VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Refurbished Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a property that needed major improvements. They set the rent at £1,035 per month, starting April 1, 2025, taking into account the property's outdated condition and local rental prices.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent reduction based on the condition of the property.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent, considering the property's condition and comparable rental values in the area.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in need of refurbishment.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the market rent for a property in need of significant refurbishment and modernisation. The rent was set at £1,035 per month, effective from April 1, 2025, after considering the property's condition and comparable rental values in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AZ/MNR/2025/0723

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] Mr [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT] (London) [RESPONDENT]

2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1035 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 April 2025

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

*4. Service charges are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced By succession in July 1996

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly Assured Periodic Tenancy

7. Allocation of liability for repairs In accordance with agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises A purpose built first floor flat forming part of a three storey building over commercial premises. Accommodation comprises 3 bedrooms, kitchen, living room, bathroom/WC, balcony..

[NAME] of Decision 7 October 2025

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AF/MNR/2025/0723

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [COUNSEL]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] : [RESPONDENT] (London) [COMPANY] of Objection : 13 February 2025

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

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Summary Reasons : 7 October 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,035 per calendar month with effect from 1 April 2025. FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. The landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 dated 6 February 2025 which proposed a new rent of £1,200 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,100 per month to take effect from 1 April 2025. This being an increase of £100 per month

2. On the 13 February 2025 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 parties did not request a hearing to determine this matter and the Tribunal agreed with this arrangement. However, during the inspection the tenant confirmed he requested a hearing, but he considered there was was no prejudice without one. The tenant requested an inspection which was undertaken on the 7 October 2025. Therefore, this case was considered on the basis of the inspection, the papers provided by the parties with the assistance of Rightmove and Google Maps.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has received a completed statement from the tenant together with submissions in connection with the history of the tenant’s occupation and the most recent Tribunal case being LON/00/BD/MNR/2022/0105 which this Tribunal will refer to in the decision. There were no submissions made by the landlord. The parties did not provide any evidence in connection with comparable rental evidence in the area.

The Inspection

5 The property was inspected on the 7 October 2025 in the presence of the tenant. The Tribunal’s previous decisions for this property provided a very detailed description. In essence, this property is in need of significant refurbishment and modernisation.

Determination and Valuation

6. In the Tribunal decision LON/00BD/MNR/2022/0105 dated the 17 February 2025 paragraph 39 states “ In these circumstances, we concluded that the best we could do was to decline any increase in the rent” This Tribunal departs from this methodology and clearly is of the opinion the rental value can be calculated based upon the usual method of valuation adopted by this Tribunal.

3 7. Therefore, having consideration of the evidence provided by the parties, the previous decision and our own expert general knowledge of rental values in the East Sheen area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good lettable condition with modern fittings and services would be £2,300 per month.

7. The Tribunal considered the submissions from the tenant regarding the condition of the property and based upon the inspection we consider a deduction of £1,265 per month (55%) should be applied to take into account the archaic condition of the property, previous damp penetration, significant plaster repairs and cracking, single glazed windows, no central heating, no white goods, carpets or curtains provided by the landlord. This reduces the rental figure to £1,035 per month. It should be noted that this figure cannot be a simple arithmetical calculation and is not based on capital costs but is the Tribunal’s estimate of the amount by which the rent would need to be reduced to attract a tenant.

Decision

8. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy in its current condition was £1,035 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1,035 per month to take effect on the 1 April 2025. This being the date in the Landlord’s notice.

Chairman: [NAME]: 7 October 2025

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 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 property's condition was significantly poor.
  • Rent was adjusted based on comparable properties' rental values.
  • Tenant's financial ability to pay was considered in the rent adjustment.
  • Disrepair and poor maintenance of the property led to a rent reduction.
  • Rent adjustments were made according to the Housing Act 1988.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The market rent for a property in need of refurbishment was set at £1,035 per month.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and local rental prices, reducing the rent due to the property's outdated state.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property, which was deemed to require significant refurbishment.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant, who argued for a lower rent based on the property's condition.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be able to argue for a lower rent if their property is in poor condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as the property's condition and comparable rental values in the area were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed if either party disagrees with the outcome.

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 disputes.

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.