VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy Based on Market Conditions

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on what similar properties in LB Hillingdon are renting for. The rent was set at £650 per calendar month starting from 1 September 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent that reflects the open market value of the a person under an assured tenancy, ignoring any improvements made by the tenant.

Topics

tenancy rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent they are paying under an assured tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. When determining the rent, the tribunal considers what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market, excluding any increases due to improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions in LB Hillingdon.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy based on market conditions in LB Hillingdon, setting the rent at £650 per calendar month effective from 1 September 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AK/MNR/2025/0939

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]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 650 Per Cal month

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 September 2025

*3. The amount included for services is Nil Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included N/A

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 2013

6. Length of the term or rental period Calendar monthly periodic

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Per tenancy

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises The [NAME] is the ground floor reception room in a 3 bedroom 1920’s terraced house. Brick walls rendered to front, double pitched main roof in double lap tile, hipped roof to bay in fair condition. [NAME] comprises – 4 bedrooms, box room, kitchen, bathroom/ wc. . Communal area: rear garden, 2 parking spaces to brick paved, limited on street parking. Rent does not include services or bills.. The Landlord may charge a rent up to but, not in excess of the figure shown at box 1.

[NAME] of Decision 3 February 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : LON/00AS/MNR/2025/0939 [NAME] : 46 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : [COUNSEL] [NAME] (Solicitors) Respondent : [redacted] Representative : None Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members :

[NAME] and venue of Hearing : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 3 February 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received application forms dated 19 August 2025 and 30 September 2025 from the [APPELLANT] of the [NAME], regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice, dated 31 July 2025, proposed a new rent of £650 per calendar month with effect from and including 1 September 2025. The passing rent was said to be £365 per calendar month.

2

3 The tenancy is an assured periodic calendar monthly tenancy. A copy of the last tenancy agreement was provided. It was said to have run originally from 2013.

4 Directions dated 8 December 2025 were issued inviting representations on the substantive issue of the new rent. Neither party requested a hearing. The Tribunal does not routinely carry out inspections.

5 The Tribunal carefully considered and noted such representations as it received from both parties and the location layout size and condition of the [NAME] and other available and let comparable properties nearby.

[NAME]

6 The [NAME] is one room (former front ground floor reception room) within a purpose built 2 level 1920’s terraced house, itself within an established residential estate of similar roads within LB Hillingdon. Accommodation within the house is 4 rooms, 2 on the ground level 2 on the first floor. The box room, bathroom and kitchen all appeared to be shared between the 4 residents of the 4 rooms. There is a rear garden and a front paved driveway for 2 cars. On road parking is restricted. The building has white painted rendered front wall and a double pitched roof finished to double lap concrete tiles roof over. (Google Streetview March 2022). Windows are early style PVCu framed double glazed. The heating is not stated. No furniture is included in the letting of the room. Carpets and curtains are not mentioned. It is assumed that standard white goods are provided in the kitchen shared between the residents including the [APPELLANT] of the [NAME].

7 The Tribunal assumes that [NAME] and the shared common areas were let and maintained in fair condition. No communal services are provided and no bills for such are included in the rent.

Law

8 In accordance with the terms of S14 of the Housing Act 1988 we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the [NAME] might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to [APPELLANT]’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the [APPELLANT]’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the [NAME] falls to be valued as it stands; assuming it to be in reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

9 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in LB Hillingdon determines that the subject [NAME] would let on a normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £650 pcm, fully fitted and in good order. There are no issues about the [NAME] to

3 consider whether to make a deduction for. Some tenants prefer to provide their own furniture, others prefer the landlord to provide same.

10 The new rent will therefore be £650 per calendar month with effect from 1 September 2025. The Landlord is not obliged to charge this sum and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation. They may not however, charge a rent in excess of it.

Name: [NAME]: 3 February 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

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 to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the [NAME], and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application 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 Tribunal determined the rent based on its general knowledge of market rent levels in the area.
  • The Tribunal considered the location, layout, size, and condition of the property and comparable properties nearby.
  • The Tribunal assumed the property and shared common areas were let and maintained in fair condition.
  • The Tribunal determined the open market rent for the property to be £650 per calendar month.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the rent for an assured periodic tenancy should be £650 per calendar month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the current market conditions for similar properties in LB Hillingdon.

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 current market value of similar properties.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their rent to be set based on the current market value of similar properties.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the current market conditions for similar properties 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 like this.

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.