VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Property Disrepair

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reduced the proposed rent due to the property's poor condition, setting the rent at £710 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting the property's condition.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent adjustments

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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 any improvements or disrepair noted.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to account for the property's disrepair.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal set the rent at £710 per month after inspecting the property and finding significant disrepair, adjusting the landlord's proposed rent accordingly.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00BN/MNR/2024/0023 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 36 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME] [NAME] Landlord [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £710 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 24-Jan-24 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Per 4. Date periodic/statutory periodic assured tenancy commenced 24-Mar-06 5. Rental period Monthly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord N/A 8. Description of premises End-terrace house Cellars, kitchen, 2 x reception rooms, 3 bedrooms (+ large half landing providing further living space), bathroom. Gardens to front and rear. The property is in dated condition with significant disrepair to parts including severe damp penetration. Chairman S [NAME] of Decision 24 February 2025

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/OOBN/MNR/2024/002 Property : 36 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] Landlord : [APPELLANT] [NAME] of Application : s13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Decision : 24 February 2025 _______________________________________________

DECISION Decision 1. By a decision dated 24 February 2025, the Tribunal determined, in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, that the open market rent for the Property is £710.00 per month. Background 2. By a notice dated 25 December 2023, (“the Notice”), the Landlord proposed a new rent of £1,350.00 per month to take effect from 24 January 2024.

3. By an application dated 27 December 2023, the Tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal. Inspection 4. The Tribunal inspected the Property on 24 February 2025.

5. The Property is an end-terrace house with front and rear garden. The Property is situated on a busy road alongside similar properties. Immediately adjacent to the Property is the access way leading to the Longsight branch of Asda. The accommodation comprises: Cellars; G/F: 2 reception rooms, kitchen; 1/F: bathroom, 2 bedrooms, half landing providing further living space; loft: bedroom. The Property has double-glazing and gas central heating. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

6. The Property is let unfurnished. Floor coverings are provided by the Landlord. Blinds/curtains are provided by the Tenant. With the exception of the oven and hob, white goods are the Tenants’ 7. Upon inspection, the Tribunal noted: 7.1 very significant damp/water ingress to substantial parts of the Property; 7.2 boundary wall in rear garden is partially collapsed and at risk of further collapse; 7.3 the Property is fairly dated throughout and a number of the internal doors are ill-fitting; 7.4 the position of the front door threshold makes for an awkward height step into the house; and 7.4 Tenant commented that the television aerial cable had been severed. Evidence and Hearing 8. Written submission were offered on behalf of both the Landlord and the Tenant, both of whom were represented at the hearing which took place following the inspection of the property on 24 February 2025. 8.1 The Tenant’s submissions largely addressed questions of the condition and maintenance of the Property, but did not provide any rental comparables. 8.2 The Landlord’s agent has provided within his submissions a number of comparables ranging from £1,250 to £1,550 per month. At the hearing he explained that the rent proposed within the Notice was based on a market value in good condition of £1,550, from which £200 had been deducted to take account of the Property’s condition to give a figure of £1,350. On reflection, however, the Landlord’s agent said he felt the market rental value in good condition was actually £1,250, with a £300 allowance to be made for poor condition to give a figure of £950 per month, which was the figure he asked the tribunal to determine. 8.3 [NAME] noted at the hearing that the Property did not benefit from parking, so would be less desirable than some of the landlord’s comparables. In his view no increase in rent was warranted from the current figure of £540 per month. The Law 9. The Tribunal must first determine that the Landlord’s notice under section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served.

10. The Housing Act 1988, section 14 requires the Tribunal 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.

11. In so doing the Tribunal, is required by section 14(1), to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.

12. Section 14(4) provides that for the purposes of section 14 “rent” includes amongst other things any sums payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of council tax.

13. Section 14(4) provides that for the purposes of section 14 “rent” does not include a “service charge” within the meaning of section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (i.e. where in accordance with the terms of the tenancy or other agreement a service charge payable by the tenant is variable from time to time according to changes in the relevant costs). However it does include a “fixed” service charge. Tribunal’s Deliberations 14. The Tribunal determined the Notice to be valid in accordance with s13(2).

15. The Tribunal determined that the open market rent for a comparable property to the Property in good condition was £1,250.00 per month.

16. The Tribunal determined that deductions totalling £540.00 per month should be made from this rent to allow for items of disrepair the Tribunal found upon inspection. This significant level of deduction reflects the very serious extent of the disrepair in evidence.

17. The Tribunal therefore determined that the open market rent for the Property in accordance with the statutory basis is £710.00 per month.

19. This rent will take effect from 24 January 2024 being the date stipulated in the Notice.

📊 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 determined that the landlord's notice proposing a new rent was valid.
  • The property had very significant damp and water ingress in many areas, which reduced its rental value.
  • The boundary wall in the rear garden was partially collapsed and at risk of further collapse.
  • The property was generally dated, and several internal doors did not fit properly.
  • The front door threshold was awkwardly high, creating a difficult step into the house.
  • The tribunal decided that a comparable property in good condition would rent for £1,250 per month.
  • Significant deductions were made from the market rent due to the severe extent of disrepair found during inspection.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's initial proposed rent of £1,350 per month was not accepted by the tribunal.
  • The landlord's agent's revised figure of £950 per month, after deductions for condition, was not accepted 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 to reflect the property's condition.

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 proposed rent because the property was in poor condition with significant disrepair.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property, which significantly affected its rental 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 be able to have their rent adjusted based on the condition of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The inspection report of the property and the written submissions from both parties mattered.

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 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.