VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Adjusts Rent After Considering Tenant Improvements

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent for a tenant's property to £500 per month. The decision took into account the property's condition and the tenant's contributions, such as providing carpets, curtains, and white goods.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment taking into account the property's condition and any improvements made by the tenant.

Topics

tenancy disputesmarket rent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section allows landlords to propose increases in rent for assured periodic tenancies, excluding relevant low-cost tenancies. The notice proposing the new rent must specify a new period starting at least two months after the notice is served. Additionally, if the rent has been previously increased, further increases can be proposed based on specific dates outlined in the act.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section permits tenants under assured tenancies to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their tenancy. The tribunal then determines the open-market rent, considering various factors including the terms of the original tenancy and disregarding certain effects like 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 tenant contributions.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a rent of £500 per month for a tenant's property, adjusting the proposed rent of £478.57 after considering the property's condition and tenant contributions, such as providing carpets, curtains, and white goods.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Case Reference

: BIR/00CU/MNR/2025/0622

Property : Flat 21, Lower North St., Walsall, [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [NAME]

Landlord’s agent : None appointed

Date of application : 3 March 2025

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

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

M H C Alexander B.Sc.(Hons.) MRICS

Date of Decision : 30 October 2025

Date of Issue

: 18 November 2025 ___________________________________________________

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £500 per month with effect from 1 April 2025 ______________________________________

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background

1. On 21 February 2025 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 proposing a new rent of £478.57 per month in place of the existing rent of £429.68 to take effect from 1 April 2025.

2. On 3 March 2025, under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the Tenant referred the Landlord’s notice to the Tribunal to determine a market rent.

Inspection

3. The Tribunal has not inspected the property but considered the case on the basis of the papers provided by the tenant and having regard to its own knowledge, expertise and on-line research.

Evidence

4. From the tenant's Application Form, the property is understood to be a second floor self-contained flat with hall, one bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom. There is a communal parking area. The property was let unfurnished on 11 October 2017. The rent at the date of application was £429.68 per month including £6.50 for services although the Tribunal has not been advised when this was agreed. The rent excludes Council Tax and water rates. The landlord is responsible for external and structural repairs. The flat has central heating and double glazing.

5. The services include grounds maintenance, window cleaning, communal areas and bin cleaning, communal electrical repairs, a door entry system, fire equipment, laundry equipment, a lift, a tv aerial, lighting, insurance (presumably buildings cover), administration and management costs, all of which in total increase the service charge from £6.50 per month to £66.25 per month by the landlord's Notice of Increase.

6. According to the Application Form, the Tenant had provided the carpets, curtains and white goods.

7. The Tenant advises he had been promised a new kitchen in 2022 but it had not been fitted. He also says he receives Universal Credit that pays all of the rent.

8. The Landlord completed the schedule of accommodation form sent by the Tribunal which is taken as part of their submission, advising that 'the application relates to rent value, not disrepair of property', signed by [NAME], Head of Finance. They say a Stock Condition Survey was carried out in July 2021. By letter, they ask the Tribunal to determine the rent at £435.61 per month which is 'the

3 maximum social rent of £100.25 per week ...' Confusingly, they say 'The proposed rent as per the rent review notification sent in February to the tenant is for £412.32.' This, added to the requested £66.25 of service charge, makes the request £478.57 per month as per the Notice of Increase.

9. Neither party has provided any evidence of rents obtained for other properties let in the area to use as a basis of comparison.

Determination and Valuation

10. Having considered letting values in the area based on our own expert knowledge, we consider the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £600 per calendar month. From this we have made adjustments in relation to:

a) The kitchen which is due for upgrade for which we deduct £50 pcm and b) The value of curtains, carpets and white goods provided by the Tenant for which we deduct a further £50 pcm.

11. The valuation is shown below:

Market Rent

£600

Less a) Items given under a) above

£50 b) Items given under b) above

£50

£100

Say £500 pcm Decision

12. 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 [NAME]

under an assured tenancy was £500 per calendar month with effect from 1 April

2025.

Hardship

13. The Tenant advised that the rent was paid in full by Universal Credit and said he

would have suffered hardship had he paid it personally. No evidence was provided

to suport the claim. However, as he is not paying the rent directly, the Tribunal

makes no allowance for hardship.

Chairman: [NAME]: 30 October 2025

4

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.

5

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 Flat 21, Lower North St., Walsall, [POSTCODE]

[NAME] B.Sc. FRICS Mr [RESPONDENT].Sc. MRICS

Landlord [NAME] 2nd [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

1. The rent is: £500 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 April 2025

3. The amount included for services is not applicable £66.25 Per Month

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 11 October 2017 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 None 8. Description of premises One bedroom self-contained flat

[NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS Date of Decision 30 October 2025

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No.

BIR/00CU/MNR/2025/0622

📊 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 should be adjusted to reflect the fair market value.
  • Improvements made by the tenant should reduce the rent.
  • Financial hardship of the tenant should be considered when adjusting the rent.
  • The condition of the property should influence the rent adjustment.
  • Comparables in the local market should determine the fair rent.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent was set at £500 per month, adjusting the landlord's proposed rent of £478.57.

Who was involved?

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

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to adjust the rent based on the property's condition and the tenant's contributions.

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 tenant's contributions to the property, such as providing carpets, curtains, and white goods.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they document any improvements they make to the property.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The Application Form and the Schedule of Accommodation Form were important documents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on any point of law arising from this 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 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.