Tribunal Sets Reduced Rent Due to Property Condition Issues
📌 In brief
The Tribunal decided to reduce the rent for a semi-detached house because of several issues with the property's condition, such as cracks and dampness. The rent was set at £650 per month.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a market rent adjusted for property condition.
📖 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. The tribunal will then determine a fair market rent based on what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property under similar conditions.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal set a reduced market rent due to property issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined a reduced market rent for a semi-detached house due to various property condition issues, setting the rent at £650 per month.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00BW/MNR/2024/0708 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 75 Great Acre, Wigan [POSTCODE] Judge A [NAME] J O’Hare, MRICS Landlord [RESPONDENT] LLP Address Sterling House, [ADDRESS], Bury, Lancashire Tenant [APPELLANT]
1. The rent is: £650 Per month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 7 November 2024 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Per 4. Date periodic/statutory periodic assured tenancy commenced 7 July 2014 5. Rental period Monthly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs s.11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises Semi-detached house. 2 bedrooms and boxroom. Garden. Chairman A [NAME] of Decision 10 February 2025
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00BW/MNR/2024/0708 Property : 75 Great Acre, Wigan [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : Section 14, Housing Act 1988: Market Rent Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member J O’Hare MRICS Date of Decision : 10 February 2025
REASONS for
DECISION 1. The Tribunal inspected 75 Great Acre, Wigan in the presence of the Applicant. Due to an error on the part of the Tribunal office, the Respondent’s agent was unable to attend.
2. The Tribunal’s visit was made following the Applicants’ application for the Tribunal to fix a market rent for the property. The Landlord had served a notice dated 5 September 2024, requiring an increase in rent from £603.75 to £800 per month, the new rent was to start on 7 November 2024. The Applicant did not agree that the proposed rent represented the correct market rent for the property. 3. 75 Great Acre is a semi-detached house built circa 1950s. Construction is brick under a slate roof. There is a small garden to the front with parking for one car and an enclosed rear garden including a derelict outhouse.. The property has
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 double glazing, gas central heating and all mains services. On the ground floor there is a through living room with patio doors to the rear garden and a small kitchen. There are two double bedrooms, a boxroom and a bathroom on the first floor.
4. The tenancy began in July 2014. The landlord provided carpets but they had worn out in the living room and additional floor coverings had been provided by the tenant. No white goods or window coverings were provided by the landlord.
5. The Tribunal noted a crack above the bay window in the front elevation, which had caused some water ingress. There was evidence of damp in the rear corner of the living room and this was also evident in the single bedroom above. Signs of damp were also noticed on the chimney breast in the front (double) bedroom. In that bedroom one of the upper windows does not close completely.
6. The kitchen is outdated with minimal storage units and broken tiling. The bathroom contains an over-bath shower and extractor fan.
7. Externally, trees and vegetation had recently been removed by the landlord and the ground had not been made good. The rear fence was in disrepair, and a small hole in the side wall of the house was noted near ground level. The front gutter required repair.
8. The tenant did not provide information as to local rents. The landlord’s agent supplied evidence of an asking rent 0f £1150 for a three bedroomed property in [ADDRESS], Wigan (WN1). The Tribunal took this into consideration and also drew on its own professional knowledge of rents in the area. For a property with 2 bedrooms, a boxroom and a small kitchen a rent of £800 per month could be achieved if the property were in reasonable letting order. The Tribunal deducted £70 per month to reflect the need for general repairs and management of damp issues. A further £80 per month was deducted to reflect the fact that a re-fitted kitchen and updated bathroom together with floor coverings and window coverings would be required in order to obtain full market rent. The rent payable for the property is therefore currently £650 per month.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Market Rent Due to Property Condition
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Determination for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets rent for assured periodic 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 tenant disputes the rent amount with the landlord.
- The tenant requests a rent adjustment based on the property's condition.
- The tenant asks for a tribunal to set the rent under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
- The tenant seeks a fair determination of their rent under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
- The tenant demands a rent determination under the Housing Act 1988.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal decided to reduce the rent for a semi-detached house due to property condition issues.
Who was involved?
The tenant applied for a reduction in rent, and the landlord wanted to increase it.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court visited the property and found several issues, leading to a reduced rent of £650 per month.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied to determine the market rent.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property, which affected the market rent.
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 should consider the condition of their property when negotiating rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the property's condition, such as cracks and dampness, was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.
