VadeLab
Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the market rent for a property, considering its condition and recent improvements. They set the rent at £595 per month after evaluating the property's state and the impact of repairs and upgrades.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property, adjusted for disrepair and improvements.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section 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 based on various factors including the terms of the existing tenancy and any improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property considering its condition and improvements.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property considering its condition and improvements. The rent was set at £595 per month, taking into account disrepair and the tenant's improvements.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CG/MNR/2023/0048

Property : 105 GREENWOOD ROAD, SHEFFIELD

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : DETERMINATION OF MARKET RENT: SECTION 13, HOUSING ACT 1988

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge A M Davies

Tribunal Member S Kendall MRICS

Date of Decision : 12 October 2023

DECISION

The rent payable for [ADDRESS], Sheffield with effect from 1 February 2023 is £595 per month.

REASONS

1. The Applicant’s tenancy began on 1 February 2015. In 2021 the rent was agreed at £550 per month. On 29 December 2022 the Respondent landlord served a notice to increase the rent to £625 with effect from 1 February 2023. On 28 January 2023 the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for a determination of rent pursuant to section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

2. The property was visited by the Tribunal on 12 October. The inspection took place with the assistance of a friend of Mr [APPELLANT]’s. Mr [APPELLANT] was present in the property but did not attend the inspection.

THE LAW 3. Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 sets out how the Tribunal is to determine the rent. The rent is to be the amount at which the property can reasonably be expected to be let in the open market as at (in this case) 1 February 2023 on the same terms as the Applicant’s lease (other than rent) but disregarding (a) any increase in the value of the property attributable to an improvement carried out by the Applicant, and (b) any reduction in the value of the property attributable to any breach of the tenancy agreement on the part of the Applicant.

4. Section 14(7) of the Act provides that the new rent is to take effect from the date specified in the Respondent’s notice unless the Tribunal considers that that would cause undue hardship to the Tenant, in which case a later date can be specified.

INSPECTION 5. On inspection the property was found to be a two bedroomed end-terraced house built of brick under a new tiled roof. It is situated on the eastern outskirts of Sheffield with easy vehicular access to the city centre and the motorway network. The immediate area is generally poor. The property has central heating and double glazing. As well as the entrance hall on the ground floor there is a combined kitchen and dining room, a living room to the rear and a utility room with door to the rear garden. On the first floor there are a landing, bathroom with separate lavatory and two double bedrooms. The property has a separate garage and a brick built outhouse, both in a poor state of repair. There is a small back garden area, together with side and front gardens. Off-street parking space is available for 3 cars in addition to the garage.

6. The property was let unfurnished and with no window or floor coverings save lino in the kitchen, toilet and bathroom which the Applicant says was worn.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

7. The Tribunal found the following items of disrepair: bathroom tiling has come away from the wall causing leaks if the shower or bath is used; the toilet leaks and requires replacement; pipework to the bathroom basin is in extremely poor condition; washbasin taps do not work; the kitchen sink is broken off the surround and has been propped up by the tenant; kitchen units are in a poor condition; the kitchen hot tap leaks and cannot be used. The kitchen, toilet and bathroom are currently only useable with considerable difficulty – the tenant does not use the bathroom at all. Rainwater goods to the rear of the house are in a poor state of repair, as are the back door and the window alongside it. The garden paths require attention to make them safe.

8. Improvements carried out by the tenant which affect the rent are installation of a upvc front door and provision of a new rear garden fence. Landlord’s improvements were limited to a new roof, which the applicant claimed had been unnecessary and funded in part by a grant. An EPC dated 2014 gave a G reading, but central heating had been installed since that date.

9. The parties did not make the Tribunal aware of any breach of the terms of the tenancy on the part of the Applicant.

VALUATION 10. In his written representations the Respondent acknowledged that the kitchen and bathroom would required modernisation prior to a re-letting, and that the property would have to be redecorated. He claimed that £625 per month was below the rents of comparable properties locally and in the wider area, and that when he searched there were no two bedroomed houses to rent in Sheffield He had identified two comparable houses within 1 mile of the property, which were to let at asking rents of £700 and £800 respectively. No further details of these were supplied.

11. The Applicant provided comparables as follows: in Underwood S8 with a big garden and floor coverings at an asking rent of £620; in Hillsborough with a big garden, floor coverings and modern kitchen and bathroom at £575; and in S2 a part furnished semi detached house at £625. He stated that the appropriate rent for the property in its current condition is £475 per month at most. He said that he had agreed a rent of £550 in 2021 on the understanding that the Respondent would sell him the property

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

for £100,000. There was an unfortunate history of animosity between the parties. However any agreement made in 2021 does not affect the Tribunal’s market rent calculation.

12. A property on the market to let can be expected to be in reasonable letting order, newly decorated and with carpets, curtains and white goods. The property, including the garden, would require substantial refurbishment if it were to attract the best market rent. The Tribunal finds that in good letting order the market rent for this property would be £750 per month.

13. Adjustments to this figure have been made as follows: for disrepair to kitchen, bathroom and toilet £110; for other items of disrepair noted above £20; for provisions of floor coverings and curtains £20; and for tenant’s improvements £5. The resulting rent is £595 per month.

📊 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 a fair market rent adjusted for the condition of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair market rent for their property, adjusted for the condition and contents of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment considering the property's condition and any improvements made by the tenant.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent based on the condition and location of the property.
  • A tenant is entitled to a fair rent that reflects the property's condition and market value, adjusted for the tenant's improvements and responsibilities.

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 was set at £595 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the property's condition and recent improvements to determine the fair market rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and the improvements made by the tenant were crucial arguments.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and any recent improvements when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition and any improvements made by the tenant 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 such cases.

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.