VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Reduces Proposed Rent Due to Property Disrepair

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal reduced the proposed rent from £875 to £495 per month because the property was in poor condition, with disrepair and outdated facilities.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a reduction in rent if the property is in poor condition.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

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 the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a reasonable rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the condition of the property, including any disrepair or outdated facilities.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal reduced the proposed rent due to disrepair and outdated facilities.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal reduced the proposed rent from £875 to £495 per month due to the property's poor condition, including disrepair and outdated facilities.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621

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]

[NAME] [NAME] [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] 8 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT] I [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £495.00 Per Calendar Month (To exclude Water Rates and Council Tax but to include any amounts in paragraphs 3 and 4)

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

3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 August 2019

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Section 11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies. The tenant is required to keep the property in the condition at the commencement of the term, fair wear and tear excepted.

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

8. Description of premises A late Victorian/early Edwardian three-storey semi-detached house of traditional brick construction, with rendered front elevation and pitched tiled roof, which has been converted into three flats. Flat 3 is on the second floor, accessed off the common parts, stairs and comprises, entrance lobby on half-landing, stairs up to next half-landing – WC, further stairs up to second floor - one reception room with kitchen off, one bedroom and bathroom.

[NAME] of Decision 22 April 2025

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant Tenant : [NAME] :

None

Respondent Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : [NAME] [COUNSEL] [COMPANY] of Application :

Determination of a Market Rent - sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] M [NAME] of Application : 29 January 2025 Date of Decision :

22 April 2025

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £495 (Four Hundred and Ninety-Five Pounds) Per Calendar Month with effect from 1 February 2025.

HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 2 FULL REASONS

Background 1. On 27 December 2024 the landlord served a notice under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £875 per month in place of the existing rent of £550 per month to take effect from 1 February 2025.

2. On 29 January 2025 under section 13(4) 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. The Tribunal inspected the property on 1 April 2025, following its Directions. Whereas the tenant attended the inspection, neither did the landlord, nor the landlord’s representative. 4. [ADDRESS] (‘the building’) is a late Victorian/early Edwardian three-storey semi-detached house of traditional brick construction, with rendered front elevation and pitched tiled roof. It has been converted into three flats.

5. Flat 3 (‘the property’) is on the second floor, accessed off the common parts entrance hall and stairs. The property comprises, entrance lobby on a half- landing, stairs up to the next half-landing – a separate WC, further stairs up to the second floor – one reception room with kitchen off, one bedroom and a bathroom. Evidence

6. The Tribunal gave Directions dated 28 February 2025. The Tribunal directed the application to be suitable for determination on the papers, coupled with their inspection of the property.

7. The landlord’s Statement was to be sent by 13 March 2025; and the tenant’s Statement was to be sent by 26 March 2025.

8. The Tribunal has considered the Statement of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], undated, but given on 13 March 2025 and copied to the tenant the same day. In addition, the Tribunal has considered the Statement of [NAME] [NAME], also undated, but given on 26 March 2025 and copied to the landlord the same day. Both Statements were given in accordance with the Tribunal’s Directions.

9. With respect to the property, the landlord’s Statement includes the accommodation in outline, described as a one-bedroom flat, but neither a floor plan nor any photographs. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement dated 15 July 2019, with a commencement date of 1 August 2019. The property is let unfurnished.

10. Under both ‘Improvements’ and ‘Disrepairs/Defects: Age and Condition of Bathroom and Kitchen fittings’, [NAME] [NAME] says, ‘’Unknown.’’

HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 3 11. Under ‘Any Other Comments’, [NAME] [NAME] gives outline details of the property’s location in Bexhill-on-Sea, the local road network and its transport links.

12. To assist the Tribunal, [NAME] [NAME] has provided comparable lettings’ properties to which he has referred to reach his valuation of £875 per calendar month.

13. The three comparable lettings’ properties are all one-bedroom flats and are in the rental value range of £850 per calendar month to £995 per calendar month. Each is set out in a schedule with headings: Miles From Subject Property [sic], Size, Description, Other Amenities, Rent and Analysis.

14. Thereafter, [NAME] [NAME] has provided a ‘Rental Schedule’ given by [COMPANY] understood to be dated August 2024 for [ADDRESS]. The market rent in their schedule for Flat 3 is £700 per calendar month. The Tribunal understands this to be an extract from a report on the property given by [COMPANY].

15. On 26 March 2025 the tenant gave his Statement. The Statement includes an outline description of the property, described as a one-bedroom flat with a living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and separate WC. [NAME] [NAME] has provided a selection of photographs to assist the Tribunal and to present his case, with particular regard to highlight items of disrepair. 16. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] confirms various features set out in the landlord’s Statement including the landlord’s provision of double glazing and carpets; and adds the landlord has provided electric heating, but no curtains.

17. Under ‘Improvements’ [NAME] [NAME] says there have been none during his tenancy.

18. Under ‘Disrepairs/Defects: Age and Condition of Bathroom and Kitchen fittings’ [NAME] [NAME] lists various items of disrepair and outstanding works of repair, which includes: a very poor standard of decorations throughout, carpets having been laid on top of existing carpets without underlay, thus thermal insulation is poor, instances of damp and mould, problems with the storage heaters, the smoke and the alarms are faulty and neither has been tested, a very poor standard of electrical wiring, problems with the shower, a poor standard of flooring and dated fittings throughout. The Tribunal’s summary is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

19. Under ‘Any Other Comments’, [NAME] [NAME] says Bexhill station is a 10-minute walk from the property and buses are available from [ADDRESS] and the Marina, but timings are erratic.

20. Under ‘Your assessment of the rental value of the property’, [NAME] [NAME] says ‘’…this property is in such poor condition an increase to the proposed rent would appear to be unreasonable…I believe the current rent of £550pcm is fair considering the condition of the property.’’ 21. [NAME] [NAME] provides outline details of two similar properties available to let in Bexhill; a one-bedroom flat at £750 pcm and a studio at £525 pcm, both of which he says are equipped to a much higher standard. The Law Section 14, Housing Act 1988 - Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal

HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 4 (1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First- tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy-

(a) which is a periodic tenancy having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates. (2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded-

(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant; (b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- (i) was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates or the following conditions are satisfied, namely-

(a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling- house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit. (4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of

HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 5 furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation of the dwelling-house concerned or are payable under separate agreements.

22. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the tenancy. In so doing, and in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal ignores any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy.

Determination and Valuation 23. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies. The tenant is required to keep the property in the condition at the commencement of the term, fair wear and tear excepted.

24. After reviewing the rental values of the comparable lettings’ properties given by both the landlord and the tenant, and of its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal determines that the market rent for the property in good tenantable condition is £900 (Nine Hundred Pounds) Per Calendar Month.

25. From the Tribunal’s inspection and the evidence given by the parties in their Statements, the building in general, both internally and externally, and the property are in very poor condition, with various items of disrepair and outstanding works.

26. The property is on split levels, which is not ideal and there is no wash-hand basin (‘w h b’) in the separate WC.

27. The Tribunal has identified Property Management issues at the building; typically, there is no Notice board in the common parts’ entrance hall to display the name of the Managing Agents with their contact details and the building’s Fire Safety Certificate. [NAME] [NAME] says the smoke and fire alarms are faulty and neither has been tested during his tenancy.

28.

Accordingly, the Tribunal has concluded adjustments are required to the market rent, which are summarised and set out in its valuation below.

29. The Tribunal’s valuation: Market rent in good condition (£ PCM)

£900 Less deductions (£ PCM) for:

HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 6 General wants of repair to the building and

£125 the property Split levels and no ‘w h b’ in the separate WC £25 No Central Heating £50 The Tenant’s provision of White Goods

£30 The unmodernised bathroom/WC £75 The unmodernised kitchen £100 £405 Market rent (per calendar month) £495 30. The Tribunal therefore decided that the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under the terms of this assured tenancy was £495 (Four Hundred and Ninety-Five Pounds) Per Calendar Month.

31. The Tribunal’s determination of the rental value of the property is a reduction in rent down from £550 Per Calendar Month to £495 Per Calendar Month. The Tribunal has determined that the property is currently over-rented.

32. The tenant has made no representations that the starting date for the new rent specified in the landlord’s notice would cause him undue hardship.

33.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directs that the new rent of £495 Per Calendar Month should take effect from 1 February 2025. This being the date specified in the landlord’s Notice proposing a new rent.

HAV/21UG/MNR/2025/0621 7

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 days’ time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 days’ time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 property is in poor condition.
  • The property lacks modern facilities.
  • Rent should reflect the open market value of the property.
  • Rent should be adjusted based on comparable lettings in the area.
  • Rent should consider the condition and amenities of the property.

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 from £875 to £495 per month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to reduce the rent because the property was in poor condition, with disrepair and outdated facilities.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property, which was in poor condition with disrepair and outdated facilities.

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 be able to argue for a reduction in rent if the property is in poor condition.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Photographs and statements from both the tenant and the landlord mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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.