Tenant Wins Rent Reduction Due to Hardship and Property Defects
📌 In brief
The tenant successfully challenged a proposed rent increase due to financial hardship and property defects. The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent to £1,130 per month, effective from the date of the decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant may have their rent adjusted if they can prove financial hardship and property defects.
📖 What the law says
Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant with an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their 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.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent increase due to hardship and property defects.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal reduced the proposed rent increase after considering the tenant's financial hardship and the presence of property defects. The decision was made under the Housing Act 1988.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00FY/MNR/2024/0162
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 27 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[NAME] [NAME]
Landlord Places for [RESPONDENT] c/o [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £1130.00 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 23rd September 2024
3. The amount included for services is not applicable
Per
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 28/06/2024 5. Length of the term or rental period monthly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises A three storey semi detahced house. Comprising living room, kitchen, study, three bedrooms, 1 Ensuite, bathroom, doucle glazing, central heating, garden.
[NAME] of Decision 23/09/2024
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : BIR/OOFY/MNR/2024/0162 Property : 27 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent’s : [RESPONDENT] :
[COMPANY] of application : Application under Section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988 referring a notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy to the Tribunal Tribunal members : Mr [NAME] Mrs [NAME] and Date of Determination : The matter was dealt with by a Paper Determination on 23rd September 2024
DETAILED REASONS
2
BACKGROUND
1. On 18th June 2024, the Applicant (tenant of the above property) referred to the Tribunal, a notice of increase of rent served by the Respondent (landlord of the above property) under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.
2. The Respondent’s notice, which proposed a rent of £1,195.00 per calendar month with effect from 28th July 2023, is dated 22nd May 2024.
3. The date the tenancy commenced is stated on the Application Form as being on 28th June 2014 for an initial period of 12 months at a rental of £525.00 per month. At the expiration of the initial period the tenancy became an Assured Periodic Tenancy. The current rent is stated in the Application as being £625.00 per calendar month.
4. The Tribunal issued Directions on 27th June 2024 following which submissions were received from both parties.
THE PROPERTY
5. Neither party requested either an inspection or hearing and the Tribunal has therefore determined the matter based on the papers provided to it.
6. The property is understood to be a three-storey semi-detached house comprising one living room, kitchen, three bedrooms (one with an en-suite shower room), family bathroom, study and separate W.C.
7. The house is understood to have gas fired central heating and double glazing. Carpets and curtains are provided by the Landlord, as are the white goods.
8. There is understood to be a small garden.
EVIDENCE
9. The Tribunal received written representations from both parties which were copied to the other party.
THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
10. In summary, the Applicant submitted:
1) That she had lived at the property for ten years and the rent had been increased by the [COMPANY].
2) That the rent increase proposed was substantial and would cause severe hardship.
3) That she was suffering severe stress as a result of the proposed increase.
4) That the rent was paid by [NAME] but the proposed increase would not be covered by any increase in [NAME] payment.
5) That comparable evidence of other properties offered on the market by the Respondent did not support the proposed increase.
6) That there was a fault with the electrical supply to the second and third floors which had not been dealt with by the Respondent since December 2023.
3
THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
11. No submission was received from the Respondent.
THE LAW
12. In accordance with the terms of section 14 Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.
13. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), ignored the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
14. In the first instance the Tribunal considered the various comparables provided by the Applicant. These comprised of two-bedroom houses with a quoted rental of £455.00 - £735.00 per month, and a three-bedroom house where the Applicant understood the rental was £705.00 per month. There was also a two-bedroom older style terraced house at an asking rental of £875.00 per month and an older style traditional semi- detached house at an asking rental of £975.00 per month.
15. The Tribunal noted that none of these was a direct comparable to the subject property which is a modern semi-detached house, having three bedrooms, a study room and en-suite shower to bedroom 1.
16. Having regard to the general level of rents in the area the Tribunal concluded that the rental value of the subject property is £1,150.00 per calendar month.
17. The Tribunal then considered the Applicant’s submission that there were problems with the electrical supply to floors two and three, and determined that a deduction of £20.00 per month was appropriate for this defect.
18. The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market would be £1,130.00 per calendar month.
19. The Tribunal then considered the question of hardship and whether it accepted the evidence provided by the Applicant that the proposed increase would cause financial hardship. Under section 14(7) of the 1988 Act the Tribunal has the discretion to fix a later date than that proposed by the landlord in its Notice of Increase. This can be no later than the date the Tribunal makes its determination.
20. In this case the Tribunal accepts that the increase in rent will cause hardship and therefore determines that the date the decision takes effect is 23rd September 2024 being the date of the Tribunals determination rather than 28th July 2024 being the date on the Respondent’s Notice of Increase.
4
APPEAL
21. Any appeal against this Decision can only be made on a point of law and must be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Prior to making such an appeal the party appealing must apply, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of the date of issue of this Decision, (or, if applicable, within 28 days of any decision on a review or application to set aside) identifying the decision to which the appeal relates, stating the grounds on which that party intends to rely in the appeal, and stating the result sought by the party making the application.
[NAME] First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property)
1 November 2024
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Due to Disrepair
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Granted Due to Tenant's Hardship
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Successfully Challenges Rent Increase Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Considered Tenant Improvements and Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition and Tenant Improvements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
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
- Tenant demonstrates financial hardship.
- Tenant proves property defects.
- Rent determination considers property condition and improvements.
- Rent reflects open market value and property condition.
- Tenant shows entitlement under Housing Act 1988.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal reduced the proposed rent increase to £1,130 per month, effective from the date of the decision.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute over the rent increase.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to reduce the rent based on the tenant's financial hardship and the presence of property defects.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 was applied to determine the rent based on the open market value and to consider the tenant's hardship.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant argued that the proposed rent increase would cause severe financial hardship and highlighted existing property defects.
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 facing a rent increase due to financial hardship and property defects may be able to challenge the increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of comparable rental prices and documentation of property defects were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.
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.
