First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent for an assured periodic tenancy after considering the property's condition. The rent was reduced by £25 per month.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant may have their rent adjusted based on the condition of the property.
📖 What the law says
Under this rule, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. 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 tribunal considers factors such as the condition of the property and disregards certain elements like improvements made by the tenant or reductions due to non-compliance.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to account for the property's condition.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal reviewed a notice proposing an increased rent for an assured periodic tenancy and adjusted the rent to reflect the property's condition, reducing the proposed rent by £25 per month.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/17UF/MNR/2021/0041
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 1 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 27 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £925.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 17 August 2021
3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/A Per N/A
4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 17 October 2018
6. Length of the term or rental period Six months
7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Landlord and Tenant Act
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
9. Description of premises A detached bungalow comprising 2 living rooms, 3 bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom and garage. Gas central hearting. Garden. Double glazing.
[NAME] of Decision 06/10/2021
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/17UF/MNR/2021/0041 Property : 1 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondent : [redacted] :
[NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] of application : Application under Section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 referring a notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy to the Tribunal Tribunal members : [NAME] Mrs [NAME] and Date of Determination : The matter was dealt with by a paper determination on 6th October 2021
DETAILED REASONS
2
BACKGROUND
1. On 6th August 2021, the Applicant (tenant of the above property) referred to the Tribunal, a notice of increase of rent served by the Respondent (landlord of the above property) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
2. The Respondent’s notice, which proposed a rent of £950.00 per month with effect from 17th August 2021, is dated 14th July 2021.
3. The date the tenancy commenced is stated in the Application as being on 17th October 2018 and is stated by the Respondent to be an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The current rent is understood to be £750.00 per month.
4. The Tribunal issued its Decision following a paper determination on 6th October 2021. The Applicant subsequently requested written reasons and these detailed reasons are provided in response to that request.
INSPECTION
5. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to comply with the revised Tribunal Regulations the Tribunal was unable to carry out an inspection of the property. The Tribunal considered whether an external ‘drive by’ inspection was necessary but considered that it had enough information to proceed with the determination without such an inspection.
ACCOMMODATION
6. The Tribunal has the benefit of the submissions and infers from the application that the property comprises a detached bungalow of traditional construction situated in an area of predominantly residential properties.
7. Briefly the accommodation comprises of entrance porch, hallway, two living rooms, inner lobby, fitted kitchen, conservatory, storeage cupboard, three bedrooms and family bathroom with four-piece sanitary suite comprising bath, wash hand basin, separate shower and W.C.
8. There are gardens to the front, rear and side. The driveway gives vehicle parking and there is a single garage.
9. The bungalow is understood to be double glazed and has gas fired central heating.
SUBMISSIONS
10. The Tribunal received written representations from both parties which were copied to the other party. Neither party requested a hearing.
11. The parties written and verbal representations are summarised as follows:
THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
12. The Applicant submitted that the Respondents comparables were more modern than the subject property. In particular the carpets, built in furniture, light fittings, kitchen units, and wallpaper in the subject property were older than those in the comparables provided by the Respondent.
3
13. The Applicant further submitted that the property had suffered from damp since the commencement of the tenancy. It was submitted that a damp specialist inspected the property in November 2018 and a copy of the brief report was provided to the Tribunal. Following receipt of this letter the Applicant had run a dehumidifier for four weeks but no further action had been taken by the Respondent.
14. The Applicant submitted that there was an electric fire in the lounge but this had been condemned by an electrician and had not been repaired or replaced. There was also a problem with the garage door which required replacement.
THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
15. The Respondent submitted that the damp in the property was, according to the letter from ‘[NAME]’ due to condensation and cold spots.
16. Both parties provided photographs and details of comparable properties which appeared to range from a one-bedroom bungalow at £750.00 per month, two- bedroom bungalows at £900.00-£950.00 per month and three-bedroom bungalows at £800.00-£900.00 per month.
THE LAW
17. In accordance with the terms of section 14 Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
18. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
19. The Tribunal initially considered the specific submissions and determined that based on the letter from ‘[NAME]’, a damp proofing company the property did not suffer from rising damp which would have had a major impact on the rent but predominantly from condensation. This is evidenced by the photographs submitted to the Tribunal.
20. There is no doubt that this is an attractively situated property. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the rental levels of bungalows are, due to an imbalance between supply and demand relatively more expensive than houses offering similar accommodation.
21. The subject property provides a lounge, separate dining room, conservatory, fitted kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom with a separate shower as well as a bath. As such it effectively has three reception rooms as well as three bedrooms.
22. The Tribunal does however accept that the property is slightly dated and that repairs/ replacement of the electric fire to the lounge and the garage door are required.
23. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal had regard to the members' own general knowledge of market rent levels in the area of Derbyshire.
4
24. Having regard to the general level of rents in the area the Tribunal concluded that if the subject property had been in good condition the market rental value would have been £950.00 per month.
25. However, the Tribunal has adjusted the market rent of £950.00 per month to reflect the matters referred to in paragraph 22. The Tribunal determined that an allowance of £25.00 per month was appropriate as follows:
1) Damaged garage door 6.00 2) Replacement electric fire 5.00 3) Dated fittings/decoration 14.00 Total £25.00 per month
26. The Tribunal therefore concluded that an appropriate market rent for the property would be £925.00 per month (£950.00 - £25.00 = £925.00).
27. In its Notice of Decision dated 6th October 2021, the Tribunal made a clerical error in that it incorrectly noted the date the increase in rent was to commence as being 17th October 2021. The Landlords Notice proposed the rent increase from 17th August 2021 and this is the correct effective date of the revised rent.
28. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £925.00 per month from 17th August 2021 being the date of the Landlords Notice. A revised Notice of Decision is attached to reflect the correct effective date.
APPEAL
29. Any appeal against this Decision can only be made on a point of law and must be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this Decision, (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal, and stating the result sought by the party making the application.
[NAME] First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property)
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Tenant Facing Undue Hardship
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Rent Increase Proposal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Deteriorating Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set at £650 Monthly
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent Increase for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decis…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition and Tenant Improvements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Semi-Detached House Near Industrial…
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 tenant is entitled to have their rent adjusted based on the condition of the property.
- The rent should reflect the market value of the property, considering any detriments.
- The rent must be reasonable and reflect the current market conditions.
- The tenant can challenge a proposed rent increase if it exceeds reasonable market rates.
- The tenant is entitled to have their rent set according to the Housing Act 1988.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No clear factors identified as leading to a decision against the claimant in the provided cases.
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 for an assured periodic tenancy based on the property's condition.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent adjustment.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to reduce the proposed rent by £25 per month because the property was slightly dated and needed some repairs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied to determine the rent based on the property's condition.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property, including its age and the need for repairs.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, as the rent was reduced.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property when disputing a rent increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and details of comparable properties were important in determining the rent adjustment.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, any appeal against this decision can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent adjustments.
