VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Social Housing Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent for a social housing property after considering its condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area. The new rent took effect from January 30, 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

rent adjustmentsocial housing

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their 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. This determination considers the condition of the property and market comparables.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the rent for a social housing property, considering its condition and comparables in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) adjusted the rent for a social housing property, considering its condition and market comparables in the area. The decision took effect from 30 January 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AU/MNR/2024/0040

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]

[NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1200 Per pcm

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 30 January 2024

*3. The amount included for services is negligible nil Per Calendar month

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included n/a

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 30 January 2019

6. Length of the term or rental period Calendar monthly periodic

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Per tenancy

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

9. Description of premises Purpose Built Flat c.1890 5 level block, brick fair faced walls, slate double pitched hipped roof. On road parking restrictions. Living room kitchen, 1 bedroom, bathroom/WC. Assumed no block lift, basic kitchen, basic bathroom, no carpets and curtains, no central heating, no double glazing. The Landlord is not obliged but may charge a rent up to but, not in excess of the figure shown at box 1.

[NAME] of Decision 23 July 2024 (set aside) 31 July 2024 (re-issued)

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AU/MNR/2024/0040 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] : None Respondent : [redacted] (Landlord) Representative : None Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members :

[NAME] and venue of Hearing : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 29 July 2024 (set aside) 31 July 2024 (re-issued)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 12 January 2024 from the [APPELLANT] of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice, dated 23 November 2023, proposed a new rent of £841 per calendar month, with effect from and including 30 January 2024. The passing rent was said to be £785.69 per calendar month.

2 3 The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy. A copy of the last tenancy agreement was provided.

4 Directions were issued 9 April 2024 by Judge S J Walker. Neither party requested a hearing. The Tribunal does not routinely carry out inspections.

5 The Tribunal received an initial application. The Tribunal sent out its standard Reply Form to both landlord and [APPELLANT].

6 The Tribunal carefully considered and noted such representations as it received from both parties regarding the location layout size and condition of the Property and other available and let comparable properties in the location.

Property

7 The Property is a purpose built higher floor flat in a low rise 5 level block, dating from the 1890s, brick fair faced external walls and slated double pitched roof. Accommodation comprised 1 bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom/ wc. There is no record of full central heating or of double glazed windows.

8 It is assumed that the flat was let without curtains, carpets or other floor finishes nor white goods, as is normal for social landlords. There is no record it was provided later by the landlord. The kitchen and bathroom are assumed to be functional but basic.

9 The Tribunal had regard to Google Streetview in [ADDRESS]1 (data capture July 2022).

Law

10 In accordance with the terms of S14 of the Housing Act 1988 we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to [APPELLANT]’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the [APPELLANT]’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the Property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

11 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Clerkenwell it determines that the subject Property would let on a normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1,850 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order. The Tribunal makes a substantial deduction of £650 pcm for the lack of provision by the landlord of curtains, carpets, central heating, double glazing and the

3 basic kitchen and bathroom. The market rent is therefore determined at £1,200 pcm.

12 The new rent will take effect from and including 30 January 2024, the effective start date given in the landlord’s Notice. As the Form of Determination dated 23 July 2024 states: The Landlord is not obliged but, may charge a rent up to but, not in excess of, the figure shown at box 1; £1200 pcm.

13 The earlier reasons of 29 July 2024 are now set aside the accommodation detail having been corrected. This is the re- issued reasons of 31 July 2024 that replaces it.

Name: N. [NAME]: 29 July 2024 (set aside) 31 July 2024 (re-issued)

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

4

📊 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 used its general knowledge of market rent levels in the area to determine a baseline rent.
  • The property's lack of curtains, carpets, central heating, and double glazing justified a significant rent reduction.
  • The basic condition of the kitchen and bathroom contributed to a lower market rent determination.
  • The Tribunal valued the property as it stood, assuming it was in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for a social housing property was adjusted based on its condition and market comparables.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the rent downwards, considering the property's condition and market comparables.

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 and the availability of similar properties in the area.

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 of their property and compare it to similar properties in the area.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as the condition of the property and market comparables were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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 adjustments.

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.