Tribunal Sets New Rent for Property Based on Market Conditions
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rent for a property based on current market conditions, excluding the value of improvements made by the tenant. The new rent is £147.00 per week, effective from April 6, 2020.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent set at the market rate, excluding the value of any improvements made by the tenant.
📖 What the law says
Under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord would charge in the open market for a similar tenancy. Importantly, the tribunal must disregard any increase in the property's value due to improvements made by the tenant.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set a new rent for a property based on market conditions and disregarded tenant improvements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined the rent for a property based on market conditions, ignoring the value of improvements made by the tenant. The decision took effect on April 6, 2020.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CR/MNR/2020/0025
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 37 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] (Hons) FRICS
Landlord [NAME] [ADDRESS], Birmingham, West Midlands, [POSTCODE]
Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] & Mrs [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £147.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 06 April 2020
3. The amount included for services is £2.54 Per Week
4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced December 2008
6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs L+T 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord -
9. Description of premises Modern 3 storey house with 3 bedrooms. The market rent is above the level proposed by the landlord.
[NAME] (Hons) FRICS Date of Decision 26 June 2020
Page 1 of 4
Case Reference : BIR/00CR/MNR/2020/0025
HMCTS (paper, video : P: PAPERREMOTE audio) Property : 37 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Landlord : [NAME]
Tenants : [NAME] of Application : An Application for a Determination under
Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Member : V [NAME] – Regional Surveyor
Date of Decision : 26 June 2020
Date of Reasons : 8 July 2020
_____________________________________________________
DECISION _____________________________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND
1. By way of a notice dated 24 February 2020, the Landlord sought to increase the rental in respect of 37 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] to £112.26 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.54 per week) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) with effect from 6 April 2020.
2. The tenancy commenced on 8 December 2008 and the rent payable at the time of the notice was £106.85 per week.
3. By an application received on 3 April 2020, the Tenants referred the Notice of increase of rent served by the Landlord to the Tribunal.
4. Due to the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency, the Tribunal advised the parties that it would determine the Market Rent for [NAME] based on the written submissions by the parties; the Tribunal did not intend to hold an oral hearing (unless one was requested by the parties) or inspect [NAME] internally. This is following Public Health England’s advice to avoid unnecessary travel and social interaction for the time being.
5. Neither party requested a hearing.
6. The parties were further advised that the Tribunal may use internet mapping applications to gather some information about the location of [NAME] and may, in some cases, inspect externally without entering onto [NAME]. However, the parties were strongly encouraged to complete the reply form (provided by the Tribunal) to provide the Tribunal additional information regarding [NAME].
7. Both parties completed the reply forms.
8. On 26 June 2020, the Tribunal determined that the rent for the purposes of Section 14 was £147.00 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.54 per week) with effect from 6 April 2020. The Tribunal also observed that the rent that the Landlord intended to charge was £112.26 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.54 per week).
9. By way of a letter dated 30 June 2020, the Tenants requested reasons for the decision and stated that the object of their appeal was the service charge rather than the rent itself.
Page 3 of 4
[NAME]
10. The Tribunal carried out an external roadside inspection of [NAME]. From that inspection and the information provided to the Tribunal, [NAME] comprises the following:
[NAME] is a modern terraced house arranged over three floors with the following accommodation:
Hall, lounge, kitchen, three bedrooms; bathroom. [NAME] incorporates a garage at ground floor level and there are gardens externally.
[NAME] benefits from gas fired central heating and double glazing.
[NAME] is situated on a modern estate of mixed housing types approximately 1.4 miles to the north east of Halesowen town centre.
Submissions of the Tenants.
11. The Tenants confirmed the accommodation offered by [NAME] and that they had provided the white goods and carpets and curtains.
The Tenants also stated that there was no justification for the service charge as there was only a small area of grass and a bush to be maintained.
Submissions of the Landlord.
12. Submissions of the Landlord were provided by [RESPONDENT], Rent Setting and Service Charge Officer.
The submissions confirmed that the rent for [NAME] is a social rent which follows government guidelines and is increased by the Consumer Price Index figure of 1.7% plus 1.0% ie 2.7% in total. The Landlord stated that the service charge related to management and estate maintenance.
THE LAW
13. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal must determine the rent at which it considers that the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
Page 4 of 4
14. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), must ignore the effect on the rental value of [NAME] of any relevant tenant’s improvements as defined in section 14(2) 0f the Act.
VALUATION
15. The Tribunal had regard to the evidence and submissions of the parties, the relevant law and their own knowledge and experience as an expert Tribunal but not any special or secret knowledge.
16. The service charge in respect of this Property is a “fixed” service charge (as opposed to a “variable” service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) as stated on the notice of increase. Despite the fact that this charge may actually vary over the years, the Tribunal cannot consider this item independently of the rent. The Tribunal must consider the both items together; the total amount charged to the Tenants i.e. the rent plus the service charge.
17. Initially, the Tribunal’s determination considers what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for [NAME] if it were let today. It did this by using its own general knowledge of the market rent levels in Halesowen. Taking all factors into consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the likely market rental would be £160.00 per week. The Tribunal made a further deduction of £13.00 per week to reflect the Tenants’ white goods, carpets and curtains and decorating liability. This results in a rental of £147.00 per week including service charge.
18. The rent determined by the Tribunal for the purposes of Section 14 was therefore, £147.00 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.54 per week) with effect from 6 April 2020. The Tribunal would reiterate that the rent that the Landlord intended to charge was £112.26 per week (including fixed service charges of £2.54 per week).
APPEAL
19. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.
V [NAME] (Hons) FRICS
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Property Under Housing Act 1988
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Lease Extension Premium
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Reasonable Costs for Leasehold Reform
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 set according to the current market rate.
- The tenant's improvements are excluded from the rent calculation.
- The proposal for rent changes complies with relevant legislation.
- The rent reflects the current market conditions and property state.
- The landlord's costs are reasonably determined by the tribunal.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The property is particularly suitable for elderly persons.
- The application of the HHSRS identifies a category 2 hazard.
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 for a property based on market conditions, excluding the value of improvements made by the tenant.
Who was involved?
The decision involved a landlord and tenants in a property dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the market conditions and disregarded the value of improvements made by the tenants.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the market rent level and the exclusion of tenant improvements.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider market conditions and the value of improvements when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included the current market rent levels and the value of tenant improvements.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on any point of law arising from this decision.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal issues.
