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 £1,500 per month starting from June 30th, 2024, after reviewing the landlord's proposal and the tenant's objections.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancyrent determinationmarket 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 the tenancy. If a landlord proposes a new rent, the tenant can also apply to the tribunal to challenge this new proposed rent. The tribunal then determines a fair market rent for the property, considering various factors including the nature of the tenancy and any relevant improvements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new market rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a new market rent of £1,500 per calendar month for an assured periodic tenancy, effective from 30 June 2024, after considering the landlord's proposal and the tenant's objection.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BC/MNR/2024/0346

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 14, [NAME], 51-53 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mrs [RESPONDENT]

[RESPONDENT], 556-558 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1,500 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 30 June 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable - Per -

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 30 June 2023

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per the terms

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord 1 sofa, 1 dining table with 4 chairs, 1 chest of drawers, 1 coffee table, 1 bed including mattress, 1 fridge-freezer, 1 washing machine.

9. Description of premises A 1 bedroom flat located on the fourth floor including a living room, kitchen and bathroom.

[NAME] of Decision 8 October 2024

1

Case Reference

: LON/00BC/MNR/2024/0346

Property : Flat 14, [NAME], 51-53 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Mr [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Objection : 26 June 2024

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

Tribunal

: Mrs [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 8 October 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,500 per calendar month with effect from 30 June 2024. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 29 May 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,550 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,350 per month to take effect from 30 June 2024.

2. On 26 June 2024 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. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 26 June 2024.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property as it did not consider it necessary and neither party requested an inspection. The Tribunal did consider this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant in the original application. There were no additional written submissions from the parties.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of our own expert and general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £1,600 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments as per the valuation below:

per calendar month Market Rent

£1,600

Less Concierge service

) £100

)

£100

£1,500

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,500 per calendar month.

Decision 8. 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 £1,500 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1,500 to take effect on 30 June 2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

3

Chairman: [NAME]: 8 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 request for full reasons should be made within a month. 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 Tribunal used its own expert knowledge of rental values to determine the market rent.
  • The Tribunal considered the open market rent for the property in good condition to be £1,600 per month.
  • A deduction of £100 was made from the market rent due to the absence of a concierge service.
  • The new rent of £1,500 per month was directed to take effect from 30 June 2024.

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 £1,500 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The landlord proposed a new rent, and the tenant objected to it.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the landlord's proposal and the tenant's objections, then determined a fair market rent based on the property's value and conditions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied to determine the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the fair market value of the property and the conditions under which it was rented.

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

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

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also challenge a proposed rent increase if they believe it is unfair or does not reflect the current market value.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from both the landlord and the tenant were considered by the Tribunal.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal this decision if they disagree with the outcome.

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

It is recommended to seek 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.