CaseNode API
Search
Explorer
Docs
Articles
Log in
Sign up
Flat 1 54 Boleyn Road, Dalston, London N16 8JL LON/00AM/MNR/2024/0625
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No
LON/00AM/MNR/2024/0625
Between
Ms Maiya Rahman
Applicant
Peabody Trust
Respondent
Ms Maiya Rahman
Tenant
Peabody Trust
Landlord
Before
Mr D Jagger MRICS
Date
11 February 2025
Property: Flat 1 Boleyn Court, Dalston London N16 8JL
DECISION
The Tribunal determines a rent of
£1,700
per calendar month with effect from
18 August 2024
. ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 SUMMARY REASONS Background
[1]
On the
25 June 2024
the Landlord served a notice under
Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988
which proposed a new rent of
£1,418
per month in place of the existing rent of
£1,296
per month to take effect from
18 August 2024
. This proposed rental increase in based upon the Government’s maximum percentage increase and this matter is considered at paragraph 10 of these reasons.
[2]
The Tenant’s application is dated
17 August 2024
and served 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]
In a letter dated
9 January 2025
, the Tribunal wrote to the parties stating “The application was not received at this office before the date when the new rent specified in the notice of increase was to take effect. The Notice of Increase specifies the new rent start date as
18th August 2024
and the application was received
21st August 2024
. A Tribunal may therefore decide that the application is out of time and that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the rent”. The Tenants application is signed and dated
17 August 2024
and therefore the Tribunal determines that it does have jurisdiction to consider this matter. Inspection
[4]
The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the limited papers. Evidence
[5]
The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from the parties. Determination and Valuation
[6]
Firstly, having consideration of the parties’ comparable evidence together with our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Dalston area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in its current condition would be
£1,700
per month.
[7]
The Tribunal have not made an adjustment in relation to condition of the property due to a lack of evidence provided by the parties. 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 governed by the relevant clause in the agreement was
£1,700
per calendar month.
[9]
The Tribunal directs the new rent of
£1,700
to take effect on the
18 August 2024
. This being the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.
[10]
It is often the case that market rents are in excess of those that maybe charged by social landlord’s as it is a significant part of their remit to provide affordable housing. As such depending on the type of tenancy agreement their calculation of rent is either at a percentage of market rent or by way of index. Comparison is made with the open market rather than limited to other properties which are offered by social housing providers. It is assumed that the landlord will by usual convention of social landlord’s not seek to increase the rent proposed in its original notice as a result of this determination. Chairman Duncan Jagger MRICS
11 February 2025
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. --- decision_2.pdf --- 1 Case Reference : LON/00AM/MNR/2024/0625 Property : Flat 1 54 Boleyn Road, Dalston, London N16 8JL Tenant : Ms Maiya Rahman Landlord : Peabody Trust Date of Objection :
17 August 2024
Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the
Housing Act 1988
Tribunal : Mr D Jagger MRICS Date of Summary Reasons :
11 February 2025
_______________________________________________ DECISION The Tribunal determines a rent of
£1,700
per calendar month with effect from
18 August 2024
. ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 SUMMARY REASONS FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) 2 Background
[1]
On the
25 June 2024
the Landlord served a notice under
Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988
which proposed a new rent of
£1,418
per month in place of the existing rent of
£1,296
per month to take effect from
18 August 2024
. This proposed rental increase in based upon the Government’s maximum percentage increase and this matter is considered at paragraph 10 of these reasons.
[2]
The Tenant’s application is dated
17 August 2024
and served 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]
In a letter dated
9 January 2025
, the Tribunal wrote to the parties stating “The application was not received at this office before the date when the new rent specified in the notice of increase was to take effect. The Notice of Increase specifies the new rent start date as
18th August 2024
and the application was received
21st August 2024
. A Tribunal may therefore decide that the application is out of time and that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the rent”. The Tenants application is signed and dated
17 August 2024
and therefore the Tribunal determines that it does have jurisdiction to consider this matter. Inspection
[4]
The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the limited papers. Evidence
[5]
The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from the parties. Determination and Valuation
[6]
Firstly, having consideration of the parties’ comparable evidence together with our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the Dalston area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in its current condition would be
£1,700
per month.
[7]
The Tribunal have not made an adjustment in relation to condition of the property due to a lack of evidence provided by the parties. 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 governed by the relevant clause in the agreement was
£1,700
per calendar month. 3
[9]
The Tribunal directs the new rent of
£1,700
to take effect on the
18 August 2024
. This being the date set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.
[10]
It is often the case that market rents are in excess of those that maybe charged by social landlord’s as it is a significant part of their remit to provide affordable housing. As such depending on the type of tenancy agreement their calculation of rent is either at a percentage of market rent or by way of index. Comparison is made with the open market rather than limited to other properties which are offered by social housing providers. It is assumed that the landlord will by usual convention of social landlord’s not seek to increase the rent proposed in its original notice as a result of this determination. Chairman Duncan Jagger MRICS
11 February 2025
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.
Case law
Browse all courts and tribunals
Search judgments
Explore the citation graph
Product
Home
Case Law Research for Lawyers
API documentation
Writing
All articles
The Legal AI Industry Is Solving the Wrong Problem
AI Hallucinations in UK Courts: The Cases, the Consequences, and How to Prevent Them