VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Health and Safety Issues

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reduced the proposed rent from £950 to £540 per month because of several health and safety issues found in the property. This decision helps ensure tenants pay a fair rent based on the actual condition of their home.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent adjustment taking into account the condition of the property.

Topics

rent adjustmenthealth and safety compliance

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering health and safety issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent from £950 to £540 per month, considering health and safety issues in the property. The decision took effect on 4 September 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BB/MNR/2025/0933

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 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 54 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 540.00 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 4 September 2025

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable - Per -

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 September 2021

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per the tenancy agreement.

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord One wardrobe and one desk

9. Description of premises This is a large, converted house which has 7 bedrooms which are separately let out. The property has a bathroom, kitchen and small shower room.

[NAME] of Decision 1 December 2025

(c)

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BB/MNR/2025/0933 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] Landlord : [APPELLANT] [NAME] of Application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mrs [NAME] and venue of Consideration : 1 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Date of Summary Reasons : 1 December 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £540.00 per calendar month with effect from 4 September 2025. ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

2 Background 1. On 15 July 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £950.00 in place of the existing rent of £650.00 per month to take effect from 4 September 2025.

2. On 8 August 2025 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 11 August 2025. Inspection 3. Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties. Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant. The Landlord has not provided any written submissions to the Tribunal. 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 £725 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to: A number of health and safety items identified by Newham Council including: • The lack of a fitted automatic fire detection and alarm system. • Non-compliant bedroom doors. • No fire blanket being present in the kitchen. • Lack of emergency lighting and fire safety / exit signs in communal areas. • Kitchen door not having adequate safety components.

3

6. The full valuation is shown below:

per calendar month Market Rent

£725

Less Non-compliant issues raised by Newham )

25%

£181.25

£543.75

Say £540.00

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £540 per calendar month. Decision 8. 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 £540 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £540 to take effect on 4 September 2025, this being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 1 December 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:

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 a fair market rent adjusted for the specific conditions of their property under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property based on comparable rental evidence and the condition of the premises.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair rent adjustment based on the condition of the property and the tenant's ability to pay.
  • A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting the disrepair and poor condition of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property under an assured tenancy, as determined by the Tribunal.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided to adjust the proposed rent from £950 to £540 per month.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on evidence of health and safety issues in the property, reducing the rent accordingly.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the presence of health and safety issues affecting the property's value.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek a rent adjustment if there are significant health and safety issues in their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Health and safety reports and comparable rental evidence were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed if either party disagrees with the outcome.

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

It is always recommended to get 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.