VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Property Condition and Tenant Improvements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reduced the proposed rent from £161.89 to £150 per week after considering the property's condition and the improvements made by the tenant. The decision was based on the presence of dampness and mold issues in the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

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 the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. When considering the rent, the tribunal must disregard any increase in the property's value due to improvements made by the tenant, unless these improvements were required by the tenant's obligations to their landlord.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent due to the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £161.89 to £150 per week due to the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant, taking into account the dampness and mold issues.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AY/MNR/2023/0187

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 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge Sarah McKeown Miss. [NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY] [NAME], 3 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 150 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 3 April 2023

*3. The amount included for services is

£2.10 Per week

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 6 May 2014

6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly periodic

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Per s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord N/A

9. Description of premises End of terrace [NAME], split-level flat with kitchen, bathroom, toilet, living room, three bedrooms and garden

Chairman Judge McKeown Date of Decision 10th November 2023

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BK/MNR/2023/0187 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : P:PAPERREMOTE

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : Miss. [APPELLANT] Landlord : [COMPANY] of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Judge Sarah McKeown Miss. [NAME] and venue of Consideration : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Date of Summary Reasons : 10 November 2023

Description of hearing This has been a paper hearing which the parties are taken to have consented to, as explained below. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a paper hearing. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. The Tribunal’s decision is below.

DECISION The Tribunal determines a rent of £150 per week with effect from 10 November 2023.

2

SUMMARY REASONS

The Background 1. The Applicant’s tenancy commenced on 5 May 2014. The property is described in the tenancy agreement as being an unfurnished flat, with living room, kitchen, bathroom/WC, one double bedroom and two single bedrooms, split over the ground and first floor with sole use of the garden.

2. Under cover of a letter dated 23 January 2023, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £161.89 (which includes service charges of £2.10) per week in place of the existing rent of £151.34 (which includes service charges of £2) per week per month to take effect from 3 April 2023.

3. Pursuant to s.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 30 March 2023.

4. The application was supported by documentation including: (a) a letter dated 27 March 2023 stating, among other things, that the premises were “riddled with mould/Damp/condensation” and that access to the third bedroom was not possible until the room was free from mould; (b) A letter from [NAME] solicitors dated 20 January 2023; (c) A report of [COMPANY] dated 27 December 2022; Inspection 5. The Tribunal inspected the property on 10 November 2023. The Tribunal noted damp to the property (including damp caused by external disrepair), badly cracked and broken sills allowing water penetration, poor brickwork with cracks and holes allowing damp, no apparent DPC and a leaking downpipe. The Tribunal were informed (and it was evident) that some works had recently been

3 carried out by or on behalf of the Respondent, but that issues of damp, as noted, remained. Evidence 6. The directions dated 30 June 2023 provided that the Respondent was to complete the Reply Form with any comments it wished to make and any documents it wished to rely upon by 21 July 2023 (a completed Reply Form was returned). The Applicant was to do the same by 4 August 2023. There was then provision for a reply from the Respondent by 11 August 2023.

7. The order also provided that the Tribunal would decide the application based on the written submissions of the parties, but that either party may request a hearing. No such hearing was requested.

8. On 25 August 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to confirm that it would arrange an inspection of the property, as a Valuer Chair believed that it was necessary.

9. On the same day, the Applicant emailed the Tribunal on 25 August 2023 with comments/submissions.

10. On 10 October 2023, the Respondent emailed the Tribunal commenting upon the works which had been carried out to the property and attaching a Completion Report dated 7 September 2023 and photographs.

11. The Respondent had also provided an inspection report dated 28 February 2023 of [NAME]) and a “HealthyHomes Report CAS revisit” arising from a visit on 10 July 2023.

12. The Applicant emailed the Tribunal on 1 November 2023, enclosing some correspondence detailing some issues with the property and attaching photographs. Determination and Valuation 13. Having consideration of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in the condition and with the amenities the market would expected to be in the region of £500 per week. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to: a. Tenant’s improvements – flooring, curtains, carpets, white goods;

4 b. Dated kitchen and lack of floor coverings noted at inspection; c. Condition - damp to the property (including damp caused by external disrepair), badly cracked and broken sills allowing water penetration, poor brickwork with cracks and holes allowing damp, no apparent DPC and a leaking downpipe. 14. The full valuation is shown below: [NAME] rent

£500

Less tenant’s improvements 15% -£75

Less 5% for dated kitchen and

lack of floor coverings

5% -£25

Less condition

50% -£250

£150 Decision 15. 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 [NAME] under an assured tenancy was £150 per week. 16. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £150 per week to take effect on 3 April 2023, which is the date specified in the notice. Name: Judge Sarah McKeown Date: 10 November 2023

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties and 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 tenant was entitled to a rent reduction for improvements they made to the property.
  • The property's dated kitchen and lack of floor coverings justified a rent reduction.
  • The property's poor condition, including damp and structural issues, led to a significant rent reduction.
  • The Tribunal's inspection confirmed significant damp, cracked sills, and poor brickwork, supporting the tenant's claims.

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 £161.89 to £150 per week.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to reduce the rent based on the property's condition and the improvements made by the tenant.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the improvements made by the tenant.

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 be able to negotiate a lower rent if the property is in poor condition or if they have made significant improvements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition and the tenant's improvements were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent disputes.

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.