VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reviewed a landlord's attempt to raise rent for an assured tenancy. Considering the property's condition and market comparables, the Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to a lower amount.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord cannot unreasonably increase rent without considering the property's condition and market comparables.

Topics

rent adjustmentproperty condition assessment

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this section, a tenant under an assured tenancy can 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 reasonably expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The tribunal considers factors such as the property's condition and market comparables when setting the rent.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent based on the property's condition and modernisation level.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal reviewed a landlord's notice to increase rent for an assured tenancy and adjusted the proposed rent based on the property's condition and market comparables under the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/21UD/MNR/2022/0064

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 TFF, [ADDRESS], St. Leonards-on-sea, East Sussex, [POSTCODE]

Mr R [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] [NAME] [ADDRESS], St. Leonards-on-sea, East Sussex, [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 750.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 25 May 2022

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 25 September 2012

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per section 11 of the [RESPONDENT] & Tenant Act 1985

7. Furniture provided by [RESPONDENT] or superior [RESPONDENT] carpets and oven.

8. Description of premises Self contained 3rd and 4th floor flat in a converted house.

Chairman Mr R [NAME] of Decision 1 August 2022

1

Case Reference

: CHI/21UD/MNR/2022/0064

Property : Top Floor Flat, [ADDRESS], St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

(Tenants)

Respondent: [redacted] : 23rd May 2022

Type of Application : Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: [NAME] Mr D Banfield FRICS Ms A [NAME]

: 1st August 2022

_____________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

2 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background 1. The Tribunal gave formal notice of its decision by a Notice dated 1st August 2022 will be £750.00 per calendar month (pcm) with effect from 25th May 2022.

2. By an application dated 23rd May 2022, the Tenants of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the [RESPONDENT] under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.

3. The [RESPONDENT]'s notice dated the 8th April 2022 proposed a rent of £900.00 pcm with effect from 25th May 2022, in place of the current rent of £575.00 pcm.

4. The tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy agreement is in common form and is dated 25th September 2012. The tenancy is subject to the [RESPONDENT]'s repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the [RESPONDENT] and Tenant Act 1985.

Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 29th June 2022 and the explanation contained therein, the Tribunal did not inspect the premises.

6. Extracting such information as it could from the papers supplied to the Tribunal by the parties, by reference to information publicly available on the internet and with the benefit of its knowledge and experience the Tribunal reached the following conclusions and found as follows:

7. The subject property is located in the mainly residential road of [ADDRESS], approximately 1 mile west of the town of Hastings. The property is located adjacent to St. [ADDRESS] and within very close proximity to the promenade at St. Leonards-on-Sea. Local retail amenities and public transport connections are nearby including St. [ADDRESS] Station, approximately 0.5 mile to the north-east. [ADDRESS] is characterised by a number of Regency style buildings, many of which have been converted into flats with some designated as listed.

8. The property comprises a centrally heated self contained Top Floor Flat (occupying the 3rd and 4th floors) in a converted semi detached house and is part double glazed centrally heated.

9. The accommodation comprises: Living Room, kitchen, bathroom, W.C., 3 bedrooms and attic. Outside: Shared use of garden.

10. The property is let unfurnished with floor coverings and cooker.

11. The Tribunal assumed that all mains services are connected.

Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal

12. Tribunal Directions dated 29th June 2022.

13. [RESPONDENT]: Tribunal Reply Form.

3

14. Tenant: Application and Reply Form, Notice of Increase and Tenancy Agreement.

[RESPONDENT]'s Representations (summarised):

15. The [RESPONDENT] says in the Reply Form and attachments: a) 3 bedrooms and attic b) New boiler installed approximately 4 years ago. c) Rent has not been increased since the tenant moved in. d) Kitchen and bathroom installed 15 years ago now look tired. e) The property is untidy and in a poor state of cleanliness. f) Local amenities include: 2 minutes away: Beach, Bus and Shops. 1 minute away: Park.

16. As to rental value the [RESPONDENT] says he has been advised by [RESPONDENT] that a rental of £1,100.00 to £1,200.00 pcm could be expected. Two comparables are attached: [ADDRESS]: (£1,100.00 pcm) – Modern with balcony, living room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms [ADDRESS]: (£1,000.00 pcm) – Converted house with, living room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms and guest washroom.

17. Undated and unidentified photographs are attached.

18. The floor plan referred to was not attached.

Tenant's Representations (summarised)

19. The Tenant says in the Application and Reply Forms:

a) Two bedrooms and attic. b) No double glazing. c) Carpets in corridors and attic only.

20. In a letter to the [RESPONDENT] dated 25th April 2022 the Tenant offered : a) £725.00 pcm. b) They have always been good tenants in 12 years of occupation. c) Issues discussed with Hastings Borough Council include: Kitchen (Category 2) hazard, damp wall behind lavatory. The Tenant has not pursed matters to service of Notice by Hasting Borough Council.

21. Disrepair identified includes: a) Bedroom windows rotten and leak and some do not have catches. b) Uneven floor boards. c) Chimney needs to be repaired to stop leak. d) P0werpoints have tripped 4 times in 5 months. e) Stairs to top floor very steep. f) Oven is ‘shot’ g) Ridge tiles missing h) Rat holes in kitchen floor boards.

4

i) New cracks in Kitchen wall where chimney is located. J) Bathroom fittings are basic and the kitchen fittings poor.

22. Railway Station: 10 minutes, Local foodstore 5 minutes, Park 5 minutes, Sea promontory 5 minutes and High Street shops 10 minutes walk.

23. Photographs showing the condition of: Rot around kitchen sink. Rot in window frame. Uneven floor boards. Loose kitchen doors. Damp behind and adjoining kitchen sink Broken oven seal. Hole in wooden floor.

24. The Tenant also submitted a short video which the Tribunal was unable to access/ or the Tribunal watched the video of the property showing its general condition and layout.

25. No submissions are made as to rental value.

The Tribunal’s Deliberations 26. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the notice was a Notice under section 13 as prescribed by Statute.

27. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing [RESPONDENT] under an Assured Tenancy. The personal circumstances of the Tenant or [RESPONDENT] are not relevant to this issue.

28. The Tribunal checked the [NAME] and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the property at D expiring on 2nd October 2022. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.

29. Based on the knowledge of its members the Tribunal finds that the market for this type of property is very sensitive to condition and inventory.

30. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the accommodation. The [RESPONDENT] says there are 3 bedrooms and an attic the Tenant says 2 bedrooms and attic. After considering the limited evidence before it the Tribunal concluded, on balance, that there were 3 bedrooms and valued accordingly. Should the Tribunal be wrong on this point the Tribunal may review its decision under the Appeal Provisions set out below.

31. The Tribunal, acting as an expert tribunal, determined what rent the [RESPONDENT] could reasonably be expected to obtain for the subject property in the open market if it were let today in the condition and subject to the terms of such a tenancy that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by having regard to the evidence supplied by the parties and the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels. Having done so, it concluded that such a likely market rent for a similar modernised property in fair condition with

5

modern central heating, modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, floor coverings, cooker, washing machine and an EPC Rating of E or above would be £1,150.00 pcm.

32. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the current market conditions and the apparent condition (as submitted by the parties) of the subject property determined to make deductions in respect of the disrepair issues identified:

a) General disrepair and lack of modernisation: £200.00 pcm b) Tired floor coverings (no coverings in kitchen) and lack of white goods: £200.00 pcm.

Total deduction £400.00 pcm

33. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is £750.00 pcm.

34. The rent will take effect from 25th May 2022 being the date specified by the [RESPONDENT] in the notice of increase.

Relevant Law 35. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

36. Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.620)

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision (on a point of law only) to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 property to have three bedrooms and an attic, valuing it accordingly.
  • The Tribunal made a deduction of £200.00 per month for general disrepair and lack of modernisation.
  • The Tribunal made a deduction of £200.00 per month for tired floor coverings and lack of white goods.
  • The Tribunal noted that the property's Energy Performance Certificate registered it at D, which is above the legal minimum standard for letting.

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 increase based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Who was involved?

The landlord wanted to increase the rent for an assured tenancy, while the tenant disagreed with the proposed increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the proposed rent based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied to determine the appropriate rent for an assured tenancy.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition and modernisation level of the property were crucial arguments in determining the rent.

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 should consider the condition and modernisation level of their property when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and descriptions of the property's condition were important in the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed 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 for assured tenancies.

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.