Peter Roberts FRICS CEnvDate 5 July 2026Property: Reading, RG8 7RNType of application: sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988
REASONS
[3]On 29 December 2025, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,750 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £2,250 pcm to take effect from 1 February 2026. On 3 January 2026, 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. The assured tenancy commenced on 1 November 2022 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly. The initial rent payable was £2,000 pcm. Validity of the Section 13 Notice[6]The Tenant has challenged the validity of the Landlord’s Section 13 Notice on the following main grounds: a) The Tenancy is alleged to be questionable and potentially unenforceable b) Conflicting and ambiguous rent increase information. c) Lack of compliance with repair obligations As at the date of the Section 13 Notice, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of such notices. However, paragraph 48 of the Court of Appeal Decision in Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67 states: “That is not to say that a rent assessment committee may not sometimes need to take a view whether a notice is valid. If it considers that a notice is invalid, it may decline to proceed until the question has been determined by the court. Conversely, if it considers that a notice is valid and that objections are without substance, it may proceed to determine the appropriate rent, but its determination will not prevent a tenant from disputing the validity of the notice.” The Tenancy expired on 30 October 2023 at which point a statutory periodic tenancy arose. The validity, or otherwise, of the Tenancy therefore has no relevance to the validity of the Section 13 Notice. Grounds b and c also have no relevance to the statutory requirements for the service of the Section 13 Notice. 2[7]The Tribunal has therefore taken the view that the Section 13 Notice is valid and has proceeded on this basis.[8]However, this does not preclude either Party referring the matter to the County Court for a formal determination. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.[9]As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.[10]N/A Liability for Council Tax[11]The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax. Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.[12]Clause 4.6 states: “Not to assign, underlet, charge, share or part with possession or occupation of the Premises or any part of them, except with the written permission of the Landlord. The Landlord consents to up a to a maximum of two lodgers being taken on by the Tenant for the duration of the Term.”[13]Clause 4.7 states: “a) Not to carry on upon the Premises any professional, trade or business whatsoever and not to register any company or business at the Premises or receive paying guests or lodgers on the Premises without the prior written consent of the Landlord. b) To use the Premises only as a single private dwelling house for the use of the Lawful Occupiers as their only or principal home.”[14]It is apparent from this drafting that the Tenant is permitted to take up to two lodgers. However, the Tenant is not permitted to use the Property for anything 3 other than residential purposes and there is no obligation for the Landlord to grant permission or act reasonably in this regard. Inspection/Hearing[15]The Tribunal intended to inspect the Property, but it was not possible to conclude arrangements. However, the Tenant submitted videos of the Property such that it was decided to dispense with an inspection. The Property[16]The Tribunal has relied upon the written representations of the Parties together with the photographs and videos provided by the Tenant.[17]The Property comprises a historic detached house with a thatched roof located in an isolated rural setting providing three rooms together with a kitchen and WC at ground level and two bedrooms together with an ensuite and family bathroom, a landing and extra room at first floor level.[18]There are gardens to the front and rear of the Property together with outbuildings and open parking. Evidence The Tenant.[19]The Tenant made detailed and extensive submissions that included a) photographs of the Property, b) a floorplan, c) copy of the Tenancy, d) submissions in respect of the validity of the Section 13 Notice, e) comments in respect of comparables, f) further comments and evidence in respect of damp, mould, mice, fencing and drain covers and g) further information including submissions in respect of financial hardship.[20]The Tribunal has also had regard to the email dated 6 March 2026 in which the Tenant commented in respect of the number of bedrooms at the Property and summarised their overall position.[21]The Tenant asserted that the market rent payable was “£2,000 to £2,200 (if up to standard)”[22]In support of this assertion, the Tenant included correspondence from the tenant of Hardwick Stud Farmhouse who confirmed that their rent was increased from £2,250 to £2,323 per month in August 2025. They also referred to Leigh Cottage 4 which they advised had been let in August 2025 at £1,600/£1,625 pcm and asserted that: “A significant number of properties (approx. 27) rented through Hardwick Estate are rented significantly lower than market rents but not necessarily to people on low incomes. It’s my understanding (further information can be provided) that these tenants are not receiving rent increases to the extent that I am and their increases are generally in line with the policy of every 2 years and at CPI. Examples include 2-bed semi-detached@ £950 -£1,200 pcm and 2-3 bed detached: £1,000-£1,400 pcm”[23]Reference was also made to the letting of properties with the Yattendon and Englefield Estate and a screenshot printout was provided of an online rental estimate of the Property of between £2,191 and £2,430 pcm.[24]The Tenant provided a detailed commentary in respect of valuations provided by Knight Frank pursuant to a previous Tribunal Hearing concerning the Property. However, the Knight Frank Report(s) had not been provided to the Tribunal on this occasion and were therefore unavailable. The Tribunal noted from the Tenant’s submissions that Dower House had previously been valued at £4,500 pcm and, following extended marketing, achieved £3,800 pcm. The analysis provided by the Tenant concluded that applying a similar approach to the previous valuation of the Property at £2,500 to £2,750 pcm would suggest a market rental of £2,112.50 to £2,323.75 pcm in respect of the Property.[25]The Tribunal was also provided with printouts of four letting details together with extracts from Landlord Today and the Financial Times. It is not considered practicable or proportionate for the Tribunal to comment in depth on all these matters other than to confirm that they have been fully taken into account.[26]In a similar manner, the Tribunal has also noted the Tenant’s comments in respect of damp, mould, condensation, holes in the structure, mice infestation, broken fencing and the rusty drain cover. The Landlord[27]Whilst the Landlord confirmed that the Hardwick Estate has “…22 Market Rent Properties and 5 properties we aim to receive Market Rent for” no details of the rents being paid were provided to the Tribunal.[28]The Landlord referred to GDPR as its justification for not providing details of other rents but the Tribunal does not accept that as a valid reason for declining to disclose evidence in its possession. 5[29]Whilst the Landlord also refers to the Knight Frank Reports that the Tribunal understands were submitted under previous proceedings, these have not been provided to the Tribunal under these proceedings. The Landlord has therefore not provided any rental evidence for consideration by the Tribunal. Determination and Valuation[30]In determining market rents, the Tribunal has regard to prevailing levels of rent in the general locality and achieved rental values in respect of other properties of comparable accommodation and provision that would be likely to be considered by a prospective tenant.[31]The current rent, and the period that has passed since that rent was agreed or determined is not relevant. Previous changes in rent are therefore disregarded as the Tribunal is required to assess the rent that would be offered by a prospective tenant who has no knowledge of the existing or previous rents. Similarly, historic rents achieved elsewhere are of limited relevance.[32]The legislation requires the Tribunal to have regard to market demand assuming that the landlord is willing. The Tribunal is therefore unable to have any regard to the personal circumstances or identities of the actual landlord and tenant in assessing the level of rent.[33]It is therefore irrelevant whether or not the Landlord requires the rent to be at a certain level to fund its liabilities and/or its repair obligations under the lease or whether the Tenant feels that the services provided by the Landlord are “value for money.” As such, the cost of mortgage payments and property maintenance to the Landlord does not affect the rent that would be offered by a prospective tenant in the market and must be disregarded.[34]Similarly, the ability, or otherwise, of the Tenant to pay the rent demanded cannot be taken into account and the Tribunal must disregard the Tenant’s personal circumstances as the Property is assumed to be “vacant and to let.”[35]Furthermore, the valuation exercise assumes a hypothetical tenant who does not have the benefit of any knowledge obtained from being in occupation of the Property.[36]In this regard, whilst the valuation exercise assumes that, regardless as to the condition of the Property, a hypothetical tenant would be prepared to take occupation and negotiate a rent, it does not follow that the actual Tenant and the hypothetical tenant are one and the same. As such, the actual Tenant may be prepared to pay a certain level of rent to remain in occupation for personal reasons whereas the hypothetical tenant is bidding on the assumption that the Property is vacant and to let. 6[37]In the absence of the Landlord providing any information in respect of the rents agreed in respect of the rented houses within the wider estate, the main evidence available to the Tribunal is that provided by the Tenant comprising letting particulars. However, this is of limited assistance due to the properties being located some distance from the Property and also being different in nature thereby appealing to a different market.[38]In this regard, whilst the Property is undeniably full of character and is in good condition considering its age, notwithstanding the comments made by the Tenant, its location and comparatively limited accommodation would impact upon the number of prospective tenants willing to submit a rental bid.[39]The Tribunal does not consider that the evidence provided by the Tenant comprises open market rental evidence derived from lettings that have been secured following open market and competitive bidding such that it places limited weight thereupon. The Tribunal has not been provided with the Knight Frank valuations and the Landlord has declined to provide any evidence on the grounds of GDPR.[40]Bearing these points in mind, the Tribunal considers that, in reliance on its own expert and general knowledge of values in the area, the market rental was in the order of £2,500 pcm. Market rent Undue hardship £2,500.00 pcm[12]The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.[13]The Tenant has claimed Financial Hardship and the Tribunal has set out its conclusions in respect of each point raised as follows:[14]Clause 4.6 of the Tenancy permits the Tenant to have up to two lodgers at the Property. The Tribunal notes that the Landlord appears to consider that these provisions no longer apply but that is a matter for the Parties to resolve. The Tribunal can only have regard to the terms of the Tenancy as provided.[15]This is because section 14 (1) (c) of the Housing Act 1988 provides that the assumed tenancy for the purposes of assessing the market rent shall be the same as the previous contractual tenancy save for the rent. This means that, because 7 clause 4.6 was in the Tenancy, the assessment of rent by this Tribunal, assumes that this clause has been carried forward.[16]Clause 4.7 of the Tenancy prevents the use of the Property for anything other than residential purposes. As such, any losses that have arisen in respect of the carrying out of the business known as Cherries Pet Services are not a matter for this Tribunal to consider. Again, the Tribunal can only have regard to the terms of the Tenancy as provided.[17]The Tribunal notes the medical aspects raised by the Tenant, but this is not a matter than can be taken into account in considering hardship.[18]Taking all these matters into account, the Tribunal does not consider that the test for establishing undue hardship has been met on this occasion. Decision[19]Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £2,500 per calendar month with effect from 1 February 2026. The rent payable may not, therefore, exceed this figure. However, this does not prevent the Landlord from charging a lower figure. APPEAL PROVISIONS 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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal. 8