AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·24 June 2024

Tribunal Adjusts Rent After Considering Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent after considering the property's condition and market comparables. The new rent of £1,800 per calendar month took effect on 3 June 2024.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancy disputesrent adjustment

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.14

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 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 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 after considering the property's condition and comparable rents in the area.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent of £1,800 per calendar month after considering the property's condition and comparable rents in the area. The decision took effect on 3 June 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. GB/LON/00BH/MNR/2024/0059

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], [POSTCODE]

Judge Bernadette MacQueen Alison Flynn, MA, MRISC

Landlord [RESPONDENT] 201 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £ 1,800 Per Calendar month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 3 June 2024

3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable Not applicable Per

4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 19 May 2019

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord external repairs

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord See Decision

9. Description of premises Ground floor flat - brick/tile construction

Chairman Judge Bernadette MacQueen Date of Decision 3 June 2024

Case Reference

: GB/LON/00BH/MNR/2024/0059

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [NAME]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 18 January 2024

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

Tribunal

: Judge Bernadette MacQueen

Alison Flynn, MA, MRICS

Date of Decision : 3 June 2024

Date of Summary Reasons

: 10 June 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,800 per calendar month with effect from 3 June 2024. ____________________________________

SUMMARY REASONS

Background

1. On 5 December 2023 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1,800 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,375 per month to take effect from 19 January 2024

2. By application dated 18 January 2024 made 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 18 January 2024.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the Property on 3 June 2024, accompanied by the tenants [NAME] and [NAME] De Souza, and [RESPONDENT] on behalf of the Landlord.

Evidence

4. The Tribunal considered the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. Both the Tenant and the Landlord completed the reply form.

Determination and Valuation

5. Having considered the comparable evidence provided by the parties and the Tribunal’s own expert knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal considered that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £2,000 per calendar month. From this level of rent the Tribunal made adjustments in relation to the general repair of the Property, the rising damp and shower leak.

6. The full valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£2,000 per calendar month

Less

General Repair/shower leak: 5%

Rising damp:

Total

10%

£2,000 less 10% £1,800 per calendar month

7. The Tribunal determines a rent of £1,800 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 £1,800 per calendar month.

9. The Tribunal directed the new rent of £1,800 per calendar month to take effect on 3 June 2024. The Tribunal considered the written submissions from the Tenant, and in particular the letter to the Tribunal, and was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the Tenant undue hardship.

Judge Bernadette MacQueen

Date: 10 June 2024

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:

Allowed12 cases

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 used its expert knowledge of local rental values to determine a market rent.
The property's general state of repair and a shower leak led to a 5% reduction in the market rent.
The Tribunal decided that the new rent should take effect on the date of the decision to avoid hardship for the tenant.

❌ Tends to be rejected

The landlord's proposed new rent of £1,800 per month was not accepted as the starting market rent before adjustments.

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 of £1,800 per calendar month after considering the property's condition and market comparables.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the proposed rent based on the property's condition and market comparables.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied in this case.

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 who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek a rent adjustment based on the property's condition and market comparables.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions from both the tenant and the landlord, as well as the Tribunal's own expert knowledge of rental values in the area, were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed, but the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons.

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

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.