VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Rent Considering Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair market rent for a property with mold issues and no central heating. They adjusted the rent to reflect the condition of the property.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjusted for the condition of the property.

Topics

rent determinationmold issuesproperty condition

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 their tenancy. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property in the open market. The determination takes into account the condition of the property and adjusts the rent accordingly.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for a property with known issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair market rent for a property with mold issues and no central heating, adjusting the rent accordingly. The decision took effect from 1 August 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AM/MNR/2025/0636

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination or Section 22 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 94 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord Mr [RESPONDENT] and Mrs [RESPONDENT] 37 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 705.50 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 August 2024

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable - Per -

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 January 2023

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or [NAME]

9. Description of premises Three bedroom terraced house with a living room, kitchen, ground floor bathroom and small garden.

[NAME] of Decision 17 July 2025

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AM/MNR/2025/0636

Property : 94 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Miss [APPELLANT]

Landlord : Mr [APPELLANT] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] of Objection

: 11 June 2024

Type of Application

: Determination of a Market Rent Sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal

: [NAME] [NAME] of Reasons

: 17 July 2025

_______________________________________________

DECISION AND REASONS

The Tribunal determines a rent of £705.50 per week with effect from 1 August 2024.

____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS

Background

1. By an application dated 11 June 2024, Miss [APPELLANT], the tenant of 94 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the subject property) referred to the First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal) a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the 1988 Act).

2. The Landlord, Mr [RESPONDENT] & Mrs [RESPONDENT], served a notice proposing an increase in the rent. The notice proposed an increase in the rent from £63.00 per week to £740.00 per week. The notice was dated 6 June 2024 and proposed a starting date for the new rent of 1 August 2024.

3. Originally the Tenant had emailed the Tribunal requesting that her initial application be withdrawn as her and the Landlord would be reaching a settlement. The Landlord’s consent to the withdrawal was requested but nothing was received confirming the Landlord’s consent to this.

4. An inspection of the property was arranged for 16 July 2025. On 13 July 2025 the Landlord wrote to the Tribunal explaining the reasoning as to why they did not a withdrawal to be carried out. This was in connection with a settlement not having been finalised as yet. The Landlord explained that the matter had now settled and that they did not see the value of an inspection.

5. On the morning of the planned inspection, the case officer contacted the Landlord to confirm if they would be present for the inspection. The Landlord confirmed that they would not be present as they were on holiday. The case officer attempted to contact the Tribunal to confirm that they too would not be attending but contact was not possible. The Tribunal therefore did not inspect the property and wrote to the parties confirming this the morning of the planned inspection.

6. The Tribunal has made its findings based on the written submissions and evidence produced by both parties.

The Law

7. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the 1988 Act, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the rent at which it considered that

3 the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

8. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(2), ignored the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in sections 14(2) and (3) and any reduction in the value caused by a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Section 14 is reproduced at the end of these reasons.

The evidence

Tenant’s Submissions

9. The Tenant has provided written submissions and evidence to the Tribunal advising that there are damp and mould issues and that there are leaking windows. The Tenant has also advised that the third bedroom is inhabitable due to the mould issue.

10. The Tenant provided receipts and statements relating to works that she or her mother have undertaken in their property since they began occupation. This includes replacing the kitchen four times.

11. There is also a statement regarding the window in the bathroom being rotten. This has led to it being boarded up.

Landlords’ Submissions

12. The Landlord provided a number of receipts demonstrating work that they have undertaken at the property between 1999 2024. and Other than submissions made by the Landlord to the Tribunal on the point of jurisdiction, nothing further was received by them.

13. There are also a number of emails and letters setting out the settlement history between the Landlord and the Tenant which are not relevant in assessing the rent for the property.

Determination and Valuation

14. The Tribunal initially needs to determine what rent the Landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. In doing this, the Tribunal will consider the rental value of the property but must not consider the personal circumstances of the Tenant, as that is not a factor envisaged by the Act.

4 15. No comparable information was provided by either party. Having consideration 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 £830 per week for the subject property as of June 2024 (the time that the Notice of Intention was issued by the Landlord).

16. Next, the Tribunal considered if there were any elements in the subject property that needed to be considered and reflected via adjustments to the market rent. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to the mould and no provision of central heating.

17. The full valuation is shown below:

Per calendar week Market Rent

£830

Less Mould issues

) 5% No central heating ) 10%

£124.50

£705.50

Hardship

18. Under section 14(7) of the 1988 Act, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix the starting date for the new rent from any point in time between the date set out in the notice of increase to the date that the rent is determined, if it appears to the Tribunal that the increase in rent would cause undue hardship to the tenant.

19. There were no submissions or evidence provided to the Tribunal substantiating a claim for hardship.

Decision

20. The Tribunal determine that the market rent for the subject property is £705.50 per week. This is effective from 1 August 2024 being the date specified on the Landlord’s notice.

Chairman: [NAME]: 17 July 2025

5 APPEAL PROVISIONS

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be made within 28 days of this decision (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013. Any appeal in respect of the Housing Act 1988 should be on a point of law.

ANNEXE

Housing Act 1988

14.— Determination of rent by tribunal. (1) Where, under subsection (4)(a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to the appropriate tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the appropriate tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the appropriate 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. (3A) In making a determination under this section in any case where under Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the landlord or a [NAME] is liable to pay council tax in respect of a hereditament (“the relevant hereditament”) of which the

6 dwelling-house forms part, the [appropriate tribunal] 5 shall have regard to the amount of council tax which, as at the date on which the notice under section 13(2) above was served, was set by the billing authority— (a) for the financial year in which that notice was served, and (b) for the category of dwellings within which the relevant hereditament fell on that date, but any discount or other reduction affecting the amount of council tax payable shall be disregarded. (3B) In subsection (3A) above— (a) “hereditament” means a dwelling within the meaning of Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, (b) “billing authority” has the same meaning as in that Part of that Act, and (c) “category of dwellings” has the same meaning as in section 30(1) and (2) of that Act. (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 furniture [, in respect of council tax] 6 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. (5) Where any rates in respect of the dwelling-house concerned are borne by the landlord or a [NAME], the [appropriate tribunal] 7 shall make their determination under this section as if the rates were not so borne. (6) In any case where— (a) the appropriate tribunal have before them at the same time the reference of a notice under section 6(2) above relating to a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as “the section 6 reference”) and the reference of a notice under section 13(2) above relating to the same tenancy (in this subsection referred to as “the section 13 reference”), and (b) the date specified in the notice under section 6(2) above is not later than the first day of the new period specified in the notice under section 13(2) above, and (c) the appropriate tribunal propose to hear the two references together, the appropriate tribunal shall make a determination in relation to the section 6 reference before making their determination in relation to the section 13 reference and, accordingly, in such a case the reference in subsection (1)(c) above to the terms of the tenancy to which the notice relates shall be construed as a reference to those terms as varied by virtue of the determination made in relation to the section 6 reference. (7) Where a notice under section 13(2) above has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the rent under the tenancy with effect from the beginning of the new period specified in the notice or, if it appears to the appropriate tribunal that that would cause undue hardship to the tenant, with effect from such later date (not being later than the date the rent is determined) as the committee may direct. (8) Nothing in this section requires the appropriate tribunal to continue with their determination of a rent for a dwelling-house if the landlord and tenant give notice in writing that they no longer require such a determination or if the tenancy has come to an end. (9) This section shall apply in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy as if in subsection (1) the reference to an assured tenancy were a reference to an assured shorthold tenancy.

📊 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 the market rent based on its expert knowledge of rental values in the area.
  • The rent was adjusted downwards due to existing mould issues in the property.
  • The rent was further reduced because the property lacked central heating.
  • The Tribunal set the new rent to take effect from the date specified in the landlord's notice.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a fair market rent for a property with mold issues and no central heating.

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 based on the condition of the property, considering the mold issues and lack of central heating.

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, particularly the mold issues and lack of central heating.

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

The decision was for the tenant, as the rent was adjusted downward.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the condition of the property is taken into account when determining the rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence of the property's condition, including mold issues and the lack of central heating, was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal within 28 days.

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

It is 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.