VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Disrepair

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent from £650 to £930 per month after considering the property's condition and market value. The landlord initially proposed a rent of £950.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on the property's condition and market value.

Topics

rent adjustmentdisrepair deductions

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 a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the rent after considering the property's condition and market value.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal adjusted the rent from £650 to £930 per month, considering the property's condition and market value, after the landlord proposed an increase to £950.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00FN/MNR/2024/0130

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 66 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[RESPONDENT] [NAME]

Landlord [NAME] 9, 23 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] & [NAME]

1. The rent is: £930.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 20/06/2024

3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 20/01/2018-Latest Agreed 5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Lanlord and Tenact Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises A semi detached hosye, comprising 2 livbing rooms, kitchen, 3 bedrooms, bathroom and wc, central heating, double glazing, garden

[NAME] of Decision 23/09/2024

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/OOFN/MNR/2024/0130 Property : 66 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] :

None

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 : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] and Date of Determination : The matter was dealt with by a Paper Determination on 23rd September 2024

DETAILED REASONS

2

BACKGROUND

1. On 3rd May 2024, 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. The Tribunal received the application on 8th May 2024.

2. The Respondent’s notice proposed a rent of £950.00 per calendar month with effect from 19th May 2024. The previous rent payable was £650.00 per calendar month.

3. The date the tenancy commenced is stated on the Application Form as being on 20th January 2018 for an initial period of six months.

4. The Tribunal issued Directions on 13th May 2024. Further Directions were issued on 29th May 2024 following which an amended Notice of Increase was served by the Respondent on the Applicant proposing a rental of £950.00 per month with effect from 20th June 2024.

THE PROPERTY

5. Neither party requested an inspection or hearing. The matter was therefore dealt with by the Tribunal on 23rd September 2024, based on the submissions made to it by both parties.

6. The property is understood to be a terraced house comprising two living rooms, kitchen/diner, three bedrooms, bathroom and W.C. Garden.

7. There is understood to be central heating and double glazing. Carpets and curtains are provided by the Landlord as are the white goods.

EVIDENCE

8. The Tribunal received written representations from both parties which were copied to the other party.

THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

9. In summary the Applicant submitted:

1) That during the tenancy they had experienced several issues.

2) That the bathroom shower does not work and there is a constant stream of water from the tap which cannot be closed off.

3) That there are cracks, damp spots and mould to areas of the walls, particularly to the first floor.

4) That the boiler does not work properly and it is not possible to switch on the heating and hot water separately.

5) That the Kitchen and living room doors are ‘unstable’. The Applicant has attempted to repair these at his expense.

6) That the garden is in a poor state and the garden gate is fragile. As such the Applicant’s do not feel safe in leaving the property unattended.

7) That there is a mouse infestation.

8) That they are unable to afford the rent proposed.

3

THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

10. In summary the Respondent submitted:

1) That the rent was considerably in arrears. 2) That notice had been served to obtain possession but the Applicant’s had not yet moved and therefore it was necessary to review the rent to current levels. 3) That the Applicants were not submitting that the rent proposed was above the market rent for the property.

11. The Respondent provided photographs of the property at the commencement of the tenancy and confirmed that he had not refused to carry out any repairs despite the arrears. It was further submitted that the damage to the lounge and kitchen doors was due to them being blown by the wind and not as a result of a defect in the property.

12. The Respondent further submitted that the damp noted was due to a blocked gutter which had been attended to. The Respondent understood there was a rodent infestation in the area and he had advised the Applicants to keep external doors shut. At the same time, he was of the opinion that the items stored at the property by the Applicants would attract mice.

THE LAW

13. 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.

14. 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

15. In the first instance the Tribunal considered the general level of rents in the area and concluded that the rental value of the subject property is £1,020.00 per calendar month.

16. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the question of disrepair and made the following deductions:

Bathroom/shower repairs 20.00 Plaster cracks/damp 20.00 Boiler/heating repairs 40.00 Garden fence/gate 10.00 Total £90.00

17. The Tribunal then considered what hardship may be suffered by the Applicants who had submitted that they would not be able to afford the rent increase proposed. In the Directions dated 29th May 2024, the Tribunal confirmed that in accordance with section 14(7) of the 1988 Act, the Tribunal could consider hardship and that if the

4

Applicants wished the Tribunal to have regard to it then they should complete the form attached.

18. The Applicants did not complete the ‘Hardship’ form, and the Tribunal therefore disregarded that aspect of the application.

19. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £930.00 per calendar month (£1,020.00- £90.00 - £930.00). This is effective from 20th June 2024, being the date specified on the Respondent’s Notice of Increase.

APPEAL

20. 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:

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 considered the general level of rents in the area to determine the property's market value.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenants' argument about being unable to afford the proposed rent was disregarded because they did not complete the "Hardship" form.

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 £650 to £930 per month.

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 market value.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about the property's condition and market value was crucial.

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 the property's condition and market value when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written representations from both parties were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal 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 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.