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 £2385.00 per month after considering the property's condition and amenities. This decision helps tenants understand what a fair market rent should be for their type of tenancy.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy, adjusted for the property's condition and amenities.

Topics

tenancy agreementsrent determinationproperty conditions

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent they pay. The tribunal will then decide a fair market rent for the property, considering the property's condition and amenities. The new rent would be for a periodic tenancy similar to the current one, starting at the beginning of the next rental period. The tribunal must disregard certain factors when determining the rent, such as the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in property value due to improvements made by the tenant, and decreases in property value due to the tenant's non-compliance with tenancy 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 market conditions and property state.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a new rent of £2385.00 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and amenities. The decision was based on the Housing Act 1988, section 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HS/LON/00BK/MNR/2024/0047

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 1st & 2nd Floor Maisonette, U/F, 45 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr A [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord EXEDRA or [APPELLANT] 6 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 2385.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 23 January 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 23 February 1998

6. Length of the term or rental period monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Ss11 and 12 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Each bedroom [3 ] - has 1 bed, 1 wardrobe, 1 chest of drawers. Kitchen - fridge freezer, oven & hob, table & chairs, washing machine. No inventory - tenancy over 20 years

9. Description of premises 1st and 2nd floor converted flat in 4 storey terraced house

Chairman A Harris Date of Decision 16 May 2024

1

Case Reference

: HS/LON/00BK/MNR/2024/0047

Property : 1st & 2nd Floor Maisonette, U/F, 45 [ADDRESS] , [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Mr [APPELLANT]

Landlord : EXEDRA or [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 17 January 2024

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

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] [NAME]

Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons

: 16 May 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2385.00 per calendar month with effect from 23 January 2024. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 21 December 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £ 2500.00 in place of the existing rent of £ 1950.00 per month to take effect from 23 January 2024.

2. On 17 January 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 17 January 2024.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal has carried out an inspection of the property on 16 May 2024.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation 5. In the absence of rental comparables provided by the parties the tribunal has relied on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in the condition and with the amenities the market would expect would be in the region of £2650.00 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

The poor condition of the windows Basic bathroom Poor quality conversion of the 2nd floor front room into two

6. The full valuation is shown below:

PCM AST Market rent 2,650.00 £ less condition/terms 10.0% 265.00 -£ 2,385.00 £

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 £2385.00 per calendar month.

3

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £2385.00 to take effect on 23 January 2024 This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase

Chairman: A Harris

Date: 16 May 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.

📊 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 fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy.
  • The rent must be adjusted based on the condition of the property.
  • The rent must be adjusted based on the provided amenities.
  • The rent must be adjusted based on both the condition of the property and the provided amenities.

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 £2385.00 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and amenities, ensuring the rent reflects fair market value.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition and amenities of the property.

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 can use this decision to argue for a fair market rent based on the condition and amenities of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition and amenities of the property were key pieces of evidence.

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 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.