VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Adjustment for Assured Tenancy: Factors Considered

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a new rent of £1,700 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, taking into account the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

rent determinationadjustments for property conditions

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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, certain factors are disregarded, such as the effect of granting a tenancy to a sitting tenant, increases in property value due to improvements made by the tenant, and decreases in property value due to the tenant's non-compliance with tenancy terms.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering various factors affecting the property's value.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1,700 per month for an assured periodic tenancy, adjusting the proposed rent based on the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. FR/LON/00AE/MNR/2025/0674

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination or Section 22 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr O Dowty MRICS Mr [RESPONDENT]

[APPELLANT] 8 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1,700 Per Cal. Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 8 February 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 8 February 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 Some white goods only.

8. Description of premises 2 bed flat with own door on ground floor of purpose built, 2 storey building in wider mid 20th century development.

Chairman Mr O Dowty MRICS Date of Decision 30 May 2025

(c)

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AE/MNR/2025/0674 Property : 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of Application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] Mr [NAME] and venue of Consideration : 30 May 2025 – 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Date of Summary Reasons : 17 June 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,700 per calendar month with effect from 8 February 2025. ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 16 December 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,900 in place of the existing rent of £1,535 per month to take effect from 8 February 2025.

2. On 3 January 2025, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent. The Tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 3 February 2025.

(c)

2

Inspection 3. The Tribunal has carried out an inspection of the property on 30 May 2025.

Evidence 4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant. There were no written submissions from the landlord.

Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £2,000 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

• The tenant having installed the kitchen units, the kitchen flooring and some of the white goods at the property • The external condition (including the poorly sealed windows) • The internal condition of the property (including the damp issues)

6. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£2,000 Per Month

LESS Tenant installed kitchen units, flooring and some white goods 2.50% -£50 LESS External Condition (including poorly sealed windows) 5.0% -£100 LESS Damp & internal condition 7.5% -£150

Total £1,700 Per Month

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,700 per calendar month.

Decision 8. The Tribunal therefore determined that 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 was £1,700 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1,700 to take effect on 8 February 2025; this being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: Mr O Dowty MRICS Date: 17 June 2025

(c)

3

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 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 tenant's installation of kitchen units, flooring, and some white goods justified a rent reduction.
  • The poor external condition, including poorly sealed windows, led to a rent reduction.
  • Damp issues and the overall internal condition of the property justified a rent reduction.
  • The Tribunal used its own expert knowledge of rental values in the area to determine the market rent.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed rent of £1,900 was not accepted by the Tribunal.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on a new rent of £1,700 per month for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant to determine the new rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the impact of the tenant's improvements and the property's condition on the rent.

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 able to negotiate a fair rent based on the property's condition and their improvements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from the tenant and an inspection of the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed if either party requests full reasons and follows the appeal process.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.