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 £1200 per month after considering similar rental prices in the area and the tenant's financial situation.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for any tenant-provided furnishings.

Topics

tenancy determinationrent adjustmentfair market rent

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 open market conditions where a willing landlord would let the property under similar terms.

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 comparable evidence and local rental values.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new rent of £1200 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account comparable rental evidence and the tenant's financial situation.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AL/MNR/2023/0466

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 Flat 32 [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [COMPANY] [NAME] (UK) [COMPANY], 2nd floor [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1200 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 17 October 2024

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/a Per Month

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced October 2018

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with tenancy agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Wardrobe

9. Description of premises A second floor studio flat situated in a purpose built 4 storey block.

[NAME] of Decision 17 October 2024

Case Reference

: LON/00AL/MNR/2023/0466

Property : Flat 32 [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [NAME] (UK) [RESPONDENT] : Mr [COUNSEL], Head of Lettings

GCP

Date of Objection : 1 November 2023

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] Valuer

Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 17 October 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The tribunal determines a rent of £1200 per calendar month with effect from 17 October 2024. ____________________________________

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

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 24 October 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1200 in place of the existing rent of £1050 per month to take effect from 1 December 2023.

2. On 1 November 2023 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.

Inspection and hearing 3. A video hearing was held on 17 October to discuss the application which was attended by Ms [APPELLANT], the tenant and Mr [APPELLANT], Head of Lettings for GCP (UK) [APPELLANT].

4. Ms [NAME] told the tribunal that her written submissions should stand as her case and she had no further evidence to give.

5. Mr [NAME] provided further rental transaction evidence from [NAME] for recently let studio flats. He reported rental settlements that ranged from £1250 - £1325 per month for studio flats of a similar type to the subject. The submitted comparable transactions varied in size from 336 ft2 to 409ft2 gross internal area (GIA). The tribunal are told Flat 32 has a GIA of 356ft2.

6. The tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and the oral submissions made at the hearing.

Determination and Valuation 7. 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 its current condition would be in the region of £1250 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments to reflect any tenant furniture and floor coverings at the property.

8. The full valuation is shown below:

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 [NAME] under an assured tenancy was £1,200 per calendar month.

10. The tribunal directed the new rent of £1,200 to take effect on 17 October 2024. The tribunal were told that the tenant is in receipt of Universal Credit. The tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship.

Chairman: [NAME]: 17 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 subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA. You can only appeal if the First-tier Tribunal decision was wrong on one or more points of law and you must say why the First-tier Tribunal was wrong in law.

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment based on the condition of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and local rental values.
  • A tenant is entitled to a reduced rent if the property's condition significantly affects its market value.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for the condition of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair rent adjustment based on the property's condition and market conditions.
  • A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment if the property conditions are unsatisfactory.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a new rent of £1200 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable rental evidence and the tenant's financial situation.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparable rental evidence showed that similar properties were renting for around £1250 per month.

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

The decision was for the tenant, adjusting the rent to be fair and manageable.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also seek a fair rent adjustment based on comparable evidence.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rental evidence from similar properties in the area mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, if there are grounds to believe the decision was wrong on a point of law.

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

Yes, it is recommended to get legal 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.