VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Market Rent for Residential Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the First-tier Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent for a residential property, taking into account the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant. The decision was made effective from 31 May 2019.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord must consider the condition of the property and tenant improvements when determining a fair market rent.

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 a fair market rent, considering the property's condition and excluding certain factors such as improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to account for the property's condition and tenant-provided fixtures.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £175 per week to £175 per week after considering the property's condition and tenant improvements, effective from 31 May 2019.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00BS/MNR/2019/0040

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 146 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT] 1st Floor Citygate, St James' Boulevard, Newcastle upon Tyne, [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 175.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 31 May 2019

The amount included for services is Not applicable Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 22 February 2013

5. Length of the term or rental period Periodic tenancy

6. Allocation of liability for repairs S11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises 3 Bedroom detached property with double glazing, central heating and garage

[NAME] of Decision 19 July 2019

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: MAN/00BS/MNR/2019/0040

Property : 146 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Landlord

: [RESPONDENT]: : [APPELLANT]

Tenant

: Mr [APPELLANT] of Application : Determination of a market rent under The Housing Act 1988 Section 13

Tribunal Members : Mrs AJ Rawlence MRICS (Chair)

Mrs H Clayton JP

Date of Decision : 19 July 2019

Date of Reasons : 23 August 2019

_______________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF REASONS

____________________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

2

Background

1. This is an application dated 21 May 2019 to the First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber by the Tenant of the above property Mr [APPELLANT] under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”), referring a notice served on him by the Landlord, [RESPONDENT], proposing a new rent of £175.00 per week in place of the existing rent of £160.00 per week.

2. The Landlord’s notice was dated 12 April 2019 and the date inserted in the notice for the commencement of the new rent was 31 May 2019.

3. The tenancy under which Mr [NAME] occupies the property is a periodic tenancy which commenced on 22 February 2013.

Inspection

4. The Tribunal inspected the Property on 19 July 2019. The Tribunal were accompanied by the Tenant and the [NAME].

5. The property was a three bedroom detached house with double glazing, central heating and a garage. It was situated next to a commercial property belonging to BT Openreach and had previously been occupied by the tenant’s parents under a GPO tenancy.

6. The accommodation provided Hall, Front and Rear Living Rooms, small Kitchen with pantry and store. At first floor were two Double Bedrooms, one Single Bedroom and Bathroom with original basin.

7. The white goods were provided by the Tenant and central heating had been installed by the Tenant’s mother under a grant scheme. The Landlord has subsequently replaced the boiler and maintained the heating system.

8. The Tenant had supplied all the carpets, curtains and furniture.

9. The Property had gardens to the front and rear and vehicular access to the garage at the side.

10. The Tribunal noted the following items of disrepair:

The property had been partially rewired in 2012 with a new circuit board. There were only single sockets in each Bedroom. The agent noted that a 5 year review was due. Cracks were noted above the door of the rear Living room and there was evidence of movement in the bay extension to the Kitchen. Defective plaster under window on the stairs Crack in the corner of the Double Bedroom Poor condition of garage

3

Defective downpipe on the Rear Elevation and two stepped fractures, one by the Rear Living Room and a larger one by the store. Debris in the gutter on the Front Elevation

Tenant’s works

11. The Tenant had carried out the following works:

Worktop in the Kitchen

Written representations

12. No written representations were made the Tenant.

13. The Landlord sent written representation dated 13 June 2019 where evidence was provided of four bedroom detached houses in the area. One property had recently been let at £1,400 per calendar month but the remaining two properties were still on the market at £3,200 and £3,000 respectively.

The Law

14. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Act the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy.

15. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of any relevant Tenant’s improvements, as defined in section 14 (2).

The Decision

16. The Tribunal’s decision was sent to both parties.

17. By letters dated 12 August 2019 both parties requested a statement of reasons.

Reasons for the Decision

18. In the first instance the Tribunal determined what rent the Landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by having regard to the evidence supplied by the Landlord and Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels. The Tribunal concluded that such a likely market rent would be £300.00 per week.

19. However, the actual property is not in the condition considered usual for a modern letting at a market rent. Therefore, it was first necessary to adjust that hypothetical rent of £300.00 per week to allow for the differences between the condition considered usual for such a letting and the condition of the actual property as observed by the Tribunal

4

(disregarding the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the Tenants or any predecessor in title). The Tribunal considered that this required a deduction of £30.00 per week in respect of the carpets, curtains and white goods which were provided by the Tenant and a deduction of £50.00 per week to reflect the small basic Kitchen and unmodernised Bathroom. The Tribunal made a further deduction of £45.00 to reflect lack of modern sockets and items of disrepair.

20. The Tribunal therefore confirmed that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £175 per week.

21. This rent will take effect from 31 May 2019 being the date specified in the notice.

22. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), on a point of law only. Any such application must be made to the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days of this decision (Rule 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

[NAME]

23 August 2019

📊 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 have their rent set by a tribunal under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The rent must be set at a reasonable market rate based on comparable properties and the condition of the property.
  • A fair determination of rent includes adjustments for minor disrepair and service charges.
  • Tenants can refer a landlord's notice of rent increase to the Tribunal for a fair market rent determination.
  • Rent should be adjusted based on the property's condition and necessary improvements.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal confirmed the rent at £175 per week, effective from 31 May 2019.

Who was involved?

The dispute was between a landlord and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to confirm the proposed rent after considering the property's condition and tenant improvements.

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 improvements made by the tenant.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure their improvements and the property's condition are taken into account when determining rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition and tenant improvements were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law only.

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 determinations.

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.