VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Rent at £1400 for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting it at £1400 per month. The decision was based on the property's condition and comparable evidence from the local rental market.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determinations

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 payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent for the property, considering the condition of the property and comparable evidence. The determination takes into account the periods of the existing tenancy and ensures that the terms of the new tenancy are similar to the original, except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on comparable evidence and market conditions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1400 per month, considering the property's condition and comparable evidence. The decision was made under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AR/MNR/2023/0043

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 46 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [NAME] c/o [NAME] [ADDRESS], Bristol, Avon, [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] & [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1400 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 28th January 2023

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

*4. Service charges are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 28th February 2020

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 Months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises A purpose built second floor flat with two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom, en-suite shower room, electric heating system.

[NAME] of Decision 25th April 2023

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AR/MNR/2023/0043 Property : 46 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant (Tenant) : Mr [COUNSEL] [NAME] & [NAME] [COUNSEL] : None Respondent : [redacted] : [NAME] of [NAME] : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members :

Mr [NAME] : Paper determination Date of decision : 25th April 2023

DECISION

2

Decision of the tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that the rent that the property in its current condition as at 1st May 2023 might reasonably be expected to achieve in the open market under an assured tenancy is £1400 per month Background 1. The tenants have lived in the property as an assured periodic tenant since 28th February 2020 with an agreement with [NAME] for a period of one year.

2. On the 1st December 2022 the landlord’s letting agent served a notice pursuant to section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 seeking to increase the rent from £1075 to £1800 per month effective from 28th January 2023.

3. By an [NAME] dated the 27th February 2023, the tenants referred that notice to the Tribunal for a determination of the market rent. The Tribunal issued Directions for the conduct of the matter on 3rd March 2023.

4. The Tribunal considered the matter suitable for a determination on the papers and therefore a hearing was not necessary. The parties did not disagree with this arrangement. The Evidence 5. The parties have submitted the the tenancy agreement, completed rent appeal statement and comparable evidence. Inspection 6. The Tribunal did not inspect the property and relied on the information provided by the parties and its expert knowledge. The property is a purpose built second floor flat forming part of a four storey block built in 2005. The block is some one mile from Romford town centre and railway station.

7. The accommodation comprises two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom. The Law

3 8. The rules governing a determination are set out in section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, the Tribunal is to determine the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy, subject to disregards in relation to the nature of the tenancy (i.e. it being granted to a “sitting tenant”) and any increase or reduction in the value due to the tenant’s improvements or failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure, exterior and any installations pursuant to section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a duty to keep the property in good decorative order in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The valuation 9. Having carefully considered all the evidence and the two comparables submitted by the landlord’s letting agent, The Tribunal considers that the rent that would be achieved in its current condition with reasonably modern kitchen and bathroom fittings, modern services and central heating, white goods supplied by the landlord would be £1400 per month. This figure is based upon the comparable evidence and the Tribunal has utilized its own professional judgement and experience in the matter and no adjustments have been made for condition. 10 The average rate for rental properties in the Outer London area have gone up every quarter since the end of 2019, according to the online property portal Righmove. The rent increases are due to not enough properties coming to the market to meet demand and the number of homes for rent is 46 per cent below 2019 levels. This puts this decision in context with the current rental market.

11. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement, which incorporates the usual repair obligations.

12. The Tribunal received no evidence of hardship and, therefore, the rent determined by the tribunal is to take effect from 25th April 2023.

[NAME] 25th April 2023

4

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 based on the property's condition.
  • The rent should be adjusted according to market comparables.
  • The court allows rent adjustments that reflect improvements made by the tenant.
  • The tenant's entitlement includes adjustments for the scarcity of similar properties.
  • The need for consultation requirements under specific acts does not affect the entitlement to a fair market rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified as leading against the claimant in the provided cases.)

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £1400 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and comparable evidence from the local rental market.

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 comparable evidence showing the fair market rent for similar properties.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider comparable evidence when disputing rent with a landlord.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable evidence from the local rental market mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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 determinations.

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.