VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent from £1,485 to £1,462.50 after inspecting the property and considering its condition, applying the Housing Act 1988 Section 14.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

rent adjustmentproperty condition

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section 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 open market rent, considering the property's condition and other factors, such as the terms of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the open market rent due to the property's condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal reduced the proposed rent from £1,485 to £1,462.50 after inspecting the property and considering its condition, applying the Housing Act 1988 Section 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAM/LON/00AJ/MNR/2023/0414

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 13 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge Foskett Mrs Flynn MA MRICS

Landlord [NAME] 76A [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1,462.50 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 19 Sept 2023

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

4. No services are provided.

5. Date assured tenancy commenced Oct 1991

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly periodic tenancy

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Section 11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

9. Description of premises Two storey mid terraced Victorian property, comprising 1 through living room, 1 kitchen, 1 bathroom, 2 bedrooms, small courtyard garden. Pitched pantile roof. uPVC windows (installed approximately 10 years ago).

Chairman Judge Foskett Mrs Flynn Date of Decision 12 April 2024

MR22

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. The Landlord served notice on 18 August 2023 on the Tenant to increase the rent for the property from £1,350 per calendar month (as determined by the Tribunal last year) to £1,485 per calendar month. 2. The Tenant objected in writing on 7 September 2023. 3. The Tribunal has made a determination of the market rent under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Inspection

4. The Tribunal inspected the property on 12 April 2024 in dry, sunny weather.

Evidence

5. There were no written submissions from the parties. The Tribunal considered the documents that had been sent by the Valuation Office Agency, the Landlord and the Tenant.

Decision and reasons

6. The property is described above. The Tenant has provided all furniture and paid for half of the cooker which was installed relatively recently following the breakdown of the previous one. The roof was repaired around 6 years ago. The bathroom and kitchen have never been updated since the Tenant moved in. The carpets are provided by the Landlord. The curtains and white goods are provided by the Tenant.

7. Having regard to our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area (including by reviewing local properties on [NAME]), we consider that the open market rent for the property would be around £2,250 per calendar month.

8. However, we have adjusted as necessary to allow for the condition of the property following our inspection which showed a lack of repair particularly in relation to damp ingress and blown plasterwork.

9. The following deductions were made:

Condition of kitchen

10%

MR22 Condition of bathroom

5% Damp

10% Condition of carpets

5% Condition of electrical installation

5% Total

35%

10. That gave a market rent of £1,462.50 per calendar month (i.e. 65% of £2,250).

Chairman: Judge Rosanna Foskett, Mrs [NAME] MA MRICS

Date:

12 April 2024

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 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 Tribunal adjusted the rent due to the property's condition, specifically noting issues with damp and plasterwork.
  • The kitchen's poor condition led to a 10% deduction from the market rent.
  • The bathroom's condition resulted in a 5% deduction from the market rent.
  • The condition of the carpets led to a 5% deduction from the market rent.
  • The condition of the electrical installation resulted in a 5% deduction from the market rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent was adjusted from £1,485 to £1,462.50.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition, adjusting the rent accordingly.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property was the most important factor.

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 have their rent adjusted based on the condition of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The inspection of the property and the documents submitted by the parties mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed.

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.