VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent to £600 for Poorly Equipped Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to adjust the rent to £600 per month for a poorly equipped terraced house. The decision took into account the property's condition and the availability of similar properties in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment based on the condition and amenities of the property.

Topics

rent determinationtenancy conditions

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 a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the property's condition and market rents.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a rent of £600 per month for a poorly equipped terraced house.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a rent of £600 per month for a poorly equipped terraced house after considering the property's condition and market rents.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/24UP/MNR/2024/0603

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 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 600.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 3 November 2024

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 2007, by succession

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises Terraced house lacking any basic amenities.

[NAME] of Decision 2 December 2024

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/24UP/MNR/2024/0603 Property : 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : Mr [COUNSEL] [NAME] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : [COUNSEL] of Application :

Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] R [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] of Application : 20th September 2024 Date of Decision :

2nd December 2024

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £600 per calendar month with effect from 3rd November 2024.

HAV/29UN/MNR/2024/0519

2 SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 3rd September 2024 the Landlord’s Agent served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £650 per month in place of the existing rent of £600 per month to take effect from 3rd November 2024.

2. On 20th September 2024 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. Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case based on the papers provided by the parties and information freely available on the internet. In particular the Tribunal noted that the property has no bathroom, fixed heating system or inside WC, and only very basic kitchen facilities. Evidence

4. The Tribunal has considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Determination and Valuation 5. Having given consideration to the comparable evidence provided by the parties and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the open market rent for the property in good lettable condition would be £1,300 per calendar month.

6. Such a tenancy would normally include white goods, carpets, curtains/blinds and associated fittings, a fixed heating system, a modern fitted kitchen, bathroom and inside WC to all be provided by the Landlord.

7. In this case the property is not let in such condition or with white goods, carpets and curtains all supplied so adjustments to the ‘open market rent’ are necessary. In particular the Tribunal has made the adjustments for the condition of the property, including the lack of even basic amenities, and the items provided by the Tenant.

8. The full valuation is shown below: Full open market rent in good condition £1,300 Less deductions for:- Lack of bathroom

£150 Lack of hot water

£100 Lack of heating

£100 No inside WC

£100

HAV/29UN/MNR/2024/0519

3 Basic kitchen facility

£100 Bedroom 3 accessed via bedroom 2

£30 Tenant’s carpets and curtains

£50 Substandard electrics

£70

____ TOTAL DEDUCTIONS PER MONTH

£700 RENT PAYABLE PER MONTH

£600

9. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £600 per month.

10. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship.

11.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the new rent of £600 per month should take effect from 3rd November 2024, this being the date specified in the notice.

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 based on the condition of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment considering the available amenities.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair rent determination based on comparable evidence.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting the overall condition and amenities of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a determination of market rent by the Tribunal.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent was set at £600 per month for a poorly equipped terraced house.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and the availability of similar properties in the area.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that the property lacked basic amenities and was in poor condition was crucial.

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 also have their rent adjusted based on the condition of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property and comparable rental data were important.

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 recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent determination.

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.