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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent After Tenant Improvements

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided that a new rent for a Coventry flat would be £590 per month, after considering both the condition of the property and improvements made by the tenant. The original proposed rent was higher at £700 but adjustments were made to reflect the tenant's contributions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's proposed increase in rent must be adjusted based on the condition of the property and any improvements made by the tenant under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to serve a notice proposing an increase in rent. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, which must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent, considering 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 one-bedroom flat in Coventry, considering improvements made by the tenant and the condition of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent for a property to be £590 per month, taking into account the condition of the property and improvements made by the tenant. The landlord proposed an increase to £700 but adjustments were made based on the tenant's contributions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: BIR/00CQ/MNR/2025/0740

Property : 72 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT]

Landlord’s agent : [NAME] of application : 4 June 2025

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

Tribunal Members : [NAME] & [NAME] of Decision : 13 November 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £590 per month with effect from 1 August 2025. ____________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 3 June 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £700 per month in place of the existing rent of £525 to take effect from 1 August 2025.

2. On 4 June 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.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and online research.

4. However, the Tribunal understands from the submissions made by the parties that the property comprises a one-bedroom ground floor flat including a living room, kitchen and bathroom and a garden. The property includes central heating and double glazing but the carpets and curtains and white goods belonged to the tenant.

Evidence

5. The Tribunal considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.

6. The tenant’s application form and Reply Form stated she had provided off road parking at her expense and fitted spotlights in the kitchen, new door handles laid laminate flooring in the living room, lino in the kitchen and bathroom, fitted new skirting boards in the bedroom and re-sealed all the windows in the bedroom.

7. The Landlord’s Reply Form confirmed the extent of the accommodation but also stated the kitchen was basic, there were mould issues in the living room and bedroom and, where the ceiling had been replastered, it needed repainting.

8. The Landlord’s agent provided a letter advising that in their opinion if they were to remarket the property, they would offer the property at £700 per month. In support they referred to a number of comparable properties in the area ranging in rental value of between £650 to £700 per month. No rental evidence was submitted by the Tenant.

3 9. The Landlord also confirmed they had undertaken a number of works since 2023 costing £5445.14. The Landlord also stated that most of the issues are down to the Tenant’s lifestyle including damage to the front door, blocked up air vents in the bedroom and other issues which the Tenant has caused.

Determination and Valuation

10. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and of our own expert, knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £700 per month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

a) Condition. b) Improvements made by the Tenant. c) Curtains, carpets and white goods provided by the Tenant. d) The Tenant’s liability to redecorate.

11. The full valuation is shown below: Per Month

Market Rent

£700

Less a) Items given under a) above

£50

b) Items given under b) above

£0 c) Items given under c) above

£25

d) Tenant’s internal decoration liability @ 5% £35 £110

£590

Say £590 Decision

12. 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 [NAME]

under an assured tenancy was £590 per month with effect from 1 August 2025.

Hardship

9. The Tenant raised hardship in their submissions. However, no evidence was submitted in support of the application except that the tenant receives Housing Benefit topped up by Universal Credit. The Tribunal did not find this sufficient to claim undue hardship and accordingly, the Tribunal directs the new rent of

4 £595 per month to take effect from 1 August 2025. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 13 November 2025

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.

5

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 72 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Mr [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [APPELLANT] 1 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £590 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

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

3. The amount included for services is/is not applicable - Per -

4. Date assured tenancy commenced Not Known 5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly - Periodic 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Not applicable 8. Description of premises One bedroom flat.

[NAME] of Decision 13 November 2025

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No.

BIR/00CQ/MNR/2025/0740

📊 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 market rent for the property in good condition was determined to be £700 per month.
  • The property's condition, including mould issues and basic kitchen, justified a £50 reduction in rent.
  • The tenant's provision of carpets, curtains, and white goods justified a £25 reduction in rent.
  • The tenant's liability for internal decoration justified a £35 reduction in rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's claim of hardship was not sufficiently supported by evidence.
  • The landlord's claim that tenant's lifestyle caused issues like blocked air vents was not reflected in the rent determination.

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 market rent for the flat at £590 per month.

Who was involved?

A landlord and a tenant were involved in the dispute over rent increase.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered both the condition of the property and improvements made by the tenant to determine the new rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were used in determining the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The improvements made by the tenant to the property played a significant role in adjusting the proposed rent.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant, as it reduced the landlord's proposed rent from £700 to £590.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase can argue that improvements they have made should be considered when determining the new market rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenant's application form and the landlord’s agent letter were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on points of law within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal 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.