VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets New Rent for Statutory Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on a new rent of £725 per month for a tenant's statutory periodic tenancy. The decision was based on evidence comparing similar rents in the area and the condition of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the premises.

Topics

tenancyrent determinationstatutory periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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 a fair market rent based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a new rent for a statutory periodic tenancy based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new rent of £725 per month for a statutory periodic tenancy based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the premises.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/45UH/MNR/2025/0749

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 [RESPONDENT] c/o [APPELLANT], 204 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 725.00 Per Calendar Month (including water rates and council tax and including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 3 September 2025

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 3 September 2020

5. Length of the term or rental period Statutory Periodic Tenancy

6. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with agreement

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Bed, chest of drawers, bedsit table.

8. Description of premises A first floor studio flat forming part of a mid-terrace Victorian building containing six studio flats. Accommodation comprises: studio room, bathroom, kitchenette

[NAME] of Decision 13 February 2026

1

Case Reference

: HAV/45UH/MNR/2025/0749

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [COUNSEL] : None

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 1 August 2025

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

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons : 13 February 2026

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £725 per calendar month with effect from 3 September 2025. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. The Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 dated 24 July 2025 which proposed a new rent of £725 per month in place of the existing rent of £700 per month to take effect from 3 September 2025. This being an increase of £25 per month.

2. The tenancy commenced on the 3 September 2020 for a period of 12 months at a rent of £700 per month. Therefore, this is a statutory periodic tenancy.

2. On the 1 August 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.

3.On the 29 September 2025, the Tribunal prepared Directions for the conduct of the case.

4. The parties did not request a hearing or an inspection, and the Tribunal agreed with this arrangement. Therefore, this case was considered on the basis of the papers provided by the parties with the assistance of Rightmove and Google Maps.

Evidence

5. The Tribunal received a completed reply form from the landlord together with a schedule of comparable rental evidence, Inventory and Check Report, floor plan and photographs. The tenant provided photographs of the external condition of the property and comparable evidence in connection with rental values in the area.

Determination and Valuation

6. Having consideration of the extensive evidence provided by the landlord and our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Worthing area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good lettable condition with modern fittings and services would be £725 per month. This rental value includes payment of Council Tax, Water Rates and all utilities.

7. The Tribunal has considered the submissions from the parties regarding the condition of the property and concludes the property is in reasonable condition, and no deductions have been made.

3 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 in its current condition was £725 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £725 per month to take effect on the 3 September 2025. This being the date in the Landlord’s notice.

Chairman: [NAME]: 13 February 2026

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 proposed rent increase is assessed against current market conditions.
  • The rent is adjusted for specific conditions of the property, such as damp or mold.
  • The tenant's ability to pay is considered in determining the fair market rent.
  • The condition of the property, including disrepair, affects the rent adjustment.
  • Market comparables are used to determine a fair market rent.

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 £725 per month for a statutory periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the property.

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 comparable rental evidence provided by the landlord.

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

The decision was for the landlord.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek a rent adjustment through the First-tier Tribunal.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the property, comparable rental evidence, and a schedule of the property's condition mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed according to the appeal provisions detailed in the judgment.

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.