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, setting the rent at £750 per month. They considered factors like the property's condition and its comparison to similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent determined by the open market value of the property, adjusted for disrepair and lack of amenities.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancydisrepair

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy.

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to statutory periodic tenancies and other assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, subject to certain conditions regarding the timing of the notice and previous rent increases.

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 the open market value of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £750 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition, including disrepair and lack of amenities, and comparing it to similar properties in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BB/MNR/2025/0837

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], London E15 1 JD

Judge Shepherd Carolyn Barton MRICS

Landlord [NAME] [ADDRESS] London [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 750 Per month

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 27th November 2025

*3. The amount included for services is/is

not applicable Nil Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 13th September 2010

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per s.11 LTA 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Double bed and 2 wardrobes

9. Description of premises Small bedsit flat with shower room and toilet

Chairman Judge Shepherd Date of Decision 1st December 2025

Case Reference

: LON/00BB/MNR/2025/0837

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] [NAME] of [NAME] : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: Judge Shepherd and Carolyn Barton MRICS

Date of Summary : 27th November 2025

_____________________________________________________

DECISION amended under the slip rule on 4th February 2026

The Tribunal determines a rent of £750 per calendar month with effect from 27th November 2025. ____________________________________ _____

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. The Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1600 in place of the existing rent of £650 per calendar month to take effect from 13th April 2025.

2. Pursuant to 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.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal inspected the property. It is situated in a well-established residential area with local transport and shopping facilities in the district. The flat is at first floor level. It is one of seven studios, believed to have been converted from a modern four storey end terraced building. It comprises a compact kitchenette/living/bedroom and a small/narrow shower room with WC off. There was evidence of mould and condensation and very dated decorations and fitments.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal also had a hearing and considered written submissions provided by the parties.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition is £1000 pcm. We made deductions to reflect: Lack of white goods: 10%

Arrangement and size: 10% Disrepair: 5% 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 £750 pcm. There is no separate charge for services so that it is assumed that the electricity cost and water charges are included in the rent.

7. The Tribunal directs that the new rent of £750 is the new rent and for reasons of hardship it is to take effect on 27th November 2025. Chairman: Judge Shepherd

1st December 2025 4th 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 request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent [NAME] for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

Case Reference

: LON/00BB/MNR/2025/0837

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Tribunal

: Judge Shepherd and Carolyn Barton MRICS

Date of Summary : 27th November 2025

_______________________________________________

Additional reasons ___________________________________________________ CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

1. The Applicant requested further reasons following our summary decision. This decision should be read in conjunction with that decision.

The property 2. The property is a bedsit flat with a bedroom/living room/kitchen and separate bathroom. It appeared very small. The kitchen area was limited in facilities or space. The bed took up most of the living area. There was no separate living area or outside space. There was very little room for clothes storage.

The law 3. Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 sets out how rent should be increased by a landlord of an assured periodic tenant. For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice.

4. Section 14 deals with determination of rent by the Tribunal when there has been a reference. The Tribunal determine the rent at which, subject to qualifications they 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.

5. The qualifications are that the Tribunal will disregard (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.

Determination 6. Although we derived limited assistance from the parties’ submissions at the hearing, we benefitted most from the inspection of the premises which gave a clear picture of a very small flat with very limited space and some prevalent disrepair. This formed the basis of our decision which was put in summary form before this one. Judge Shepherd 18th December 2025

RIGHTS OF APPEAL 1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-Tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

📊 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 property's condition.
  • The rent reflects the fair market value considering comparable properties.
  • Rent adjustments are made according to the tenant's ability to pay.
  • Disrepair issues in the property lead to a rent reduction.
  • Improvements made by the tenant contribute to a rent reduction.

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 £750 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the open market value of the property, adjusted for disrepair and lack of amenities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 Sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and its comparison to similar properties.

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 should consider the condition of their property and compare it to similar properties when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition and comparable rents were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent disputes.

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.