First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Tenant Improvements
📌 In brief
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering the tenant's improvements and the property's condition. The final rent was set at £525.00 per month.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant may adjust the proposed rent based on the condition of the property and any improvements made by the tenant.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, 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. When determining this rent, the tribunal must disregard certain factors, including any increase in the property's value due to improvements made by the tenant.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to account for the tenant's improvements and the property's condition.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £575.00 to £525.00 after considering the tenant's improvements and the property's condition, applying the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [APPELLANT] CHAMBER ([APPELLANT]) Case reference : BIR/17UG/MDR/2019/0001 [APPELLANT] : 109 [APPELLANT] [[APPELLANT]] Applicant : [redacted] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] [RESPONDENT] : [NAME] 2a-4a Gordon [APPELLANT] [[APPELLANT]]
Type 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 : [APPELLANT] [NAME] and Date of Determination : The matter was dealt with by a paper determination on 7th January 2020
DETAILED REASONS
2
BACKGROUND
1. On 7th November 2019, the Applicant (tenant of the above [APPELLANT]) referred to the Tribunal, a notice of increase of rent served by the Respondent (landlord of the above [APPELLANT]) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
2. The Respondent’s notice, which proposed a rent of £575.00 per calendar month with effect from 24th December 2019, is dated 25th October 2019.
3. The date the tenancy commenced is stated on the Application Form as being 24th January 1992 and is understood to be an Assured Tenancy. The current rent is stated in the Respondents notice as being £425.00 per calendar month.
4. The Tribunal issued its Decision following the inspection on 7th January 2020. The Applicant subsequently requested written reasons and these detailed reasons are provided in response to that request.
INSPECTION
5. The Tribunal inspected the [APPELLANT] on Tuesday 7th January 2020 in the presence of the Applicant and the Respondent’s [RESPONDENT].
6. The [APPELLANT] comprises a terraced house of traditional construction having a pitched tiled roof situated in an area of predominantly similar type properties. There is a flat felt roof to the rear ground floor bathroom area.
7. Briefly the accommodation comprises a front lounge, rear dining room with under stairs cupboard off and kitchen on the ground floor. The kitchen is fitted with a limited range of dated basic units. There is a wall mounted gas fired combination boiler. The kitchen leads to a lobby with door to the rear garden and to the bathroom being fitted with a bath, having a shower mixer over, wash hand basin and low flush WC.
8. On the first floor the landing leads to one double bedroom and two single bedrooms.
9. The house has gas fired central heating. There is UPVC double glazing throughout although the front and rear external doors are not double glazed.
10. The carpets, curtains and white goods were confirmed to be the Applicant’s.
11. Externally the [APPELLANT] is built up to the pavement. To the rear is a small garden which, the Tribunal understands, was landscaped by the Applicant, who laid the patio and provided the timber [APPELLANT].
12. The [APPELLANT] was found to be in reasonable condition throughout, although items of disrepair were noted. In particular, there was damp to the under stairs cupboard, rising damp to the fireplace area in the dining room and rot to the door frame between the kitchen and lobby indicating the likelihood of further rising damp.
13. The Applicant submitted that she had tiled the floor and walls to the kitchen and fitted the laminate floor to the lounge. The Applicant had also fitted a new door to the lounge and to the three bedrooms although it was accepted that these were in satisfactory condition and were not replaced due to disrepair.
3
[APPELLANT]
14. The Tribunal received written representations from both parties which were copied to the other party.
15. Neither party requested a hearing and the Tribunal therefore made a determination based upon its inspection and the written submissions received.
[APPELLANT]
16. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject [APPELLANT] might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
17. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of the [APPELLANT] of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
18. The Tribunal noted that the [APPELLANT] was in generally acceptable condition, although, if it was to be marketed today, then general repairs would be required.
19. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal had regard to the members' own general knowledge of market rent levels in the area of [APPELLANT].
20. Having regard to the general level of rents in the area the Tribunal concluded that, if the subject [APPELLANT] had been in good condition, the market rental value would have been £575.00 per calendar month.
21. The Tribunal then made the following adjustments to reflect the improvements carried out by the Applicant: [redacted] 2) Carpets and curtains 22.00 3) White goods 15.00 Total £40.00 per month
22. However, the [APPELLANT] as inspected by the Tribunal was not in the condition that would be expected in the open market and the Tribunal therefore also made the following deductions to reflect the condition of the [APPELLANT] as follows:
1) Lack of double-glazed external doors 3.00 2) Damp and minor repairs 2.00 3) Upgrading to kitchen 5.00 Total £10.00 per month
23. The Tribunal therefore concluded that an appropriate market rent for the [APPELLANT] would be £525.00 per calendar month (£575.00 - £40.00 - £10.00).
24. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the [APPELLANT] might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £525.00 per calendar month.
4
25. This rent will take effect from 24th December 2019, being the date of the Respondent’s notice.
[APPELLANT]
26. [APPELLANT] against this Decision can only be made on a point of law and must be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]). Prior to making such an [APPELLANT] the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to [APPELLANT] 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 [APPELLANT] relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the [APPELLANT], and stating the result sought by the party making the application.
[APPELLANT] First-tier Tribunal [APPELLANT] Chamber ([APPELLANT])
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [APPELLANT] CHAMBER ([APPELLANT]) Case reference : BIR/17UG/MDR/2019/0001 [APPELLANT] : 109 [APPELLANT] Applicant: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] : [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] [RESPONDENT] : [NAME] 2a-4a Gordon [APPELLANT] [[APPELLANT]]
DETAILED REASONS
2
BACKGROUND
INSPECTION
3
[APPELLANT]
[APPELLANT]
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
4
[APPELLANT]
1
DETAILED REASONS
2
BACKGROUND
INSPECTION
3
[APPELLANT]
[APPELLANT]
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
4
[APPELLANT]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Adjusts Proposed Rent Increase Due to Property Conditio…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Tenant Facing Undue Hardship
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy Case
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Rent Increase Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition and Tenant Improvements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Reasonable Market Rent for Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Considered Tenant Improvements and Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Tenant Improvements
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 to reflect the tenant's improvements, such as landscaping the garden and laying a patio.
- The Tribunal reduced the rent due to the property's condition, specifically the lack of double-glazed external doors.
- The Tribunal considered the presence of damp and other minor repairs needed in the property when determining the rent.
- The Tribunal made a deduction for the need to upgrade the kitchen, indicating its dated condition.
- The Tribunal used its knowledge of local market rent levels to determine a fair rent for the property.
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 of £575.00 to £525.00 after considering the tenant's improvements and the property's condition.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to adjust the rent based on the condition of the property and the tenant's improvements.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the impact of the tenant's improvements on the property's value.
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 should consider their improvements and the condition of their property when negotiating rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The condition of the property and the tenant's improvements were key pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only on a point of law to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
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.
