Tribunal Sets New Rent for Tenancy Based on Property Condition
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a new rent of £1360 per month for a property, taking into account the absence of central heating and partial white goods.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent adjustment based on the condition and amenities of the property.
📖 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 their tenancy. However, such an application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, tenants can also challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under Sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers what a willing landlord would charge for letting the property in the open market, taking into account the same terms and conditions as the original tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined a new rent for a property based on comparable evidence and adjusted for certain conditions and amenities.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a new rent of £1360 per month for a property, adjusting the market rent based on the lack of central heating and partial white goods.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AH/MNR/2024/0636
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 33A Central Parade, Croydon, London, [POSTCODE]
[NAME] [NAME]
Landlord [RESPONDENT] 2, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £ 1360 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 30 September 2025
*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 2017
6. Length of the term or rental period monthly
7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord full repairing
8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Cooker and washing machine
9. Description of premises 3 bed maisonette above shops. No central heating.
[NAME] of Decision 30 September 2025
1
Case Reference : LON/00AH/MNR/2024/0636
Property
: 33A Central Parade, Croydon, London, [POSTCODE]
Tenant : [APPELLANT]
Landlord : [APPELLANT] of Objection : 21 August 2024
Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal : Mr [NAME] [NAME] of Summary Reasons
: 30 September 2025
_______________________________________________
DECISION
The Tribunal determines a rent of £1360.00 per calendar month with effect from 30 September 2025. ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2 SUMMARY REASONS
Background
1. On 26 June 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £ 1450 in place of the existing rent of £ 1050 per calendar month to take effect from 28 August 2024.
2. On 21 August 2024 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 26 August 2025.
Inspection
3. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.
Evidence
4. The Tribunal has considered of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord.
5. The tenant complains there is no central heating and that the flat is damp. There are no supporting photographs. White goods consist of a cooker and washing machine. The carpets are old. The tenant gave evidence of ill health and hardship.
6. The landlord has provided 3 comparables all in Central Parade:
• A 3 bed maisonette. The details are dated 25/7/24 but there are no details of the amenities or internal photographs. The quoting rent was £1600 pcm.
• Details of a 3 bed maisonette dated 6/8/25. The flat is part furnished but with central heating. Details quote a rent of£1750 almost a year after the notice of increase. It therefore carries less weight.
• Details of a 3 bed maisonette available from 31/10 25 over a year after the notice of increase so carrying less weight than the first comparable. The rent is £1500 pcm having been reduced. Internal photographs show central heating radiators
Determination and Valuation
7. Having considered the comparable evidence proved by the parties and using our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in the condition and with the amenities the market would expect would be in the region of £1600 per
3 calendar month. From this level of rent we have made adjustments in relation to:
No central heating Partial white goods Partial carpets and curtains
6. The full valuation is shown below:
Decision
8. The Tribunal therefore determines 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 £1360 per calendar month.
9. The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1360 to take effect on 30 September 2025. The Tribunal was satisfied that a starting date of that specified in the Landlord’s notice would cause the tenant undue hardship.
Chairman: [NAME]: 30 September 2025
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 subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.
PCM AST Market rent 1,600.00 £ less no CH part white goods 15.0% 240.00 -£ 1,360.00 £
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Market Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Rent After Considering Tenant Improvements
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Based on Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy - First-tier Tribunal Decis…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Reduces Rent for Defective Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Fair Rent to £660 Due to Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets New Rent for Assured Tenancy
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 was lowered because the property only had partial carpets and curtains.
- The Tribunal set a later effective date for the new rent to prevent undue hardship for the tenant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal set a new rent of £1360 per month for the property.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on comparable evidence and adjusted for the property's condition and amenities.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 section 14 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument about the property's condition and amenities was crucial.
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 also seek a fair market rent adjustment based on their property's condition.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Comparative evidence of similar properties and the condition of the property were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed through the appropriate channels.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
