VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Open Market Rent at £750

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to set the open market rent for a property at £750 per month after considering the property's condition and the tenant's financial difficulties.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have the open market rent for their property set at a reasonable level, taking into account the property's condition and the tenant's financial circumstances.

Topics

tenancy disputesopen market 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 the open market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under an assured tenancy. The determination considers the property's condition and the terms of the existing tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the open market rent for a property at £750 per month, considering the property's condition and the tenant's financial hardship.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the open market rent for a property to be £750 per month, considering the property's condition and the tenant's financial circumstances.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference :

MAN/00BM/MNR/2025/0850 Property : 134 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant : [APPELLANT] Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Application :

s13 Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members

:

Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] of Decision :

27 November 2025 _______________________________________________

DECISION

Decision 1. By a decision dated 27 November 2025, the Tribunal determined, in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, that the open market rent for the Property is £750 per month. Background 2. By a notice dated 27 May 2025, (“the Notice”), the Landlord proposed a new rent of £995 per month to take effect from 6 July 2025.

3. By an application dated 2 June 2025, the Tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal. Inspection 4. The Tribunal inspected the Property on 11 November 2025.

5. The Property is a semi-detached house with front and rear gardens and a driveway to the side. The Property is situated on a main road in Tottington. The accommodation comprises: G/F: entrance hall, 2 x reception rooms, kitchen; 1/F: bathroom, 2 bedrooms. The Property has double-glazing and gas central heating.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

6. The Property is let unfurnished with curtains and white goods provided by the Tenant.

7. Upon inspection, the Tribunal noted: 7.1 various areas of poor plasterwork (some recently replastered and not yet decorated) and carpets generally worn; 7.2 light fitting loose in hallway; 7.3 loose/missing cupboard doors in kitchen, damp and mould around kitchen window; 7.4 signs of damp and mould to bedrooms; 7.2 bath panel cracked, bathroom ceiling damaged, some bathroom wall tiles missing, damage to bathroom wall from doorhandle; and 7.3 several misted double glazing units. Evidence and Hearing 8. A hearing took place via video link on 27 November 2025 and was attended by the [NAME], [APPELLANT] of [APPELLANT], and the Tenant. 8.1 Limited written submissions were provided on behalf of the Landlord before the hearing and these did not include any comparables. No written submissions were made by the Tenant. Both parties were afforded the opportunity to make oral representations at the hearing. 8.2 At the hearing, Mr [NAME] referred to the lettings of three nearby properties at monthly rents ranging between £750 and £995. Under questioning from the Tribunal, Mr [NAME] stated that in his opinion the Property, if it were fully refurbished to a high standard, would command a rent of £1,200 per month. In its current condition, his opinion of rental value was £795 per month. 8.3 The Tenant did not provide any specific comparables, but expressed her view that the rental value was in the range of £650 to £700 per month. 8.4 The Tenant also gave evidence as to her financial position, which she said was precarious. She receives Universal Credit and has no savings. A backdated rent increase would cause her severe hardship. This evidence was not challenged or contradicted by the [NAME].

The Law 9. The Tribunal must first determine that the Landlord’s notice under section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. 10. The Housing Act 1988, section 14 requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

11. In so doing the Tribunal, is required by section 14(1), to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.

12. Section 14(4) provides that for the purposes of section 14 “rent” includes amongst other things any sums payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of council tax.

13. Section 14(4) provides that for the purposes of section 14 “rent” does not include a “service charge” within the meaning of section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (i.e. where in accordance with the terms of the tenancy or other agreement a service charge payable by the tenant is variable from time to time according to changes in the relevant costs). However it does include a “fixed” service charge.

Tribunal’s Deliberations 14. The Tribunal determined the Notice to be valid in accordance with s13(2).

15. The Tribunal determined that the open market rent for a comparable property to the Property in good condition was £950 per month.

16. The Tribunal determined that deductions totalling £200 per month should be made from this rent to allow for disrepair/lack of modernity.

17. The Tribunal therefore determined that the open market rent for the Property in accordance with the statutory basis is £750 per month. 18 The Tribunal accepted the Tenants’ evidence of her financial circumstances and considered that it would cause undue hardship for the rent increase be backdated to 6 July 2025.

Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its discretion under Section 14(7) and directs that the rent will take effect from 27 November 2025.

[NAME] (Chairman) 27 November 2025

📊 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 should reflect the open market value of the property.
  • Financial circumstances of the tenant should be considered.
  • Property condition should be taken into account.
  • Service charges should only be applied if there are shared communal areas or services provided by the landlord.
  • Rent should be adjusted for minor disrepair.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The open market rent for a property was set at £750 per month.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £750 per month, considering the property's condition and the tenant's financial hardship.

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 tenant's financial hardship and the condition of the property.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may be able to argue for a lower rent based on the condition of the property and their financial circumstances.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition and the tenant's financial circumstances 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 disputes.

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.