VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts HMO Room Rent Due to Poor Conditions

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent of a furnished room in a HMO after considering the poor condition of shared facilities and ongoing broadband issues. The new rent was set at £360 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent adjusted based on the condition of shared facilities and utilities provided by the landlord.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent adjustmenthousing act

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.11

This section implies a covenant by the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. It also includes keeping installations for water, gas, electricity, and sanitation in proper working order. Additionally, it requires the maintenance of installations for space heating and heating water.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a furnished room in a HMO, adjusting downward from £400 pcm due to poor communal conditions and broadband issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a furnished room in a House in Multiple Occupation, adjusting it from £400 pcm to £360 pcm due to poor communal conditions and broadband issues.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

MAN/00CZ/MNR/2026/0097

Property

Room 2, 21 Lockwood Scar, Huddersfield, [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[NAME]

Tenant’s Representative

Landlord

Lockwood 21 Ltd

Landlord’s Address

44 [COUNSEL], Huddersfield, [POSTCODE]

Landlord’s Representative

Martin & Co – Huddersfield

Date of Application

7 March 2026

Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members Tribunal Judge Steer & [NAME] of Decision

19 May 2026

Rent Determined

£360.00 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

19 March 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 29 January 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £400.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £360.00 pcm to take effect from 19 March 2026.

2. On 7 March 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.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 19 October 2018 for a term of 6 months. The rental period is monthly.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. 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.

5. There are no service charges payable in respect of the Property which was let on a fully furnished basis.

Liability for Council Tax

6. The Landlord is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is inclusive of Council Tax.

Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.

7. The rent is inclusive of utilities, broadband, tv licencse and council tax and was let on a fully furnished basis.

Inspection/Hearing

8. Neither party requested an inspection or an oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise.

The Property

9. Room 2 (“the Property”) is a fully furnished first floor room with an ensuite bathroom measuring approximately 3.5m x 2.5m in a House in Multiple Occupation and forming part of 21 Lockwood Scar, Huddersfield, [POSTCODE]. The Property has a shared kitchen and living room.

3

The rent is inclusive of council tax, utilities, TV license and broadband.

Evidence

10. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms.

The Tenant.

11. The Tenant made the following comments:

a) There has been a significant and ongoing reduction in the standard of the shared facilities relating to:

• The broadband service has been unavailable for several months (more than 7 at the date of the application) with no confirmed repair date; and

• The communal sofa has been removed and has not been replaced, leaving the shared living area unusable. Further, there has been a general deterioration of the condition of the communal areas.

12. In terms of rental evidence, the Tenant has provided two comparable properties on the same street as the subject property, one of which is on the market to let at £350 pcm and the other at £320pcm.

The Landlord

13. The Landlord’s representative agreed that the sofa in the communal area had been removed due to it being in a poor condition and alleged that the occupiers were not looking after it. The Landlord’s representative offered a comparable room in a neighbouring property (Room 5, 23 Lockwood Scar) which was advertised to let at £365 pcm but which does not benefit from an ensuite bathroom. Further comparables were offered by the Landlord’s representative for rooms within the locality which ranged from £390pcm to £560pcm.

Determination and Valuation

14. The Tribunal considers that the comparables provided by the Landlord and the Tenant are relevant to this matter. It is accepted that the most reliable evidence are those rooms for let within neighbouring properties and the current rent for the Property.

15. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the current rent and the comparables provided by the Landlord and the Tenant, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be £400 pcm. This is the rent we would expect the Property to let for in the open market if it was in the same condition as the comparable properties.

4

16. From this level of rent, having viewed photographs of the communal living area, the supporting documentation by the parties and the admissions made by the Landlord, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following:

a) The poor condition of the communal facilities and the prolonged broadband failure.

The full valuation is shown below:

Starting rent

£400.00pcm

Less

a) Items given under a) above

£40.00

Market Rent

£360.00 pcm

Decision

17. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £360.00 per calendar month with effect from 19 March 2026.

5

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.

📊 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

  • Rent adjustments are considered fair when based on the condition of the property and ongoing issues.
  • The First-tier Tribunal allows rent adjustments when faced with unreasonable rent increase notices.
  • A fair determination of market rent is made when considering comparable properties in good condition.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Rent claims are dismissed if they solely rely on comparable properties without considering the property condition.
  • Rent adjustments are partially allowed when the request is only partially supported by evidence of property condition.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal decided to adjust the rent for a furnished room from £400 pcm to £360 pcm.

Who was involved?

A tenant and their landlord were involved in the dispute over the rental price of a room in a HMO.

How did the court decide, and why?

The tribunal considered evidence about the condition of shared facilities and broadband issues before making its decision.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied in this case.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The poor condition of shared facilities and ongoing broadband issues were key arguments for adjusting the rent downward.

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

The decision was for the tenant, as their requested adjustment to rent was granted.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants can seek adjustments to their rent if communal facilities are not up to standard and essential services like broadband are unavailable.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence about the condition of shared facilities, broadband issues, and comparable rental prices were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal if they disagree with the tribunal's decision on a point of law.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent adjustments and disputes over shared facilities.

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.