Tribunal Sets Rent for Neglected Property Based on Condition
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for a poorly maintained property, setting it at £725.00 per month based on the property's condition and market standards.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a reasonable rent based on the property's condition and market standards.
📖 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 reasonable rent based on market standards and the condition of the property.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined the rent for a poorly maintained property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal set the rent for a property in poor condition at £725.00 per month, considering the property's state and market standards.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. CHI/00ML/MNR/2021/0102
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]
[NAME] Miss [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]
Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT], 1 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
[APPELLANT] [NAME]
1. The rent is: £ 725.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)
2. The date the decision takes effect is: 11 October 2021
3. The amount included for services is not applicable n/a Per n/a
4. Date assured tenancy commenced 11 June 1996
5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly
6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per section 11 of the Landlord & [APPELLANT] 1985
7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Carpets, curtains and cooker.
8. Description of premises 1 bedroom self-contained flat in a converted house.
[NAME] of Decision 26 October 2021
1
Case Reference
: CHI/00ML/MNR/2021/0102
Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
[COMPANY]
(Landlord).
Date of Application : 26th August 2021
Type of Application : Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988
Tribunal
: [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]
: 26th October 2021
_____________________________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________________________
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
2 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
Background 1. The Tribunal gave formal notice of its decision by a Notice dated 26th October 2021 in the sum of £725.00 per calendar month (pcm).
2. By an application dated 26th August 2021, the [APPELLANT] of the above property referred a notice of increase in rent served by the landlord under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to the Tribunal.
3. The landlord's notice dated the 23rd August 2021 proposed a rent of £950.00 pcm. with effect from 11th October 2021, in place of the current rent of £725.00 pcm.
4. The tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. The current tenancy agreement is in common form and commenced on 7th December 2000 however the Tribunal is informed by the [APPELLANT] that the original tenancy commenced on 11th June 1996. The tenancy is subject to the Landlord's repairing obligations defined in Section 11 the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985.
Property and Inspection 5. Following the Directions dated 8th September 2021 and the explanation contained therein, the Tribunal did not inspect the premises.
6. Extracting such information as it could from the papers supplied to the Tribunal by the parties, by reference to information publicly available on the internet and with the benefit of its knowledge and experience the Tribunal reached the following conclusions and found as follows:
7. The property is located in a residential area.
8. The property comprises a converted flat in a terraced house. Permit parking.
9. The accommodation comprises: Ground Floor: Hall, 1 reception room, First Floor: kitchen, 1 bedroom and bathroom.
10. Carpets, curtains and cooker.
11. The Tribunal assumed that all mains services (except gas) are connected. Hearing 12. A hearing was not requested.
Documents supplied to and considered by the Tribunal 13. Tribunal Directions dated 8th September 2021.
14. Landlord: Tribunal Reply Form.
15. [APPELLANT]: Application Form and Reply Forms, photographs.
Landlord's Representations (summarised): 16. The Landlord says in the Reply Form:
3
a) The [APPELLANT] mentions grants for double glazing and central heating. The Landlord has no knowledge of these matters. b) £950.00 pcm is considered to be a modest rent for this location. c) The Landlord provides comparables of local 1 bedroom flats at rents ranging from £850.00 pcm to £1,250.00 pcm d) In particular the Landlord draws attention to [ADDRESS] a similar property but 'open plan living kitchen area'. Tenancy commenced on 2nd April 2019 at £1,025.00 pcm.
[APPELLANT]'s Representations (summarised) 17. In the Application and Reply Forms the [APPELLANT] says:
a) In a request for a case management order dated 16th October 2021 the [APPELLANT] says the Tenancy commenced on 11th June 1996 and the current rent is £725.00 pcm not £750.00 pcm b) A survey was carried out on 17th January 2019 following a report of damp/mould growth. Secondary glazing was installed in May 2021. This is the only work of improvement to the flat in 26 years. c) There are no cupboards in the kitchen. No washing machine plugged in. d) Disrepair (see photographs) includes: Damp/condensation on North facing wall, worn carpets, loose floorboards, cracked toilet pan, cracks in walls throughout the property, holes in plaster, rotten window frames, cracked window pane in living room, mould in bedroom cupboards and outdated expensive electric storage radiators. e) The Landlord is constantly in breach of Section 11 Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985. f) The current Landlord has visited twice and a [NAME] visited on 21st September but did not appear to acknowledge the issues.
18. No specific representations are made about the level of rent proposed by the Landlord and the [APPELLANT] has submitted no comparable evidence.
The Tribunal’s Deliberations 19. The Tribunal may proceed to determine the rent at which it considers the subject property might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy.
20. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the notice was a Notice under section 13 as prescribed by Statute.
21. The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a [NAME] under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the [APPELLANT] or Landlord are not relevant to this issue.
22. The Tribunal checked the [NAME] and noted that the subject property has a certificate registering the property at E expiring on 28th September 2031. The legal minimum standard for letting a property is rating E.
23. Based on the knowledge of its members the Tribunal finds that the market for this type of property is very sensitive to condition and inventory. The subject
4
property appears to the Tribunal to be in such a poor condition that would be unlikely to appeal to a prospective [APPELLANT].
24. The Tribunal, acting as an expert tribunal, determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the subject property in the open market if it were let today in the condition and subject to the terms of such a tenancy that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by having regard to the evidence supplied by the parties and the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels. Having done so, it concluded that such a likely market rent for a similar modernised property in fair condition with modern central heating, modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, floor coverings, cooker, washing machine and an EPC Rating above F would be £900.00 pcm.
25. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the current market conditions and the apparent condition of the subject property, made the following deductions:
a) Lack of fridge, washing machine, curtains, £25.00. b) General disrepair (as detailed above in the photographs provided by the [APPELLANT]), dated bathroom and kitchen £150.00.
26. A total deduction of £175.00.
27. Accordingly the Tribunal determined that the market rent for the subject property is £725.00 pcm.
28. The rent will take effect from 11th October 2021 being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase.
Relevant Law 29. Sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
30. Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.620)
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision (on a point of law only) to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal [NAME] to deal with it more efficiently.
2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.
3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28
5
day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.
4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market Rent at £710 pcm for Little Hulton Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Unfurnished Flat in Scotswood
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Market Rent for Assured Tenancy Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Market 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 New Rent at £1,050 PCM
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Market Rent for Assured Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Reduction Case in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy in Gateshead
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Reasonable Market Rent for Residential Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Market Rent Set at £1,200 Per Month by First-tier Tribunal
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
- Rent should be set at a reasonable market rate based on comparable properties.
- Rent should reflect the current market conditions.
- Rent should consider the condition of the property.
- Rent should take into account improvements made by the tenant.
- Rent should be based on the property's condition and local comparables.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Rent determination must reflect the open market value without tenant-specific adjustments.
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 for a poorly maintained property at £725.00 per 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 market standards, finding the property in poor condition.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 and the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 2015 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and how it affects the market rent.
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 of their property when disputing rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the property and details of its condition were important.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is recommended to get a solicitor for a case like this.
