VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant's Rent Reduced Due to Cladding Works

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal reduced the proposed rent from £2,300 to £2,000 per month because of the impact of cladding works on the tenant's use of the property. This decision was made under the Housing Act 1988.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant may have their rent adjusted downwards if the property's condition affects their use and enjoyment of the premises.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent adjustments

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, allowing landlords to propose increases in rent through a notice in a prescribed form. The notice must specify a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, which cannot begin sooner than two months after the date of the notice's service.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

A tenant under an assured tenancy can apply to an appropriate tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy, provided that the rent is not pursuant to a previous determination under this section and more than six months have not elapsed since the beginning of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering the impact of cladding works on the tenant's use of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £2,300 to £2,000 per month after considering the impact of cladding works on the tenant's use and enjoyment of the property. The decision was based on the Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BG/MNR/2025/0770

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 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Judge [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 2000 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 26 August 2025

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

*4Communal cleaning included in rent

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 5 February 2022

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord As per the Landlords application

9. Description of premises 3 bed flat on first floor of a tower block with ensuite, bathroom and open plan kitchen diner/living room balcony and communal garden

Chairman Judge Dutton Date of Decision 26 August 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BG/MNR/2025/0770 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant : Mr. [APPELLANT] Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME] and venue of Consideration : Paper determination Date of Summary Reasons : 26 August 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,000 per calendar month with effect from 26 August 2025. ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. On 14 February 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,300 in place of the existing rent of £ 1,800 per month] to take effect from 1April 2025 2. On 31 March 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 31 March 2025. 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 and/the Landlord. The tenant alleges some form of promissory estoppel which is beyond the scope of this tribunal determining the market rent for the Property. We noted the comments concerning condition, in particular the cladding. We also noted the comments of the Landlord and the comparable evidence provided Determination and Valuation 5. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved by the parties and 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 £2,500 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to: The impact that the cladding works will have on the tenants use and enjoyment of the Property for which we make a reduction of 20% 6. The full valuation is shown below:

per calendar month Market Rent

£2,500

Less Loss of amenity assessed at 20%

£500

Rent payable

£2,000

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £2000 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 £2000 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £2000 to take effect on 26 August 2025. The Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship.

Chairman: Judge Dutton

Date: 26 August 2025

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 use and enjoyment of the property was negatively affected by cladding works, justifying a rent reduction.
  • The Tribunal used its expert knowledge of rental values in the area to determine the market rent.
  • The Tribunal considered comparable evidence provided by both parties when determining the rent.
  • The Tribunal set the new rent to take effect on a later date to avoid undue hardship for the tenant.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's argument about promissory estoppel was outside the Tribunal's scope.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided to reduce the proposed rent from £2,300 to £2,000 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in this dispute over rent adjustment.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the rent downwards due to the impact of cladding works on the tenant's use of the property.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the impact of cladding works on the tenant's use and enjoyment of the property.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also have their rent adjusted if the property's condition affects their use and enjoyment of the premises.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from both the tenant and the landlord, along with comparable evidence, were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed, but the details of how to do so are usually found in the full reasons document.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent adjustments.

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.