VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent Based on Market Conditions and Disrepair

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a fair rent for a a person based on current market conditions and the state of repair of a person. The new rent of £525 per month will take effect from June 10, 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the relevant tenancy legislation, a tribunal may adjust the rent based on market comparables and deduct for disrepair and outdated facilities.

Topics

rent determinationdisrepair deductions

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 rent based on market conditions, considering factors such as the state of repair of the property and disregarding certain elements like improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal adjusted the rent based on market comparables and deducted for disrepair and lack of modern amenities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for a property based on market conditions and made deductions for disrepair. The decision took effect from June 10, 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00CZ/MNR/2025/0695 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 2 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member [NAME] [RESPONDENT] 139 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is:£ 550 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 10th June 2025 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Per 4. Date assured tenancy commenced 19th July 2014 5. Length of the term or rental period Per calendar month 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Per tenancy agreement 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord All floor coverings and all white goods 8. Description of premises A small terraced [NAME] comprising 2 bedrooms, being one double and one small single bedroom, bathroom, kitchen/living room and loft. [NAME] has one entrance door leading to a small garden. There is no off-road car parking space. [NAME] of Decision 10th June 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : MAN/00CZ/MNR/2025/0695 [NAME] : 2, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL] of Application : Housing Act 1988 Section 14 Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member [NAME] of Determination : 10th June 2025 Date of Reasons : 18th June 2025

REASONS FOR

DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

Decision 1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application.

2. The rent payable for [ADDRESS], Heckmondwike (‘[NAME]”) is £550 per calendar month with effect from 10th June 2025. Application 3. This is an application by [APPELLANT] [NAME] (“the Applicant”) for the determination of the rent payable in respect of [NAME], pursuant to Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 (‘the Act”).

4. The tenancy of [NAME] commenced on 19th July 2014. 5. [RESPONDENT] (the Respondent”), the managing agent of [NAME] served a notice to increase the rent for [NAME] (“the Notice”) from the existing rent of £525 per calendar month to £750 per calendar month. The Notice, dated 13th January 2025, stated the increase was to take effect from 19th February 2025.

6. The Applicant objected to the proposed increase and filed an application with the First-tier Tribunal for the issue to be determined.

7. The Tribunal inspected [NAME] on 10th June 2025. Mr [APPELLANT] attended on behalf of the Respondent, but the Applicant did not wish him to enter [NAME] and therefore he did not attend the inspection. Inspection 9. [NAME] is a back-to-back stone-built house beneath a tiled roof comprising GF: small vestibule, open kitchen/dining room. FF:2 bedrooms and bathroom/WC. There is an enclosed garden fronting [NAME] with decked patio area which has rotten timber in places evidenced by broken panels. Due to the lack of space, the washing machine is located on the first floor. [NAME] has a dated double-glazed door and windows with gas central heating. The room sizes are small in comparison with a conventional terraced house with the small single bedroom only having space for a single bed and wardrobe.

10. The Applicant confirmed the landlord has done work to insulate the outside walls throughout [NAME], although this had left bare plaster and no redecoration had been completed. The work had reduced the size of all the accommodation but is more significant in the small bedroom.

11. The Tribunal noted at least two thermostatic valves to radiators were loose and defective. Also, the pop-up plug to the hand basin in the bathroom was broken and defective. Determination 12. The Tribunal firstly considered whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the application. The tenancy must be one that falls within section 13 of the Act.

13. The criteria for this are: • the tenant must have exclusive occupancy of [NAME]; • [NAME] must be a dwelling house; • the dwelling house must be let as a separate [NAME]; • the tenant must be an individual; • the tenant must occupy [NAME] as their principal home; all these conditions are met in this case.

14. The following criteria must then be satisfied: • the tenancy is a periodic tenancy that makes no provision for a rent increase; • any rent increase is in the prescribed form; • the rent increase must be 52 weeks after the commencement of the tenancy; • the rent increase must also be 52 weeks after any previous increase; • the notice period for the increase must be at least one month; • the notice must be signed by the landlords; • the proposed rent must be specified to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy.

15. The Tribunal considered the criteria to be satisfied and the Notice dated 13th January 2025 to be valid.

16. The Tribunal thereafter considered the appropriate market rent for [NAME]. It noted neither party had submitted any evidence of suitable comparable properties.

17. The Tribunal considered the open market rent of [NAME] and relying upon its own knowledge and expertise considered the evidence available to it from the advertisements of rental properties in the area. In particular, the Tribunal noted there were advertisements for the following:  [ADDRESS], Heckmondwike-2 bed modern terrace -£850 pcm  [ADDRESS], Batley WF 17-2 bed terrace- £725 pcm  [ADDRESS] WF 15 2 bed terrace- £650 pcm  [ADDRESS] WF 15 2 bed terrace- £600 pcm  [ADDRESS] WF 15 2 bed terrace- £650 pcm 18. The Tribunal considered the comparable properties but noted none were directly comparable, each having larger accommodation and more modern amenities. In relying upon its own knowledge and experience of [NAME] market in the area, it determined the open market value for [NAME] would be £575 per calendar month. This reflects the smaller [NAME] and its unique layout.

19. The Tribunal thereafter determined there should be a deduction from the market rent of £25 per calendar month for the disrepair as referred in paragraphs 11 and 12 above and the lack of modern amenities. The Applicant has not undertaken any improvements to [NAME].

20. The Tribunal determined the rent for [NAME] is £525 per calendar month, with effect from 10th June 2025, being the date of the Tribunal’s decision.

21. In making its decision the Tribunal had regard to section 14(7) of the Act and considered the matter of undue hardship. The Applicant confirmed she was in receipt of Housing Benefit, in the maximum sum of £450 per month. She would have difficulty in paying the arrears from her remaining benefits were the increase in rent to be effective from the date in the Notice, namely 19th February 2025.

Accordingly, the increase in rent is effective from the date of the Tribunal’s decision.

📊 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 disputes the landlord's proposed rent increase under an assured periodic tenancy agreement.
  • The tenant requests a rent determination under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
  • The tenant seeks a fair rent that reflects current market conditions and the state of repair of the property.
  • The tenant demands a rent adjustment based on the property's condition and necessary improvements.
  • The tenant asks for a rent registration under Section 14 of 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 Tribunal set a new rent of £525 per month for the property, taking into account market conditions and disrepair.

Who was involved?

The tenant applied for rent determination, while the landlord sought to increase the rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on market conditions and the state of repair of the property, considering the lack of modern amenities and disrepair issues.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied to determine the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the need for a fair rent based on market conditions.

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

The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for rent determination if they believe the rent is unfair or too high.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence such as comparable rental prices and the state of repair of the property 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.