VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Weekly Rent of £100 for Poor Condition Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal set a weekly rent of £100 for a property in poor condition, lacking modern amenities, under the Housing Act 1988.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a reduced rent if the property lacks modern facilities and is in poor condition.

Topics

rent determinationproperty condition

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 a reasonable 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 weekly rent of £100 after considering the property's condition and lack of modern amenities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a weekly rent of £100 for a property in poor condition, lacking modern amenities, under the Housing Act 1988.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/00KA/MNR/2018/0037

Property : 24, [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Landlord : [COMPANY] (Nationwide) [APPELLANT]

Tenant : Miss S [APPELLANT] of Application : to determine a rent under the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME] Member

Date of inspection : 10 January 2019

Date Decision Effective: 5 January 2019 _______________________________________________

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REASONS ____________________________________

DECISION The Tribunal determined a rent of £100.00 per week

THE PREMISES: End-terrace period two-storey property, built of local stone, with a single storey, flat-roofed, rear extension, and a timber-framed lean-to conservatory. There is a small front garden, a small rear garden with a brick out-house, used as a store, and what was an allotment is now used as a parking space for up to two cars, though the Tenant said this was not included in the tenancy. The accommodation consists of a sitting room, kitchen/diner, pantry, rear lobby, small bath/WC and lean-to conservatory, with steep stairs from the kitchen to one double and one single bedroom. The Landlord has not provided any furniture, carpets, curtains, or white goods.

CONDITION: External: the front and rear gates and the brick out-house are in very poor condition, as are sections of the fencing. Sections of the rear wall need re-pointing. All windows, doors and fascias are rotten in places, and appear to need substantially replacing – some of the windows are difficult/impossible to open. The Property has not been re-decorated externally for at least 25 years. However, the extension roof has recently been renovated.

Internal: there is no central heating, and there is evidence of significant damp/condensation/mould throughout the property. Hot water is via an immersion heater without a thermostat or timer. The kitchen fittings are very limited, basic and dated, and the bathroom fittings are dated. The Property has not been re-wired for at least 40 years. The water tank, in the second bedroom, is at least 40 years old, made of asbestos, and not properly insulated. The plumbing is dated. The front door is dated and draughty.

TENANT’S IMPROVEMENTS: None of significance to the rent.

LOCATION Located in a sought-after village, close to the A1, approximately 10 miles from Peterborough.

THE LAW APPLIED: Section 14 Housing Act 1988

OPEN MARKET RENT: The Tribunal relied on the Tribunal members’ knowledge and experience, as no comparable evidence was provided by the parties, and determined an open market rent of £650.00 per calendar month for a similar property, in good condition, and with modern facilities, carpets, curtains and some white goods.

TRIBUNAL’S CALCULATIONS

Open Market Rent £650.00 pcm

Less deduction for condition, lack of modern facilities, carpets, curtains and white goods £ 215.00 pcm

Open market rent for subject property £435.00 pcm

DECISION: The Committee therefore determined a rent of £100.00 per week for the subject 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.

4

📊 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 property is in poor condition.
  • The property lacks modern facilities.
  • The property is in a state of disrepair.
  • The property lacks essential facilities.
  • The tenant has made improvements to the property.

❌ 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 weekly rent of £100 for a property in poor condition near Peterborough.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the appropriate rent for a property in poor condition near Peterborough.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set a rent of £100 per week, taking into account the poor condition and lack of modern amenities in the property.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the lack of modern amenities.

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

The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also be entitled to a reduced rent if their property is in poor condition and lacks modern amenities.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property and the lack of modern amenities were the key factors considered by the Tribunal.

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.