VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Adjusts Rent After Considering Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £1850.00 to £1500.00 per month after considering the property's condition and comparable rents in the area.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under this rule, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. The tribunal will then decide a fair rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The decision takes into account the property's condition and any improvements made by the tenant.

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 adjusted the proposed rent of £1850.00 to £1500.00 per month after considering the property's condition and comparable rents in the area.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BH/MNR/2024/0351

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]

[NAME] [NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT] and Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1500.00 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 July 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per n/a

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 29 June 2022

6. Length of the term or rental period 12 months

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord external structural

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord none

9. Description of premises First floor flat two bedroom and two bathrooms.

[NAME] of Decision 15 May 2025

(c)

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BH/MNR/2024/0351 Property : 6 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant : [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of Application : Section 13 Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] and venue of Consideration : Inspection with later determination on papers Date of Summary Reasons : 15 May 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,500.00 per calendar month with effect from 29 July 2024. ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. On 7 May 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1850.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1500.00 per month to take effect from 29 July 2024.

2. On 17 July 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.

(c)

2

Inspection 3. The Tribunal did inspect the property. The property comprises a first floor flat, with one living room and an open plan kitchen, two bedrooms, and two bathrooms. The inspection found the entrance to the flat is directly off the pavement and then up a set of metal internal steps. On entrance to the flat there is a shower and WC room, a built-in cupboard. The first bedroom off the hall is a large room, which contains two beds. The window is double glazed, there is no central heating, heating is via an electric convection heater. The central light appeared not to be functioning.

4. The second, bedroom reached is slightly smaller but still able to accommodate a double bed. Heating again via electric convection heater and the window double glazed. There is a second bathroom with bath and WC. The kitchen and living room are combined the floor is of engineered wood, there is a replacement washing machine in the kitchen area which is not set fully into the side area. The engineered flooring in the kitchen area has gaps.

5. Beyond the living room there is a small, enclosed balcony. The light in the balcony and some lights in the kitchen/living room area did not work. On the ceiling of the kitchen/living room area there is evidence of damp patches with some mould. The tribunal could not ascertain if they were active or historic.

Evidence 6. The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. These have been considered in full, and the details not replicated within the tribunal decision in detail.

7. The tenant supplied as completed Reply Form requesting an inspection but not a hearing. The form identified the property as one room within a shared house. The house has three bathrooms and a kitchen which are shared with the other occupants.

Submissions

Applicant Tenant Submissions

8. The Applicant submitted a copy of their tenancy agreement commencing on 29 June 2022, at a rent of £1294.13 per month.

9. A copy of a letter dated 18 May 2023 from the Landlord to the Tenant proposing £1650.00 from June 2023.

10. A copy of an instant message dated 7 July 2023 which noted the tenants had offered £1500 per month

11.A number of letting details of two-bedroom flats ranging from £1400 pcm to £1500 pcm,

(c)

3 12.A completed Reply Form undated requesting an inspection but not a hearing, details of the rooms, noted there is no central heating, the double glazing is supplied by the landlord, as are the carpets, curtains and white goods.

13.The tenant noted they have painted the house and replaced the hob. The Reply Form notes issues of disrepair including issues with lights, mould and issues with fire alarms not working.

Landlord Respondent Submissions

14. An Application for a case management or interim orders has been completed by [NAME] dated 22 April 2025. The Application Form notes, the background to the proposed rent increase.

Determination and Valuation 15. 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 £1700.00 per calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:

Disrepair of flooring and electrics Damp patches on ceiling General tired nature of the premises

16. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£1700.00 per calendar month.

Less Deductions as above £200.00 per calendar month

17. The Tribunal determines a rent of £1500.00 per calendar month.

Decision 18. 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 £1500.00 per calendar month.

19. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1500.00 per calendar month to take effect on 29 July 2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase.

Chairman: [NAME]: 15 May 2025

(c)

4 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 Tribunal determined a rent of £1,500.00 per calendar month.
  • The property's market rent in good condition was estimated at £1700.00 per calendar month.
  • Deductions were made for disrepair of flooring and electrics, damp patches, and the general tired nature of the premises.
  • The new rent will take effect from 29 July 2024, as specified in the landlord's notice.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord's proposed new rent of £1850.00 per month was not accepted.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent from £1850.00 to £1500.00 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 property's condition and comparable rents in the area.

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 condition of the property and the comparable rents in the area.

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 be entitled to a fair rent adjustment based on the property's condition and market comparables.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents that mattered included the tenancy agreement, previous rent proposals, and comparable rental data.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed if the party wishes to challenge the decision.

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 determination.

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.