Habib Choudhury v Paulina Madej

A tribunal determining market rent must explain why it rejects evidence said to indicate a higher rent. It need not list every item of evidence, but must identify the material rejected and briefly explain why, so the losing party can understand the decision. The tribunal’s expertise and inspection of the property do not remove that duty. Under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, landlord neglect is disregarded when assessing market value; property condition may instead be relevant to deductions. Reasons relying on neglect or lack of equipment to explain market value may fail to show that the statutory approach was followed.

The landlord appealed against a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determination of the rent for a converted studio flat occupied by the tenant. The landlord had proposed a rent of £1,600 per month under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988. On the tenant’s referral under section 13(4), the FTT assessed the open-market rent in good tenantable condition at £1,000 per month, then made deductions and set the rent at £750 per month.

The FTT referred to comparable evidence, its own knowledge of local rents and its inspection, but did not explain why it rejected comparables said to show higher rents, including smaller flats in the same building. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on that issue. The accuracy of the comparables and the parties’ dispute about council tax were not for determination. The central question was whether the FTT had adequately explained its rent determination.

1. Appeal allowed. The FTT’s decision was set aside in full and the matter remitted for fresh determination by a different panel.

2. A tribunal need not set out every item of evidence or repeat material already well known to the parties. It must, however, explain its decision so that the losing party understands why it lost. Where it rejects evidence, it must engage with that evidence, identify it at least briefly and explain why it was rejected. Merely stating that comparable evidence was considered is insufficient. A few sentences may suffice.

3. The FTT could use its own expert knowledge of local rents and its inspection. But those matters did not explain why the landlord’s comparables, said to indicate higher rents, were rejected. The Upper Tribunal did not determine the accuracy or weight of those comparables; that was for the FTT on redetermination.

4. Under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, landlord neglect is disregarded when determining market value. Property condition may instead inform the deductions from that value. The FTT’s references to neglect and lack of equipment did not explain its assessment of market value and left no confidence that it had taken account of relevant matters and disregarded irrelevant ones.

5. The whole decision, including both the market rent and deductions, was set aside. Any comments about council tax that had been deleted from the permission decision had no effect. The matter was remitted to a different FTT panel.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): In [2026] UKUT 302 (LC) , set aside the FTT decision in full and remitted the matter to a different panel.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 27 November 2025, determined the rent at £750 per month after assessing an open-market rent and making deductions.