First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Manchester Property

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference MAN/00BN/MNR/2026/0177 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Tenant [NAME] Tenant’s Representative None. Landlord Places for [APPELLANT] Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], United Kingdom Landlord’s [RESPONDENT] of Application 31 March 2026 Type of Application Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members Morgan [NAME] of Decision 17 June 2026 Rent Determined £1032.00 per calendar month Date the new rent takes effect 1 July 2026

2

REASONS FOR THE

DECISION Background 1. On 18 March 2026, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1032.00 per calendar month (pcm) in place of the existing rent of £860.00 pcm to take effect from 1 June 2026.

2. On 31 March 2026, 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.

3. The assured tenancy commenced on 23 March 2015 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. None. Liability for Council Tax 6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of [NAME]. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax. Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.

7. All of the terms generally. Inspection/Hearing 8. Neither party requested an oral hearing, nor did the Tribunal think that one was appropriate. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise.

3 [NAME]

9. The Tribunal did not carry out an inspection of [NAME]. 10. [NAME] is a two bedroom mid terrace house set over two storeys constructed in the 2010s, offering the following accommodation: Hall, kitchen, lounge, w/c upstairs; two bedrooms and bathroom with full suite including shower. Outside: tarmacadam front driveway for one vehicle, rear garden laid to lawn with one small timber garden shed. [NAME] benefits from heating by gas central heating and double glazing. [NAME] is situated in the West Gorton area of Manchester within close proximity of amenities. Manchester City Centre is approximately 2 miles to the north east. Evidence 11. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms. The Tenant.

12. The Tenant made the following comments: “I respectfully submit that the rent proposed by the landlord does not reflect the true open market The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2015 . At that time, [NAME] was newly built and recorded as being in good condition throughout However, after more than 10 years of continuous occupation, the condition of [NAME] has The tribunal is required to assess rent based on the current condition of [NAME], not its original The following issues are present within [NAME] and impact its rental value: Door handles – worn/loose and in need of repair or replacement Flooring – visible wear and deterioration consistent with long-term use General signs of ageing and lack of modernisation throughout [NAME] These factors reduce the standard of accommodation compared to properties being newly advertised The landlord relies on a “Best Price Guide” of comparable properties. However, this evidence is not reliable for the following reasons:

4 The comparable appear to include modern, well-presented, or recently marketed properties Some include additional benefits such as: Furnished accommodation Parking Higher specification interiors The condition and specification of these properties are not directly comparable to the subject The surrounding environment of [NAME] also negatively impacts its rental value. [NAME] is located within an area consisting largely of council housing, and the following Persistent noise disturbance Rubbish and waste present in surrounding outdoor areas General environmental conditions which reduce desirability compared to more maintained residential In this case: [NAME] is not newly refurbished There are identifiable maintenance issues The surrounding environment is less desirable The landlord’s comparable are not truly equivalent For the reasons set out above: The rent proposed by the landlord is above the true market level The landlord’s evidence does not reflect a like-for-like comparison The condition and environment of [NAME] justify a downward adjustment” 13. In terms of rental evidence, the Tenant did not provide any comparable properties, they only stated the following: “I consider the proposed rent of £1,032 per month to be above the true market value for this property. Based on my review of the local rental market in the M12/Gorton area, typical rents for comparable two-bedroom houses of similar size and condition generally fall within the range of approximately £900–£1,000 per month. The proposed figure places [NAME] at the upper end of the market, despite it not offering features that would justify a premium level of rent. In addition, the immediate surroundings of [NAME] have a noticeable impact on its value. [NAME] faces a council housing estate, and there are ongoing issues which affect the living environment. These include frequent instances of rubbish being left outside, as well as noise disturbances such as loud music, swearing, and arguments, particularly during weekends. These factors negatively affect the

5 overall desirability of [NAME] and should reasonably be reflected in the rent level. Taking into account both the general market level for comparable properties and the specific environmental factors affecting this location, I believe a rent in the region of £900–£950 per month more accurately reflects the fair market value.” They also go on to say: “In addition, the immediate surroundings of [NAME] have a noticeable impact on its value. [NAME] faces a council housing estate, and there are ongoing issues which affect the living environment. These include frequent instances of rubbish being left outside, as well as noise disturbances such as loud music, swearing, and arguments, particularly during weekends. These factors negatively affect the overall desirability of [NAME] and should reasonably be reflected in the rent level.” The Landlord 14. The Landlord provided a Rightmove Best Price Guide, which considered an area of interest of M12 5Fr + 0.25 miles and showed properties marketed between 23 Dec 2024 and 23 March 2026.

15. Of the seven properties in the price guide the Tribunal notes that only two were marked as LET AGREED, these were: a) 2 bed semi-detached modern construction house on [ADDRESS]. Two double bedrooms, furnished accommodation with driveway providing off road parking. Rent shown £1250 pcm. b) 2 bedroom mid terrace modern construction house on [ADDRESS]. Two double bedrooms, modern kitchen and driveway parking. Rent shown at £1250 pcm. Both properties are within 0.1 miles of the subject property, with the front aspect of [ADDRESS] looking out towards [ADDRESS]. Determination and Valuation 16. The Tribunal considers the comparables provided by the Landlord are relevant to this matter. The rental submissions provided by the Tenant was considered as generally of limited use as no actual comparable properties were provided.

6 17. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Landlord, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1250.00 pcm. This is the rent we would expect [NAME] to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as the comparable properties including [NAME] being fully furnished beyond just having white goods and curtains provided by the landlord.

18. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following: a) [NAME], is supplied with white goods but is not fully furnished as per the [ADDRESS] comparable and above starting point. b) Issues with the condition of [NAME] which reduce its value including items that need replacing and aging of internals such as door handles. The full valuation is shown below: Starting Rent £1250.00 pcm Less a) Items given under a) above £150.00 b) Items given under b) above £68.00 £218.00 Market rent £1032.00 pcm Undue hardship 12. The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.

13. The Tenant has asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case. They say: “Increased rent will put me under a financial pressure.” 14. The Landlord did not respond to the Tenant’s application for postponement due to hardship.

7 15. As a result of our decision the rent will increase by £172 a month. The date specified in the landlord’s notice was 1 June 2026. On the basis of the evidence supplied by the Tenant, the Tribunal considers that for the increase to take effect from the date in the Landlord’s Notice would cause undue hardship and accordingly sets the starting date for the new rent as 1 July 2026. Decision 16. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1032.00 per calendar month with effect from 1 July 2026. APPEAL PROVISIONS 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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.