VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £875 to £765, considering the property's condition, improvements made by the tenant, and outstanding repairs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent adjustment based on the property's condition and improvements.

Topics

rent determinationassured tenancyimprovements

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, Section 14 allows a tenant with 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 in the open market. This determination takes into account the property's condition and any improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to account for the property's condition and improvements.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £875 to £765, taking into account the property's condition, improvements made by the tenant, and outstanding repairs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/24UF/MNR/2022/0076

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 [ADDRESS], Gosport, Hampshire, [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mr [RESPONDENT] [RESPONDENT], 158 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 765.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 07 July 2022

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

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 07 November 2018

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises Small terraced house with Living Room, Kitchen, double Bedroom, single bedroom and Bathroom.

[NAME] of Decision 18 August 2022

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/24UF/MNR/2022/0076 Property :

[ADDRESS] Hampshire [POSTCODE]

Landlord : Mr [COUNSEL] :

Your Move

Tenant : Ms [COUNSEL] : None Type of Application :

Determination of a Market Rent Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] [NAME] Mr [NAME] of Inspection : None. Paper determination Date of Decision :

18th August 2022

DECISION

CHI/00HH/MNR/2021/0137 2 Summary of Decision

1. On 18th August 2022 the Tribunal determined a market rent of £765 per month to take effect from 7th July 2022.

Background 2. The case concerned the determination of a market rent for the subject property following a referral of the Landlord’s notice of increase of rent by the Tenant pursuant to Sections 13 and 14 Housing Act 1988.

3. On 10th May 2022 the [NAME] served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £875 per month in place of the existing rent of £675 per month to take effect from 7th July 2022. The notice complied with the legal requirements.

4. On 27th June 2022 the Tenant applied to the Tribunal under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988. The Tenant included a long list of repairs, and some improvement works she had carried out during her occupation of the Property which began on 7th November 2012.

5. The Coronavirus pandemic and considerations of health have caused a suspension of inspections and Tribunal hearings in person until further notice.

6. The Tribunal issued directions on 11th July 2022 informing the parties that the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on written representations and that the Tribunal would seek to view the property on the internet. The parties were invited to make submissions which could include photographs or videos.

7. Neither party made any further submissions.

8. In accordance with the Directions, as no objection was received from either party, the Tribunal determined the case on 18th August 2022 based on the documents received and without an oral hearing. The Property 9. From the information given in the papers and available on the internet the property comprises a terraced house situated in a residential area close to the Alver Bridge in Gosport.

10. There are a number of local shops within reasonable distance and a wider range of amenities within the town of Gosport.

11. The accommodation is described as including a Living Room, Kitchen, double Bedroom, single Bedroom, a Bathroom with WC and a “lean-to”. Outside there is a courtyard garden.

12. The accommodation has no gas connected. The Energy Performance Rating is ‘D’.

CHI/00HH/MNR/2021/0137 3 Submissions 13. The current tenancy began on 7th November 2018 at a rent of £675 per month and has not been previously increased.

14. The Tenant provided the Tribunal with a long list of minor repairs and some improvements that she had carried out. The improvements included installation of a TV aerial, provision of a large, fitted larder unit and shelving in the Kitchen, fitting a wine rack. She also replaced some bathroom fittings and installed some decking where the path had been in poor repair.

15. The Tenant had also carried out several minor repairs at her own expense and also credits the Landlord with a long list of minor repairs organised by the Landlord at his cost.

16. The Tenant also details several items of disrepair which are outstanding and refers to her personal circumstances. The Law S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal (1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy- (a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.

(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded- (a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or

CHI/00HH/MNR/2021/0137 4 (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates, or the following conditions are satisfied, namely- (a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling-house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of [NAME], at least one of them) did not quit.

(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation.

Consideration and Valuation 17. The Tribunal first considered whether it felt able to reasonably and fairly decide this case based on the papers submitted only with no oral hearing. Having read and considered the papers it decided that it could do so despite having received no representations from the Landlord or his Agent.

18. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy 19. The Tribunal cannot take into account any personal circumstances of either party.

20. Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and associated correspondence and using its own judgment and knowledge of rental values in the Gosport area, the Tribunal decided that the market rent for the subject property if let today in a condition that was usual for such an open market letting would be £900 per month.

CHI/00HH/MNR/2021/0137 5 21. However, the property is not in a condition that would command such a rent and adjustments need to be made to this ‘open market’ rent to take account of the lack of central heating, the Tenant’s improvements and the list of outstanding repairs.

22. Using its experience the Tribunal decided that the following adjustments should be made: Lack of central heating £50 Tenant’s improvements £25 General disrepair £60

____ TOTAL £135

23. The Tenant made no representation that the starting date for the new rent specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship. Determination 24. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £765 per month.

25. The Tribunal directed that the new rent of £765 per month should take effect from 7th July 2022, this being the date specified in the notice.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide

CHI/00HH/MNR/2021/0137 6 whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 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 adjusted based on the property's condition.
  • The rent reflects a fair market rate considering the property's state.
  • Rent adjustments are made for the usability of the rooms.
  • The rent is set according to a fair market rate for assured periodic tenancies.
  • The rent is adjusted for the condition of the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent from £875 to £765.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition, tenant's improvements, and outstanding repairs.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and the improvements made by the tenant.

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 also be entitled to a fair rent adjustment.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Documents related to the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.

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.