AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·04 March 2025

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, a tenant challenged a proposed rent increase. The First-tier Tribunal considered the condition of the property and decided to adjust the rent to £2125 per month, effective from 8 October 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment based on the condition of the premises.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent adjustment

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.14

📖 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. The tribunal will then determine a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the periodic nature of the tenancy and ensures that the terms of the new tenancy match the original, except for the rent amount.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering the condition of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal reviewed a landlord's proposal to increase rent for an assured periodic tenancy. After considering the property's condition, the Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to £2125 per month, effective from 8 October 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. TR/LON/OOBG/MNR/2024/0663

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 331 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [APPELLANT], 83-85 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant MD [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ £2125 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 8 October 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 8 November 2021

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord De minis

9. Description of premises Ground and first floor maisonette, three bedrooms, one living room, kitchen, bathroom with wc garden

[NAME] of Decision 21 January 2025

Case Reference

: LON/OOBG/MNR/2024/0663

Property : 331 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Objection : 15 November 2024

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

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] of Summary Reasons : 21 January 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2125.00 per month with effect from 8 October 2024. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 10 August 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2500.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1950 per month to take effect from 8 October 2024.

2. On 15 November 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. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 3 October 2024.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal has carried out an inspection of the property on 21 January 2025. Present were the tenant and their family and also the landlord. The property comprises a ground and first floor maisonette with garden comprising one living room, three bedrooms one bathroom and a garden.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties 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 would be in the region of £2500.00 per calendar month.

From this level of rent we have adjusted in relation to:

There is not central heating in each room/ the windows in the bathroom appear defective and there is mould in the bathroom, the flooring is tired in places / the kitchen units are worn in places and the conservatory has a degree of disrepair.

6. The full valuation is shown below:

Market rent in good tenantable condition - £2500 per month

Less 15% for adjustments above £375.00 per month Total £ 2125.00 per month

Decision

3 7. 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 £2125.00 per month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £2125.00 per month to take effect on 8 October 2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 21 January 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:

Allowed12 cases

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 tribunal adjusted the rent downwards because the property lacked central heating in every room.
The tenant's argument for a lower rent was accepted because the bathroom windows were faulty.
The presence of mould in the bathroom led to a rent adjustment in the tenant's favor.
The tribunal reduced the rent due to the flooring being worn in several areas.
The tenant successfully argued for a rent reduction because the kitchen units showed wear.
The conservatory's state of disrepair contributed to the decision to lower the rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to £2125 per month, effective from 8 October bk 2024.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the rent after inspecting the property and considering its condition.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property was the central argument.

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 challenge a proposed rent increase if the property condition justifies it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property was a key factor.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed according to the procedures outlined in the judgment.

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

It is 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.