VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Rent at £910 for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, setting it at £910 per month. They considered the property's condition and compared it to similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on the open market value of the property.

Topics

rent assessmentassured periodic tenancyhousing act 1988

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 the rent based on what a willing landlord would expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the property's condition and comparable evidence from similar properties in the area.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent at £910 per month based on comparable evidence and the property's condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £910 per month, taking into account the property's condition and comparable evidence from the local market.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/31UH/MNR/2023/0255

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 11 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]. (Est. Man.) [NAME]. MRICS

Landlord [RESPONDENT] C/O 20-22 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £910 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1.12.23

3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1.4.22

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly Periodic

6. Allocation of liability for repairs s.11

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

8. Description of premises Modern two bedroom semi-detached house.

Chairman [NAME] of Decision 24.1.24

1

Case Reference : BIR/31UH/MNR/2023/0255

Property

: 11 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Appeal against a Notice proposing a new rent under an

Assured Periodic Tenancy under section 13(4) of the Housing

Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] [NAME].(Est.Man.) [NAME]. MRICS

Date and Venue of : None. Paper Determination. Hearing

Date of Decision : 24 January 2024

____________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Decision

1 The rent is determined at £910 (Nine Hundred and Ten Pounds) per month from

1 December 2023.

REASONS

Introduction

2 The tenant, Mr [APPELLANT], holds a monthly assured shorthold tenancy of a house known as 11 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. The tenancy was granted on

1 April 2022 for a term of one year at a rent of £895 per calendar month.

3 On 20 September 2023 the landlord served notice of increase under section 13(2) of The Housing Act 1988 proposing a rent of £945 per month to take effect on 1 December 2023. The tenant pays their own Council Tax and water rates.

4 On 28 November 2023 the tenant applied for the rent to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber.

5 On 1 December 2023 the Tribunal issued Directions inviting the parties to submit their evidence and submissions on the rental value.

6 Both parties sent submissions.

7 On 24 January 2024 the Tribunal considered the submissions and determined the Market Rent in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 at £910 (Nine Hundred and Ten Pounds) per calendar month.

8 On 30 January 2024 the Tribunal received a request for Reasons from the tenant.

The Law

9 Section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 states:

'(1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a rent assessment committee a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the committee shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the committee consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy -

(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to

which the notice relates;

(b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice;

(c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as

those of the tenancy to which the notice relates;...'

(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded -

(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant;

3

(b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant

improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the

tenant, if the improvement-

(i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to the

immediate landlord ...'

10 The jurisdiction of the Rent Assessment Committee was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) from 1 July 2013.

Facts Found

11 The Tribunal based its Decision on the facts provided by the parties' submissions.

12 The property comprises a two storey unfurnished semi-detached house with living room, two bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom. The house has central heating, double glazing, carpets, curtains and white goods provided by the landlord except the washing machine which was provided by the tenant. Outside there is a garage and private garden.

Submissions

13 The Applicants' Submission

Mr [APPELLANT] said the house had been in good condition when let and he had maintained it in the same condition. There had been some mould on the walls and around the windows in some rooms but this had been alleviated by increasing the ventilation and heating, although had not completely eradicated the problem.

He cited details of 12 houses advertised to let on [NAME], 8 of which had three bedrooms but 4 had 2 bedrooms similar to the subject property. The rents ranged from £795 pcm to £995 pcm across the sample but the 2 bedroom houses were at £795, £800 and two at £900 pcm. He drew particular attention to a house on [ADDRESS], Ratby, less than 100m away and probably built by the same developer, advertised at £795 pcm and said to be similar.

Mr [APPELLANT] submitted that the evidence suggested the proposed increase was too high

but did not specifically put forward a view of its market rental value at the date of notice.

Overall, he said the evidence did not suggest the landlord's asking rent of £945 pcm was justified or warranted.

14 The Respondents' Submission

For the landlord, Mr [RESPONDENT].[COMPANY] said the house had been modernised throughout. It was in a quiet and well sought after cul-de-sac and if he had been asked to market it he would have expected it to achieve £950 pcm without problem.

Decision

15 The Tribunal took account of the location, accommodation and condition of the property together with the parties' written submissions before reaching its decision.

16 The Tribunal considered the comparable evidence provided by Mr [APPELLANT] of which the closest in terms of description and accommodation was the house in [ADDRESS] (number not provided). No details of the terms of tenancy were provided other than that it was 'long term'. The house in [ADDRESS] was more heavily affected by the gable wall of the neighbouring property than the subject house, and in the Tribunal's view, the location of the subject house in a quiet cul-de-sac made it more attractive.

4

17 Taking an overal view of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determined the rent at £910.00 (Nine Hundred and Ten Pounds) per calendar month under section 14 of The Housing Act 1988 from the effective date in the landlord's Notice, 1 December 2023.

[NAME] [NAME].(Est.Man.) FRICS

Chairman

Appeal

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision an application may be made to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Property Chamber (Residential Property) on a point of law only. Any such application must be received within 28 days after the decision and accompanying reasons have been sent to the parties (Rule 52 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on the open market value of the property.
  • Local housing authorities must consider the appropriateness of enforcement actions under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
  • An HMO operator is liable for financial penalties if they fail to comply with licensing conditions and management regulations, including smoke alarm maintenance.
  • Steps leading to upper-floor flats are considered part of the building's exterior for service charge purposes.
  • A local housing authority has the power to serve an Improvement Notice if it considers category 2 hazards exist in a residential property.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Local authorities have a duty to make a Prohibition Order if they consider a Category 1 hazard exists in relation to residential property.

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 £910 per month.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and comparable evidence from similar properties in the area.

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 evidence of comparable properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant, who argued that the proposed rent was too high.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should gather evidence of comparable properties to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of comparable properties and the condition of the property itself mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an application may be made to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal on a point of law.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is 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.