VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to reduce the rent for a tenant's property to £345 per week because of the property's condition and limited amenities. The landlord initially wanted a higher rent, but the Tribunal took these factors into account and adjusted accordingly.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting the condition of the property and available amenities.

Topics

rent adjustmentproperty condition

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the condition of the property and any relevant improvements or failures by the tenant to maintain the property.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent due to the property's condition and limited white goods.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a reduced rent of £345 per week for a tenant's property, taking into account the property's condition and limited white goods, rather than the landlord's proposed rent of £488.95 per week.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AK/MNR/2025/0748

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination or Section 22 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Judge [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] t/a [COMPANY], Enfield [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 345 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 12 August 2025

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 27 February 2023

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per the tenancy agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Cooker

9. Description of premises Terraced house comprising 4 rooms, kitchen and downstairs bathroom with garden

Chairman Andrew Dutton Date of Decision 12 August 2025

(c)

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AK/MNR/2025/0748 Property : 8 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] Landlord : [APPELLANT] t/a [NAME] : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] and venue of Consideration : Paper determination on 12 August 2025 Date of Summary Reasons : 12 August 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £345 per week with effect from 12 August 2025 ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 3 March 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £488.95 per week in place of the existing rent of £ 348.50 per week to take effect from 7 April 2025

2 2. On 15 March 2025 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 Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 21 March 2025 Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties. Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant 5. The tenant sent in a written submission dated 6 July 2025 the contents of which we have noted. In particular the condition of the property with photographs to support, although they are undated, and comparable property details. Determination and Valuation 6. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the tenant and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition be in the region of £460 per week. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in respect of the disrepair and limited white goods. Although on the tick box annexed to the directions the tenant had indicated that they installed the central heating this is not mentioned in the detailed submission provided and we find it very surprising if indeed the tenant did install this service.

7. We make a deduction from the open market rent of 25% to reflect the condition of the property, which has not been challenged by the landlord and the limited white goods.

8. The Tribunal determines a rent of £345 per week. 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 was £345 per week.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £345 to take effect on 12 August 2025. The Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship, the

3 tenant and her husband being, it is said in receipt of Universal Credit, again not a matter that was challenged by the landlord.

Chairman: Judge Dutton

Date: 12 August 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 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 poor.
  • Improvements made by the tenant are considered.
  • Necessary improvements to the property are recognized.
  • Property amenities are taken into account.
  • The condition and improvements needed in the property are reflected.

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 to £345 per week.

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 limited amenities, adjusting the rent accordingly.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and the limited white goods were the most important arguments.

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 also be able to get their rent adjusted based on the condition of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs of the property and comparable property details were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed, but a request for full reasons must be made first.

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

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

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.