VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the rent at £1,950 per month, starting from June 22, 2025, after considering the local rental market conditions.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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 for the property, considering the conditions of the existing tenancy and ensuring that the terms of the new tenancy match those of the original, except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined 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 £1,950 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from 22 June 2025, based on market conditions and the lack of comparable evidence provided by the parties.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AX/MNR/2025/0868

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 11 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord Mr [RESPONDENT] 6, 165 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1,950 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 22 June 2025

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable Nil Per

*4. Service charges are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 22 January 2018

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly Assured Periodic Tenancy

7. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises A duplex flat located above commercial premises with external access arrangements, accommodation comprises: three bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom

[NAME] of Decision 9 February 2026

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AX/MNR/2025/0868

Property : 11 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Mr [COUNSEL] : None

Landlord : Mr [COUNSEL] : None

Date of Objection : 12 August 2025

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

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons : 9 February 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1950 per calendar month with effect from 22 June 2025. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. The Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 dated 21 May 2025 which proposed a new rent of £2,300 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,380 per month to take effect from 22 June 2025. This being an increase of £920 per month.

2. On the 12 August 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.On the 22 August 2025, the Tribunal prepared Directions for the conduct of the case.

4. As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal had to consider whether it had jurisdiction to determine the case. In a decision dated 12 August 2025 Mr [RESPONDENT] determined that the landlord’s notice was valid and therefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the rent under Section13 of the Housing Act 1988.

5. The parties did not request a hearing or an inspection and the Tribunal agreed with this arrangement. Therefore, this case was considered on the basis of the papers provided by the parties with the assistance of Rightmove and Google Maps.

Evidence

6. The Tribunal did not receive any completed witness statements from landlord and tenant. The parties also did not produce evidence in connection with comparable rental values in the area.

Determination and Valuation

7. Having consideration of the very limited evidence provided by the parties and our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the New Malden area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good lettable condition with modern fittings and services would be £1,950 per month.

8. The Tribunal has not received any submissions from the parties regarding the condition of the property. Therefore, the Tribunal must make the assumption the property is in reasonable condition, and no deductions have been made.

3 Decision

9. 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 in its current condition was £1,950 per calendar month.

10. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1,950 per month to take effect on the 22 June 2025. This being the date in the Landlord’s notice.

Chairman: [NAME]: 9 February 2026

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 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 rent is adjusted based on the fair market value of comparable properties.
  • The condition of the property affects the determination of fair market rent.
  • Rent adjustments take into account the tenant's ability to pay.
  • Disrepair and poor condition of the property justify a rent reduction.
  • Local rental values influence the setting of a fair 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 new rent of £1,950 per month 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 the local rental market conditions since there was no evidence provided by the parties.

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 lack of comparable evidence provided by the parties.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a lower rent than what the landlord proposed.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may benefit from presenting comparable rental evidence to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Rightmove and Google Maps were used to assist in determining the market rent.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed according to the appeal provisions detailed in the judgment.

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

It is always recommended to seek 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.