VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Tenant's Rent Based on Property Condition and Market Rates

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reduced a tenant's rent from £925 to £900 per month after considering the property's condition and market rates.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant may have their rent adjusted based on the property's condition and market rates.

Topics

rent adjustmentproperty conditionmarket rates

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent for assured periodic tenancies, except for relevant low-cost tenancies. The notice must be in a prescribed form and specify a new rent to take effect at the start of a new period of the tenancy. The new period must begin at least two months after the notice is served. Additionally, if the rent has been previously increased, the next increase can only occur after a certain period, depending on the type of tenancy.

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 at which the dwelling house might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy. The terms of the new tenancy must match the original tenancy, except for the amount of rent.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the rent after considering the property's condition and market rates.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal reviewed a notice of increased rent and adjusted the rent to £900 pcm based on the property's condition and market rates.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/12UE/MNR/2022/0109 Property : 4a The Broadway St. Ives Cambs [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : The Letting Agency (agent) Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : 29 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 29 March 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application from the tenants of the Property, regarding a prior notice of increase of rent, served by the landlord’ agent, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act). Application was made on 5 December 2022, prior to the effective date of the notice 6 December 2022.

2 The notice, proposed a new rent of £925 per calendar month with effect from and including 6 December 2022. The passing rent was stated in

2 the notice, to be £895 per calendar month with effect from 6 December 2020.

3 The tenancy is an assured shorthold periodic monthly tenancy. A copy of the tenancy was provided. A copy of the Landlord’s notice was provided.

Inspection

4 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property, but the Tribunal had regard to [ADDRESS] images of the Property from the public road (@ September 2021). The Property is on 2 levels, first and second and is set above single storey commercial premises (not identified) in the Town Centre of St. Ives. It is located at a busy road interchange for local traffic visiting the retail part of the Town Centre, dating from the Nineteenth Century and earlier in parts.

5 The external face of the Property walls are solid with a tiled pitched main roof over typical of the Town Centre. There is no off street parking. There are no secure ground floor areas which would accommodate bicycle storage. The Town Centre is linear in arrangement of relatively narrow streets, with a number of crowded commercial and mixed residential accommodation. Whilst the Property is centrally located and convenient for many central services, it also appears to experience considerable noise nuisance (volume and duration) from street traders, street users and ground floor shops and parked or moving vehicles.

6 The Property is a relatively large 2 bedroom home with no communal parts save for the ground to first floor access hall and stairs. Accommodation comprises, second floor two double bedrooms albeit with sloping ceilings to at least parts of each, bathroom / WC, and first floor living room, office (third bedroom or living room) kitchen and WC. Windows appear not to be double glazed. Water and space heating are it appears fed from a self contained gas fired system.

7 The Property was let with some white goods (but not fridge) to the kitchen. The heating system and all kitchen and bathroom fittings are let with the Property. All fitted floor coverings and finishes are the landlords. Curtains and other window coverings were the tenants.

8 It was unclear to the Tribunal why about half of the final bundle appeared presented in an inverted (180’) format, making the submissions and other documents more difficult to follow and read.

Representations

9 Directions, dated 12 December 2022, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [APPELLANT] [NAME]. Neither party requested a hearing. The tenant made brief representations with the application including photographs and general correspondence on noise in

3 particular from the location and the unfinished and dirty state of the common stairwell and hallway, not attended to. The absence of double glazing for heat and in particular outside sound reduction in such a central and often noisy area of the Town was a considerable draw back with the location.

10 The Tribunal received rental representations from the [NAME] showing rents for similar Town Centre flats ranging from £900 pcm for 2 bedroom space in central streets to £1350 pcm at the highest, but with the majority around £1000 pcm for the larger 2 bedroom spaces. These were marketed and let just prior or around to the valuation date of 6 December 2022. The tenant and landlord provided a completed standard Reply Form issued with the Directions. The Tribunal carefully considered such written representations as it received in the application and subsequently from both parties.

Law

11 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers 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 tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’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

12 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in St. Ives and surroundings, it determines that the sizeable subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1000 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order. The tenant referred to longstanding items of minor disrepair in common areas. He also marked up the lack of double glazing which allowed considerable heat loss out and a lot of noise nuisance inside.

13 There were no significant tenant’s improvements or additions and only minor landlord’s historic failings to consider. There appeared to be no curtains supplied with the letting. Some white goods, (no fridge), freezer, washing machine were apparently supplied. However the lack of double glazing throughout was a particular deficiency in such a central and often noisy location. The Tribunal therefore makes a deduction of £100 per calendar month to reflect it, leaving £900 pcm.

14 The new rent is payable from and including the date set out in the Landlord’s notice, from and including 6 December 2022 is therefore at the new sum of £900 pcm.

[NAME] 29 March 2023

📊 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 property's central location made it convenient for many services.
  • The property suffered considerable noise from street traders, users, shops, and vehicles.
  • The lack of double glazing caused significant heat loss and noise inside the property.
  • The tribunal deducted £100 per month from the rent due to the lack of double glazing.
  • The new rent was determined to be £900 per calendar month.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal adjusted the tenant's rent from £925 to £900 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord's agent were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and market rates.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the market rates for similar properties.

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 challenge their rent increase if the property conditions or market rates support it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and general correspondence on noise and property condition 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 cases like this.

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.