own knowledge and experience of rental levels in and around the Camden area, the Tribunal was of the opinion that, if the flat was in the same condition as those available to let on the open market, the rental value would be approximately £450 per month. 14 The tenant has carried out some minor improvements to the dwelling and the value of these is disregarded. 15 At the Tribunal's inspection it noted the relatively small area of the flat, particularly the galley kitchen and small bathroom/WC. The Tribunal considered these matters material to their determination. 16 After careful consideration the Tribunal determined a weekly rental of £400 was appropriate for this dwelling in present condition. Details of the rental valuation is shown in the table below:
Decision 1 The Tribunal first determined that the Tribunal's Notice under Section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that Section and was served in time. 2 In coming to its decision on the rent the Tribunal applied the above law. 3 Having done so, the Tribunal determined that the rent at which the property in current condition might reasonably be expected to be let on the market would be £400 per week. This rent will take effect from 29 October 2019.
Name: [NAME]: 18th October 2020
Valuer Chairman
Appendix A Housing Act 1988
14 Determination of rent by rent tribunal.
(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13, a tenant refers to a rent tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the committee shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the committee consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord 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 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 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 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 of the dwelling-house concerned or are payable under separate agreements.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decis…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition
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 determined the rent based on comparable rental transactions and their knowledge of local rental levels.
- The Tribunal considered the small area of the flat, including the galley kitchen and small bathroom, as important factors.
- The Tribunal disregarded minor improvements made by the tenant when determining the rent.
- The landlord's notice to increase rent was valid despite a minor error.
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 rent of £400 per week for an assured periodic tenancy.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the comparable rental evidence provided by both parties.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can challenge a proposed rent increase through the First-tier Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparable rental evidence and the condition of the property were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
