VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Market Rent for Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the market rent for a property based on its condition and amenities. The rent was set at £1,180 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment based on the property's condition and amenities.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14, a tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on the property's condition and amenities.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the market rent due to the property's condition and lack of amenities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a market rent of £1,180 per month for a property, taking into account its condition and amenities. The decision was based on the Housing Act 1988, section 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/00HY/MNR/2024/0515

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 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [COMPANY] c/o [NAME], 51-61 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1180.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 18 September 2024

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 18 August 2023

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises 3-bedroom semi-detached house

[NAME] of Decision 22 October 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/00HY/MNR/2024/0515 Property : 2 Carver Cottages Barford lane Downton Salisbury Wiltshire [POSTCODE] Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] :

None

Landlord : [COMPANY] : [NAME] of Application :

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

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Application : 6th September 2024 Date of Summary Reasons :

22nd October 2024

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a market rent of £1,180 per calendar month with effect from 18th September 2024

HAV/00HY/MNR/2024/0515

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 1st August 2024 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £800 per calendar month in place of the existing rent of £680 per calendar month to take effect from 18th September 2024.

2. On 6th September 2024 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. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Parties including a copy of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 18th August 2024 which included a rent review clause at paragraph 9.2.1 of the Agreement. Determination and Valuation 5. The Tribunal noted the Rent Review clause within the original tenancy agreement. If this clause were to be extant the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction in this matter. As the original tenancy expired on 17th August 2024 the tenancy is now a Statutory Periodic Tenancy.

Accordingly, the Tribunal is of the view that, as determined in London District Properties Management [COMPANY] v Goolamy [2009] EWHC 1367 (Admin), that clause does not apply following the end of the original tenancy.

6. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good tenable condition would be in the region of £1,300 per calendar month.

7. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets and curtains/blinds to all be provided by the Landlord, and the property to be in good condition.

8. In this case the property is not let in such condition as only a cooker is provided in the kitchen and many of the double-glazed window units are ‘blown. The Tenant also refers to several general maintenance issues that are outstanding.

Accordingly, the Tribunal adjusted the full open market rent to reflect these.

9. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,300

HAV/00HY/MNR/2024/0515

3 Less deductions for:- Lack of some white goods £20 ‘Blown’ window glazing

£50 General disrepair

£50

____ TOTAL MARKET RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£1,180

10. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy would be £1,180.

11. The Tribunal is required to assess a full open market rent but notes that the landlord in this case is a charitable trust that does not charge full open market rent. There is no obligation on the Landlord to charge a higher rent.

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 request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 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 property's condition is better than at the start of the tenancy.
  • The property offers additional amenities beyond what was agreed initially.
  • The rent adjustment is based on the property's actual condition and accessibility.
  • The tenant's ability to pay is considered in the rent adjustment.
  • Improvements and features of the property justify a rent adjustment.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The market rent for the property was set at £1,180 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and amenities, reducing the full market rent to £1,180 per month.

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 condition of the property and the amenities provided.

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 may be able to negotiate a fairer rent based on the property's condition and amenities.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions and a copy of the tenancy agreement were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed within a month.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.