VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Adjustment for Tenancy Dispute - First-tier Tribunal Decision

Case No.

📌 In brief

In this case, the Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent for a tenancy dispute. They considered the property's condition and local rental values to determine a fair market rent of £1430 per calendar month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment based on the property's condition and local rental values.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent adjustment

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 fair market rent based on the property's condition and local rental values.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering the property's condition and comparable rents in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1430 per calendar month for a tenancy dispute, adjusting the proposed rent based on the property's condition and local rental values.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. TR/LON/00BB/MNR/2023/0398

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 6 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1430.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 29 January 2024

3. The amount included for services is/is

N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 16 August 2013

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord; tenant to preserve condition

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

8. Description of premises Victorian terraced house 3 bedrooms, living room, bathroom, garden

Chairman Mr [NAME] of Decision 30 March 2024

1

Case Reference

: TR/LON/00BB/MNR/2023/0398

Property : 6 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [NAME]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] [NAME] of Objection : 19 September 2023

Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] Chairman

Date of Summary Reasons

: 30 March 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1430 per calendar month with effect from 29 January 2024. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 24 August 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1500 in place of the existing rent of £ 1280 per month to take effect from 1 October 2023.

2. On 19 September 2023 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.

Inspection 3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

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. Neither party produces any comparables but from our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property if in very good condition would be in the region of £2200 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

Internal damp penetration, blown plasterwork, mould, the age of the bathroom and kitchen.

6. The full valuation is shown below:

per calendar month Market Rent

£2200

Less Deductions for

) internal damp penetration ) blown plasterwork

)

approx. 35% mould

)

the age of the bathroom and kitchen.

)

£770

£1430

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £1430 per calendar month.

3

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 £1430 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1430 to take effect on 29 January 2024 as the Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship. In the Directions of 27 October 2023, the 29 January 2024 was the latest date upon which the tribunal intended give its decision (see Direction B). Further delay in this matter was caused by the tenant not initially providing a Reply Form and therefore it would be unjust for any suspension of the new rent to continue beyond 29 January 2024.

Chairman: Mr [NAME]: 30 March 2024

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 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 Tribunal used its expert knowledge of local rental values to determine an open market rent for the property.
  • The Tribunal reduced the market rent due to internal damp penetration, blown plasterwork, and mould.
  • The age of the bathroom and kitchen also led to a deduction from the market rent.
  • The Tribunal set the new rent to take effect from 29 January 2024 because an earlier date would cause the tenant undue hardship.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed new rent of £1500 per month 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?

The Tribunal decided on a new rent of £1430 per calendar month for the tenancy dispute.

Who was involved?

The dispute involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the proposed rent based on the property's condition and local rental values.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the need to adjust the rent based on the property's condition and local rental values.

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 seek a rent adjustment based on the property's condition and local rental values.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from the tenant and the landlord's notice proposing a new rent were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed according to the directions given in the judgment.

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

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