Tribunal Sets £525/month Rent for Assured Tenancy in Manchester
📌 In brief
In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal adjusted the rent for a tenant because a person was in disrepair. The rent was set at £525.00 per month, starting from August 9, 2019. This decision reflects the state of a person and the market conditions.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment to reflect the disrepair of a person.
📖 What the law says
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 fair rent based on what a willing landlord would charge in the open market for a similar property under similar conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to reflect the disrepair of a person.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal adjusted the proposed rent to reflect the disrepair of the property, setting the rent at £525.00 per calendar month, effective from 9 August 2019. The decision was based on the condition of the property and the comparables provided.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00BY/MNR/2019/0058
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]
[ADDRESS] [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [NAME]
1. The rent is: £525.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 9 August 2019
3. The amount included for services is/is
not applicable
Per
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 09 November 2008
5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly
6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement dated 09 May 2008
7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None
8. Description of premises Two bedroom ground floor flat, with living room and kitchen, bathroom/ wc and conservatory
[ADDRESS] of Decision 27 September 2019
1
Case Reference : MAN/00BY/MNR/2019/0058
Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]
Landlord
: [COUNSEL] and [COUNSEL] : N/A
Tenant : [COUNSEL]
: N/A
Type of Application : Determination of rent under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal Members : [ADDRESS] Kasambara
Date and venue : Determination following an
inspection on 27 September 2019
Date of Decision : 27 September 2019
_______________________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 DECISION
The rent at which [NAME] might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy is £525.00 per calendar month exclusive of water rates and council tax.
This rent will take effect from 9 August 2019, being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.
REASONS
Background
1. [NAME] is held on an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 granted by a tenancy agreement dated 9 May 2008 at a rent of £500.00 per month payable on the 9th day of each month. The tenant is [APPELLANT]. The current landlords are [APPELLANT] and [NAME].
2. The tenancy was for a fixed term of 6 months from 9 May 2008 and has been followed by a statutory monthly assured tenancy. The repairing obligations of the parties are governed by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (clause 7 of the tenancy agreement) – landlord – and clause 4(5) -- tenant. As at the date the landlord gave notice proposing an increase in rent, the rent was £500.00 per calendar month. There is no service charge.
3. By a notice to the tenant dated 13 June 2019 the landlord proposed a new rent for [NAME] of £550.00 per month with effect from 9 August 2019.
4. On 6 August 2019 the tenant referred the landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988. The tenant’s application was in the prescribed form and was made before the date specified in the landlord’s notice for the start of the proposed new rent.
Inspection
5. The Tribunal inspected [NAME] on the morning of 27 September 2019 in the presence of the tenant and a representative of [COUNSEL] [NAME], the managing agents. [NAME] is a two-bedroom ground floor flat, with living room and kitchen, bathroom/wc and conservatory. There were a number of items of disrepair as set out in the additional information attached to the tenant’s application although some had been attended to. There have been no tenant’s improvements since the commencement of the tenancy.
3 Evidence
6. The landlord’s agents submitted written representations under cover of a letter dated 31 August 2019 and advertising details of two comparable properties – two-bedroom flats at [ADDRESS] (575.00 pcm) and at St Mary’s Road (£595.00 pcm).
7. Neither party elected for a hearing so that following the inspection the Tribunal reconvened to make its determination.
Law
8. Where a tenant has referred a valid landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, section 14 of that Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considers that [NAME] might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy. In so doing the Tribunal is required, by section 14(1) of the Act, to ignore the effect on the rental value of [NAME] of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2).
9. For these purposes, “rent” includes amongst other things any sums payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of council tax. It does not include a “service charge” within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (i.e. where the service charge payable by the tenant is variable from time to time according to the relevant costs). However, it does include a “fixed” service charge.
Validity of the landlord’s notice
10. The Tribunal must first determine that the landlord’s notice under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. Those requirements are that the notice was given in the prescribed form and was accompanied by the relevant guidance notes, that it gave at least one month’s notice of the proposed increase, and that it must specify a start date for the proposed new rent which coincides with the beginning of a period of the tenancy.
11. The Tribunal determined that the landlord’s notice complied with these requirements and was therefore validly served.
Valuation
12. The Tribunal next determined the rent at which [NAME] could reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such open market lettings.
4 13. Having taken into account the comparables provided and having had regard to its general knowledge of market rent levels in the area, the Tribunal concluded that a likely market rent for a property such as the subject property would be £550.00 per calendar month exclusive of water rates and council tax.
14. However, [NAME] is not in the condition considered usual for a modern letting at a market rent and so the Tribunal proceeded to make a deduction from the hypothetical market rent of £25.00 to reflect the disrepairs, reducing the net market rent for [NAME] to £525.00 per calendar month.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4173138
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £580/Month Rent for Assured Tenancy in Margate
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment for Assured Shorthold Tenancy Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Service Charges for Fire Safety Mea…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rejects £1,967 Improper Service Charge for Assured Tenancy in Cant…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Special Needs Accommodation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Premium for Lease Extension with Onerous Ground Re…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £147/week Fair Rent for Assured Tenancy in Kent
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal rules service charges unreasonable for leaseholders in Birmingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal reduces financial penalties for unlicensed properties i…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Budget for Service Charges Approved by First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Property Considering Location and Condition
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 tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment reflecting the property's disrepair.
- The rent should be adjusted according to the property's condition and market value.
- Service charges must be reasonable and in accordance with the lease terms.
- Tenants can request a lease extension with a premium reflecting the ground rent.
- Fair rents are based on the open market value, adjusted for any relevant disadvantages.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- No significant factors identified against the claimant in the provided cases.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set the rent at £525.00 per month for the assured tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over the proposed rent increase from £500.00 to £550.00 per month.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to set the rent at £525.00 per month because the property had several disrepair issues that affected its market value.
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 included several disrepair issues.
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 be able to negotiate a lower rent if their property has significant disrepair issues.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of disrepair issues in the property mattered in the decision.
