Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy Challenged in First-tier Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tribunal reviewed a notice of rent increase for an assured periodic tenancy and adjusted the rent to £1050 per month, effective from 1 August 2019, considering the property's condition and tenant improvements.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant may have their rent adjusted to reflect the actual condition of the property and any improvements they have made.
📖 What the law says
Under this rule, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured 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. When determining the rent, the tribunal will disregard certain factors, such as the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in the property's value due to improvements made by the tenant, and decreases in the property's value due to the tenant's non-compliance with the tenancy terms.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to reflect the property's condition and the tenant's improvements.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal reviewed a notice of rent increase for an assured periodic tenancy and adjusted the rent to £1050 per month, effective from 1 August 2019, considering the property's condition and tenant improvements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BD/MNR/2019/0098
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 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [RESPONDENT], 53-54 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 1050.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 01 August 2019
*3. The amount included for services is
not applicable
Per
*4. Service charges are variable and are not included
5. Date assured tenancy commenced 2004
6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs L & T Act 1985
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
9. Description of premises Late Victorian end of terrace house, 4 rooms, kitchen, bathroom, garden, with central heating.
[NAME] of Decision 3 October 2019
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BD/MNR/2019/0098 Property : 20 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person
Respondents : [redacted] (landlord’s agents) Representative :
Ms [COUNSEL] of [NAME] : Sections 13 and 14, Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : [NAME] ([NAME]) [NAME] of Decision : 3 October 2019
Date of Reasons : 12 December 2019
REASONS
4 Background
1. On 31 July 2019 the tenant of the above property referred to the Tribunal a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”).
2. The landlord’s notice, which proposed a rent of £1087.50 per month is dated 20 June 2019. The notice proposed a starting date for the new rent of 1 August 2019. The rent passing was £1026 per month.
3. The tenancy is an assured periodic tenancy. From the tenant’s [NAME], the assured tenancy commenced in 2004. The tenant stated in his [NAME] form to the Tribunal that there was no tenancy agreement.
4. Directions were issued on 6 August 2019 which set the matter down to be dealt with by written representations. The landlord was directed to send a written statement by 30 August 2019 including any comparables. The tenant was directed to respond by 13 September 2019 to include a statement as to what furnishings were provided, who is responsible for repairs and decoration, details of any improvements to the property carried out at the tenant’s own expense since the assured tenancy came into effect and any other reasons that the tenant wished the Tribunal to consider. The landlord was permitted to make a reply by 20 September 2019. Notice of inspection by the tribunal was given, to take place on 3 October 2019 sometime after 10 AM. Subsequently, both parties requested a hearing.
5. On 3 October 2019, the Tribunal determined that the market rent pursuant to the section 13 Notice should be £1050 per month and Notice of that Decision was issued. Subsequently, the landlord requested reasons.
The hearing
6. At the hearing, the landlord was represented by Ms [APPELLANT] of [APPELLANT]. The tenant did not appear and was not represented.
The Landlord’s Case
7. The landlord described the property as a mid-terraced house comprising three bedrooms one reception room kitchen bathroom front and rear garden. The agents referred to comparables described as three-bedroom houses within a 1 mile radius and achieving between £18,600 and £25,200 per annum, depending upon condition and location. The agent submitted that the fair rental value for the property in its current condition was £13,050 per annum. That was said to take into account the differences between standard fixtures and fittings usually found in a fully modernised property and the subject property. The property was situated on a pretty residential street within walking
4 distance of [ADDRESS]. It had excellent transport links and many local amenities.
The Tenant’s case
8. The tenant described the property as being a two bedroom property and therefore not comparable to the landlords comparables. The tenant referred to several items of repair he had carried out at the property. These included repairing damaged render under windows, replastering walls, redecorating throughout, replacing light fittings, laying solid oak flooring to the kitchen, carpeting and redecorating the stairs, repairing cracks in ceiling and replacing garden fencing. He also referred to a roof leak at the property, draughty front and back doors, ceiling mould to the bathroom and a crack in the rear wall of the kitchen. The tenant did not refer to any comparables of his own.
Inspection
9. The property comprises a late Victorian terraced house brick under concrete tiled roof, with a square bay on the ground floor. There is a small front garden. Windows are UPVC double glazed, but the doors are original. It appeared to be in fair to good external condition. The property has central heating. The kitchen, at the ground floor rear, has been subject to some improvements by the tenant by way of the installation of floor and wall cupboards. The white goods belong to the tenant. There are two ground floor reception rooms. The first floor comprises two double bedrooms and bathroom. The latter comprises bath, wash hand basin and WC but is very basic; the Tribunal noted ceiling mould and a Valliant gas boiler. In the front bedroom, the Tribunal noted evidence of damp. There is a rear garden.
The law
10. The law as to the Tribunal’s approach is given at section 14 of the Act which insofar as relevant is as follows:
(1)Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a [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; [...].
4
Findings
11. Ms [NAME] had not personally inspected the subject property or the landlord’s comparables and in answer to a question from the Tribunal she accepted that the comparables were dissimilar. The Tribunal therefore relied on its own knowledge and experience in assessing the starting point rent of £1400 per month. However, the Tribunal needed to reflect the condition of the kitchen and bathroom which were not in a condition usual for a modern letting. It also took into account the evidence of damp and the fact that the tenant had provided his own white goods and floor coverings. The Tribunal considered that these matters required an adjustment of 25% or £350 per month.
12. For the above reasons the Tribunal assessed the market rent in accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 as £1,050 per month, taking effect from 1 August 2019.
[NAME] [NAME] 12 December 2019
ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL
• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions by virtue of the rule 36 (2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below.
• If a party wishes to appeal against this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
• The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].
• If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.
• The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.
4
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Freehold Premium When Landlord Missing
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Communal Door Lock Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Management Company Granted Permission to Skip Consultation for Urgent Repai…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Emergency Repairs Dispensation Without Consultat…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects Administrative Fees for Ground Rent Collection
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Service Charge Limitation Ruling by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Extends Property Manager's Term
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Drainage Repairs
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Roof Repairs Under s.20ZA
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 Tribunal adjusted the rent to reflect the poor condition of the kitchen and bathroom.
- The Tribunal considered the dampness in the property when determining the rent.
- The tenant providing their own white goods and floor coverings led to a rent adjustment.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided to adjust the rent to £1050 per month, effective from 1 August 2019.
Who was involved?
The tenant challenged a proposed rent increase by the landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to adjust the rent based on the property's condition and the tenant's improvements.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant argued that the proposed rent was too high given the property's condition and his improvements.
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 challenge a proposed rent increase if the property's condition or their improvements warrant a lower rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparables of similar properties and evidence of the tenant's improvements were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
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 adjustments.
