VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Reduced for Unmodernised Property - First-tier Tribunal Decision

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided to reduce the rent for a property because it was in an unmodernised condition. The new rent of £1,406.25 per month took effect on December 6th, 2023.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment that reflects the actual condition of the property.

Topics

rent adjustmentproperty conditionmarket rent

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section 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 the open-market rent based on various factors including the terms of the existing tenancy and any improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal sets a market rent for a property considering its condition and location.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the market rent for a property, taking into account its condition and location. The rent was set at £1,406.25 per month, effective from 6th December 2023, after considering the property's unmodernised state.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AJ/MNR/2023/0333

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 4 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge Tueje Miss M Krisko FRICS

Landlord [RESPONDENT] 3-4 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1406.25 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1st August 2023

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable N/A Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced

6. Length of the term or rental period Periodic tenancy

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Unfurnished

9. Description of premises Two bedroom mid terraced house with living room, dining room and kitchen on the ground floor, and two bedrooms and a combined bathroom/WC on the first floor.

Chairman Judge Tueje Date of Decision 6th December 2023

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AJ/MNR/2023/0333 HMCTS Code (Paper, video, audio)

Property :

: P: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : Mr [APPELLANT] Landlord : [APPELLANT] of [NAME] : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal members : Judge Tueje Miss M Krisko FRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing : 23rd November 2023 Date of decision : 6th December 2023

DECISION

The Tribunal’s determination Decision

The Tribunal determines that the market rent for the subject property is £1,406.25 per calendar month, with effect from 6th December 2023.

Background

1. By a notice dated 26th May 2023, the landlord sought an increase in rent under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. The landlord proposed that the rent should increase from £1,300.00 to £1,725.00 per calendar month, with effect from 1st August 2023.

2. By an [NAME] dated 26th July 2023, the tenant, Mr [APPELLANT], sought a determination of the rent payable under his tenancy.

3. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to set a market rent for the property taking into consideration the terms of the tenancy, the condition of the property, its location and the market rent for similar properties in the locality.

4. Mr [NAME] predecessor in title occupied the subject property under the terms of an agreement dated 20th March 1968. Mr [NAME] succeeded to that tenancy on 12th March 2011, and occupies the property as a statutory periodic tenant.

The inspection

5. The Tribunal inspected the property on 23rd November 2023. We found it to be a two- storey mid terraced Edwardian house.

6. The ground floor accommodation consisted of a living room, dining room, plus a small kitchen in the rear addition. There were two bedrooms and a combined bathroom/WC on the first floor.

7. From its inspection the Tribunal noted some repairs are required, for instance the window sills are in disrepair. The bathroom and kitchen are also dated. The landlord has not supplied kitchen white goods, floor coverings or curtains.

The law and the Tribunal’s valuation

9. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) make provision for the increase of rent under an assured periodic tenancy.

10. Under section 14 of the 1988 Act, the Tribunal must determine the rent that would be obtained in respect of the same property on a new letting on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy, on otherwise similar terms (other than rent) to the existing tenancy. The rent so determined must, however, disregard the effect on the rent of the granting of the tenancy to a sitting tenant; any increase in the value of the property as a result of improvements carried out by the tenant during the tenancy

(or a previous tenancy), otherwise than as a result of his or her obligations to the landlord under the lease; or any reduction attributable to a failure to comply with such an obligation.

11. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal considered what was observed during the inspection, and all of the written evidence.

12. The Tribunal first assessed the market price that would be achieved for a new letting, in a condition that would be expected of the property if it were to be marketed now. The Tribunal considered comparable properties show £1,875.00 to be the starting point.

13. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that, if the property were in the condition to be expected of a current market letting, that the rent would be in the region of £1,875.00.

14. However, the property must be valued on the basis that a tenant would seek a reduction from that asking rent to reflect the unmodernised condition of the property. The reduction is not measured in monetary value, but reflects the percentage reduction that would be needed to let the property as it is today.

15. Based on the Tribunal’s knowledge and experience, we conclude a tenant would seek a reduction of at least the 25% of the market value to take account of all of these matters.

Conclusion

16. The Tribunal therefore determines the market rent for the subject property, taking into consideration the matters referred to above, is £1,406.25 per calendar month.

17. Finally, the Tribunal considers it would cause undue hardship to the tenant for the increase to take effect on the date specified in the landlord’s notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 14(7) of the 1988 Act, the Tribunal determines the effective date of increase is 6th December 2023.

Name:

Judge Tueje

Date: 6th December 2023

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 determined the market rent for the property is £1,406.25 per calendar month.
  • The property's unmodernised condition justified a rent reduction.
  • A 25% reduction from the market value was appropriate due to the property's condition.
  • The effective date for the rent increase was set to avoid undue hardship for the tenant.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed rent of £1,725.00 was not accepted as the market rent.
  • The landlord's requested effective date of August 1, 2023, was rejected.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided to reduce the rent for a property due to its unmodernised condition.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to reduce the rent because the property was not modernised, which affects its market value.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property, which was deemed unmodernised.

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 might be able to negotiate a lower rent based on the condition of their property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The inspection of the property and the written evidence submitted 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 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.