VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Rent at £900 Considering Property Condition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the market rent for a property, considering its condition and location. The rent was set at £900 per calendar month because of the property's disrepair and location.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair market rent assessment taking into account the state of repair of the property.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent assessment

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. However, this 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, a tenant can also apply to 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 a similar property in the open market, taking into account the property's condition and location.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal assessed the market rent for a property considering its condition and location.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal assessed the market rent for a property, considering its condition and location. The rent was set at £900 per calendar month due to the property's disrepair and location.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00CZ/MNR/2025/0778 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 16 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME] PA [NAME] (Judge) Ms J Gittus (Valuer) Landlord [NAME] [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is:£ £900 Per Cal month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 23 May 2025 3. The amount included for services is not applicable Not applicable Per 4. Date assured tenancy commenced 23 March 2024 5. Length of the term or rental period Cal month 6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 s.11 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises 3 bedroom detached stone-faced property with garage and garden in a residential area of Dewsbury. Kitchen and bathroom need refurbishment some repair work and there is an element of landlord neglect in relation to water penetration (garage and kitchen) together with more minor works to the gas fire in the livingroom. [NAME] of Decision 30 June 2025

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CZ/MNR/2025/0778 Property : 16 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant : [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] Housing Act 1988, S. 13 and S.14 Tribunal Members : [NAME] (Judge); Ms J Gittus MRICS Date of Decision : 30 June 2025 _______________________________________________

REASONS _________________________________________________ 1. This is a statement of reasons for the decision of the Tribunal made on the 30 June 2025 to assess a market rent of the property at 16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the property”) at £900 per calendar month in place of the current rent of £600. The effect of the notice is 23 May 2025, the date stipulated in the section 13 notice.

2. By way of an application to the Tribunal, dated 02 May 2025, [NAME] [APPELLANT], tenant of the property, referred a notice of increase of rent to the Tribunal under sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

3. The section 13 notice, in Form 4, dated 22 April 2025, included in the papers, sought to increase the rent from the existing £650 per calendar month to a new rent of £1150 per calendar month from the 23 May 2025.

4. Neither party asked for an oral hearing, but the Tribunal had the opportunity of inspecting the property on the 30 June 2025. The Relevant Law 5. In accordance with section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal had to determine the rent 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. Our Findings of Fact and Assessment of the Application 6. The tenant had occupied the property pursuant to a tenancy agreement for around three years. The most recent tenancy agreement is dated since 23 March 2024 for £650. It appears that the initial rent from March 2022 was for £885, which at that time was probably close to the market rent for the property. The rent remained at that level following the renewal of the tenancy in 2023 but reduced to £650 from March

2024. It is not entirely clear why the rent was reduced but it was suggested at the inspection that this was to take account of disrepair at the property. We understand that the current landlord has taken over the property from the previous landlord. The Property 7. The property comprises a modern detached dwellinghouse in a relatively new development on the outskirts of Dewsbury. It is located within a short walk of nearby shops and has a bus route into the town. The property has a kitchen, a dining room and living room together with three bedrooms and bathroom on the first floor. There is an attached single garage and a sizeable garden to the rear and area to the front where cars can be parked. Externally, as can be seen from the photographs supplied by the parties, and arising out of our inspection of the property, the property is fronted by a large and dilapidated chipboard porch constructed to the front of the main entrance door. It is not entirely clear why the property has this structure attached to it but it is unsightly and would likely put off prospective tenants. We note that this forms part of the structure and exterior of the property and so it comes within the scope of the landlord’s maintenance responsibilities.

8. Internally in the kitchen there is a broken wall cupboard and defective ceiling which appears to have been damaged by water ingress, possibly from the adjoining garage where a pipe runs from the bathroom (possibly the soil stack). We noted that there are loose tiles at the back of the bath and gaps in the mortar which might allow water to escape. The bathroom sink was also insecurely fitted and wobbly. In the front bedroom there was evidence of damp. We also noted that there is loose and defective flashing to the roof with the garage which might be a source of water ingress.

9. Generally, the property has been poorly maintained by the landlord with items of disrepair and refurbishment including works to the kitchen, bathroom and garage. We were also concerned about the safety of the gas fire in the case that small children were occupying the property.

10. Neither party asked for a hearing.

11. Comparable properties were provided by the landlord in his submission to the Tribunal and we noted the following, that [ADDRESS] is larger than the subject property having 4 bedrooms and is in a preferable location. The asking rent for this property is £1500. [ADDRESS] is a detached 3-bedroom property but again in a preferable location and is larger than the subject property. The asking rent for this property is £1200.

12. On the basis of all of the available evidence and utilising the Tribunal’s expertise, we determined that a market rent for this property in good condition might reasonably be £1000.

13. Taking account of the relevant matters set out above, and utilising the Tribunal’s expertise, in the Tribunal’s judgement a property of this size and in this condition might reasonably achieve a rent of £900 per calendar month. We have arrived at this figure by reason of the size and condition of the property in that local market area but also by reference to a discount of some £100 from the market rent in good condition to take account of landlord neglect.

14. The new rent is payable from the date of the notice as no impecuniosity was raised with the Tribunal.

15. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law only. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal. Signed……… ………..[NAME] Tribunal Judge Date: 23 September 2025

📊 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 rent is assessed at a fair market rate considering the property's condition.
  • The rent takes into account the current market conditions and the state of repair of the property.
  • The rent is adjusted for the property's condition and improvements made by the tenant.
  • The rent reflects comparable evidence of similar properties.
  • The rent is determined based on the property's condition and local comparables.

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 £900 per calendar month.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and location, setting the rent at £900 per calendar month.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, Section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and its location.

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 should consider the condition and location of their property when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparable properties and the condition of the property were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.