VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy Based on Local Values

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a new rent of £1,705 per month for an assured periodic tenancy after reviewing comparable evidence and local rental values. The decision took effect from 21st June 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and local rental values.

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 the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on comparable evidence and local rental values. The new rent should reflect what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured periodic tenancy.

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 Tribunal determined a new rent of £1,705 per month for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and local rental values. The decision took effect from 21st June 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HC/MNR/2025/0702

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] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [COMPANY] [COMPANY] Office, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ £1,705.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 21 June 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 21 June 2019

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises Detached Grade II Listed house with 3 bedrooms

[NAME] of Decision 28 July 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HC/MNR/2025/0702 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [COMPANY] : None Type of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 27th May 2025 Date of Decision : 28th July 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,705 per calendar month with effect from 21st June 2025.

HAV/00HC/MNR/2025/0702

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 7th May 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,750 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,590 per month to take effect from 21st June 2025.

2. On 27th May 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. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be £1,800 per calendar month.

6. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, curtains or blinds and associated fittings to all be provided by the Landlord.

7. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with white goods and curtains all supplied so some adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,800 Less deductions for:- Tenants’ provision of white goods

£30 Tenant’s provision of curtains/blinds

£15 General wants of repair/tired condition

£50

____ TOTAL RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£1,705

HAV/00HC/MNR/2025/0702

9. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £1,705 per month.

10. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship.

11.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £1,705 per month should take effect from 21st June 2025 this being the date specified in the notice.

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 11 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 determined the open market rent for the property in good condition to be £1,800 per month.
  • The tenant was credited £30 because they provided white goods.
  • The tenant was credited £15 for providing curtains or blinds.
  • The tenant was credited £50 due to the property's general want of repair and tired condition.
  • The new rent was set to take effect from the date specified in the landlord's notice.

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 £1,705 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 comparable evidence and local rental values, ensuring a fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the comparable evidence and local rental values provided by both parties.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a fair market rent.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should gather comparable evidence and local rental values to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from both the tenant and the landlord, along with comparable evidence and local rental values, mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed if the party wishes to challenge the outcome.

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 determination.

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.