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

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent for Manchester Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a new rental price for a Manchester property at £1,300 per month after considering comparable properties and adjusting for the current state of the rented house. The decision reflects market conditions but also takes into account any specific issues with the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord may propose a new rent under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 if it reflects the current market value, adjusted for specific property conditions.

Topics

tenancyrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows a landlord to propose a new rent for an assured periodic tenancy through a notice in a prescribed form. The new rent must take effect at the beginning of a new period specified in the notice, which starts at least two months after the notice is served. There are additional conditions for when the new rent can take effect, depending on whether it is a statutory periodic tenancy or another type of tenancy.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section provides a mechanism for a tenant to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy by applying to an appropriate tribunal. 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

Tribunal determined the market rent for an assured shorthold tenancy based on comparables and property condition.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the market rent of a property in Burnage, Manchester to be £1,300 pcm based on comparables and adjustments for specific issues with the property's condition.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

MAN/00BN/MNR/2025/1020

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

[COUNSEL] [NAME]

Tenant’s Representative

Tenant [APPELLANT]

Landlord

[NAME]

Landlord’s [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Landlord’s Representative

Date of Application

23 October 2025

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

Tribunal Members [NAME] – [NAME] of Decision

11 May 2026

Rent Determined

£1,300.00 per calendar month

Date the new rent takes effect

1 November 2025

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 11 September 2025, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,300.00 per calendar month(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £1,000.00 pcm to take effect from 1 November 2025.

2. On 23 October 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 assured shorthold tenancy commenced on 1 September 2024 for a term of 12 months. The rental period is monthly.

Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.

4. As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.

5. The Tenant does not pay any service charges, The Property is let unfurnished.

Liability for Council Tax

6. The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax.

Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.

7. N/A

Inspection/Hearing

8. Neither party requested an oral hearing. The Tribunal has considered this case on the basis of an inspection, the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise.

The Property

9. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the Property on 11 May 2026 in the presence of the Tenant, the Landlord was provided with notice of the inspection but did not attend.

10. The Property is a semi-detached house offering the following accommodation:

3

Ground Floor: entrance hall, two living rooms, kitchen, w/c.

First Floor: three bedrooms, bathroom with full suite, separate shower room.

Outside: front and rear gardens, off street parking.

The Property benefits from gas-fired central heating and is double glazed.

The Property is situated in the Burnage area of Manchester within close proximity of amenities. Manchester City Centre is approximately 4 miles to the north west.

Evidence

11. Both the Tenant and the Landlord returned the Tribunal’s Reply forms and made representations.

The Tenant.

12. The Tenant submitted that the proposed increase is above the market level for comparable properties in the area, but did not provide any comparable evidence.

The Landlord

13. The Landlord submitted that the rent had been below market levels for several years and produced the following comparables:

a) [ADDRESS] – 4 bed detached £1,750 pcm b) [ADDRESS] – 3 bed semi-detached £1,400 pcm c) [ADDRESS] – 4 bed semi-detached £1,600 pcm d) [ADDRESS]– 2 bed flat £1,200 pcm e) [ADDRESS] – 3 bed semi-detached £1,400 pcm

Determination and Valuation

14. The Tribunal considers the comparables provided by the Landlord are generally relevant to this matter. The Tribunal attached most weight to comparables b and e, on the basis these are the most similar the subject Property.

15. Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, and the comparables provided by the Landlord, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property modernised and in good order would be in the order of £1,400.00 pcm. This is the rent we would expect the property to let for in the open market if it was in the same general condition as the comparable properties.

16. From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following:

4

a) The unmodernised condition of the Property relative to the comparable properties. b) Issues with the condition of the Property apparent upon inspection which reduce its value including: peeling paint and leak damage, signs of mould to first floor ceilings, shower said to be ‘out of service’.

The full valuation is shown below:

Starting Rent

£1,400.00 pcm Less a) Items given under a) above

£50.00 b) Items given under b) above

£50.00

£100.00

Market rent

£1,300.00 pcm

Decision

12. Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £1,300.00 per calendar month with effect from 1 November 2025, being the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

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.

📊 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 rent is set at a fair market value based on comparable properties.
  • The rent adjustment considers the condition of the property.
  • The proposed rent increase is supported by evidence of comparable rental values.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The rent proposal does not align with current market rates.
  • The rent proposal leads to undue hardship for the tenant.

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 rental price of £1,300 pcm based on comparables and adjustments for the property's condition.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal considered comparable rental prices and adjusted them to reflect specific issues with the property's condition.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were used to determine the market rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The comparables provided by the landlord, adjusted for specific property issues, influenced the decision.

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

The decision was partially in favour of the tenant as it did not fully accept the proposed rent increase.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone facing a rent increase should gather comparable rental prices and evidence about their property's condition to support their case.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable rental prices and information on the property's condition were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) based on points of law.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for specific guidance.

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.