VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Adjusts Market Rent Based on Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a rent of £785.00 per month after considering the landlord's proposal and making adjustments based on the property's condition, such as dampness and minor repairs.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair adjustment of the proposed market rent based on the condition of the property.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. It allows landlords to serve a notice proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy, subject to specific timing requirements.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed market rent based on the condition of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £785.00 per calendar month after considering the proposed market rent and adjusting it based on the condition of the property, including dampness and minor repairs.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: BIR/41UC/MDT/2024/0600

Property : [ADDRESS] upon Trent [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [NAME] (Mr [RESPONDENT])

Landlord’s agents : [NAME] of application : 4 October 2024

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

Tribunal Members : V Ward [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.)FRICS

N Wint FRICS

Date of Summary Reasons

: 20/01/2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £785.00 per calendar month with effect from 7 October 2024. ____________________________________

S E C FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Background

1. On 5 September 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the

Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £790.00 per calendar month

(pcm) in place of the existing rent of £400.00 pcm to take effect from 7 October

2024.

2. By an application dated 4 October 2024, 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. Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of

the papers provided by the parties and having regard to its own knowledge,

expertise and online resources.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the

Landlord. There were no written submissions from the Tenant.

5. From the information provided and available, the subject property appears to

comprise an end terraced 3-bedroom terraced house with off road parking

which benefits from central heating and double glazing.

6. The Landlord provided a letter from [NAME] which

indicated a marketing rental of £825.00 to £850.00 pcm.

7. The Tenant did not complete a reply form but noted in their application

form that they were unable to use one of the bedrooms due to damp and further

that they have replaced some fence panels.

Determination and Valuation

8. Having considered 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 £825.00 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made

adjustments in relation to:

a) Dampness of third bedroom. b) Replacement of fence panels by Tenant.

3

9. The full valuation is shown below:

per month Market Rent

£825.00

Less a) Items given under a) above

£20.00

b) Items given under b) above

£20.00 £40.00

£785.00

Decision

10. 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 £785.00 per calendar month.

11. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £785.00 pcm to take effect on 7 October

2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: V Ward

Date: 6 January 2025

APPEAL PROVISIONS

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

4 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00GG/MNR/2024/0622

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 [ADDRESS] on Trent [POSTCODE]

V Ward [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.)FRICS N Wint FRICS

Landlord [NAME]/Mr [APPELLANT]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £785.00 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 7 October 2024

3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 7 April 2008 5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord

8. Description of premises End terraced house with 3 bedrooms

Chairman V Ward Date of Decision 6 January 2025

📊 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 rent must be adjusted based on the property's condition.
  • The rent must reflect current market conditions.
  • Financial hardship can influence the rent adjustment.
  • Comparable evidence must support the rent assessment.
  • Rent proposals must consider tenant responsibilities.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • Rent determinations without consideration of property condition were dismissed.

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 rent of £785.00 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the proposed market rent and adjusted it considering the property's condition.

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 condition of the property, including dampness and minor repairs, was the central argument.

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 should consider the condition of their property when disputing a rent increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from the landlord and the condition of the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal 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 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.