First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Rural Property
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal set a monthly rent of £640.00 for a rural property, considering factors like the property's age, condition, and amenities. The decision was based on the Housing Act 1988.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair rent based on the property's condition and amenities under the Housing Act 1988.
📖 What the law says
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 what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set a rent of £640.00 per month after considering the property's condition and amenities.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a fair rent of £640.00 per month for a rural property, taking into account its condition and amenities under the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference : CAM/42UC/MNR/2019/0020
Property : Farthing Drove Bungalow, Burnt Fen, Bury St Edmunds [POSTCODE]
Landlord : [APPELLANT]
Tenant : Mr [APPELLANT] of Application : to determine a rent under the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : [NAME] Member
Date of inspection : 2o November 2019
Date Decision Effective: 1 October 2019 _______________________________________________
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REASONS ____________________________________
DECISION The Tribunal determined a rent of £640.00 per month
THE PREMISES: Detached brick and tile bungalow, approx. 60 years old, with single garage, and approx. 2 acres garden and paddocks, with sheds/greenhouses etc. belonging to the Tenant. Off-road parking for 3 cars. Double glazing. Septic tank drainage – Tenant pays for emptying. Accommodation: front porch, hall, front sitting room, 3 double bedrooms, one a small double, bath/WC, rear sitting room with cupboard for water tank and immersion heater, kitchen, rear lobby with WC and [NAME] off, back door. Rear sitting room has multi-fuel stove with back boiler, which serves 5 radiators, and provides hot water, when on. Cavity wall and loft insulation.
CONDITION: External: garage dilapidated and unusable. Both front porch and back door in poor condition. Gutters leaking in places and need re-aligning. Concrete paths around Property are uneven and cracked, and appear to be suffering from subsidence.
Internal: double glazing dated and many windows draughty. Kitchen and bathroom fittings old and dated – bath panel removed due to leak behind bath. Not re-wired for at least 30 years and at least 2 electrical sockets are broken. Radiators dated. Evidence of mould in bathroom, and damp/condensation in small bedroom. [NAME] and WC in rear lobby damp, with no heating, and [APPELLANT] said WC unusable due to leaking overflow. Plaster in [NAME] cracked, and some has fallen off the wall.
TENANT’S IMPROVEMENTS: None of significance in determining rent.
LOCATION In an isolated, rural location. Nearest shop and public transport approximately 5 miles away.
THE LAW APPLIED: Section 14 Housing Act 1988
TRINUNAL’s CALCULATION Open market rent for property in good condition £1000.00 pm Deduction for lack of modern facilities, carpets, curtains and some white goods, and condition £ 360.00 pm
£ 640.00 pm
DECISION: The Committee therefore determined a rent of £640.00 per month for the Property.
Judge Lancaster
Important Note: This is a summary of the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision. Should you require more detailed reasons, they can be supplied but only if a written request for such reasons is received by the Panel Office within 21 days from the receipt of this document. The papers will then be returned to the Chair for such detailed reasons to be prepared.
Caution: For the purpose of reaching a decision the Tribunal inspected the subject property. Such inspection is not a structural survey and only takes a few minutes. Any comments about the condition of the property in this Statement of Reasons are made as a result of casual observation rather than a detailed inspection. Please do not rely upon such comments as a guide to the structural condition of the property.
3
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Reduced Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £1,290 for Semi-Detached House
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £625/month rent for assured tenancy in Manchester
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £1125 Monthly Rent for Assured Tenancy in Manchester
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £700/month rent for assured tenancy in Coventry
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy Set at £985
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £1300/month rent for assured tenancy in Barlby
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £1567.50/month rent for assured tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £1737.49/month rent for assured tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £370 biweekly rent for assured tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £2000/month rent for assured tenancy in London
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4135549
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 rent determination under the Housing Act 1988.
- Fair rent is based on the property's condition and amenities.
- Fair rent can also be based on market comparables.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set a monthly rent of £640 for the bungalow in Burnt Fen, Bury St Edmunds.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the appropriate rent for a bungalow with outdated facilities and poor condition.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to set a lower rent of £640 per month, considering the property's condition and lack of modern facilities.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 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 lack of modern facilities.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, likely the tenant seeking a lower rent.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might also have their rent adjusted based on the condition of their property and the presence of modern facilities.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The condition of the property, including its age, facilities, and state of repair, was crucial in making the decision.
