192 Manchester Road East, Little Hulton M38 9LG: MAN/00BN/MNR/2025/0909 MAN/00BN/MNR/2025/0909
REASONS
[1]On or around 25 June 2025, the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £895.00 per calendar month pcm in place of the existing rent of £500.00 pcm to take effect from 1 August 2025.[2]On or around 25 June 2025, 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.[3]The assured tenancy commenced on 1 November 2018 for a term of 24 months after which it became a statutory periodic tenancy. The rental period is monthly. Allocation of Repairs between Landlord and Tenant.[4]As per section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Services Charges or furniture provided by Landlord (other than carpets and curtain and white goods specified below) and the costs relating to the same.[5]Cooker provided by Landlord. Liability for Council Tax[6]The Tenant is responsible for the payment of Council Tax in respect of the Property. The rent determined is exclusive of Council Tax. Any other terms of the tenancy taken into consideration in determining the rent.[7]N/A Inspection/Hearing[8]The Landlord requested an oral hearing. A hearing was held on 13 March 2026 at 2pm by video platform. Ms Wong and Mr Hassell attended.[9]The Tribunal has considered this case based on an inspection, an oral hearing, the papers provided by the parties and its own knowledge and specialist expertise. The Property[10]The Tribunal conducted an inspection of the Property on 13 March 2026 in the presence of the Tenant and the Landlord’s representative Mr Hassell.[11]The Property is a two-storey mid-terraced house built around 1900 situated on a main road but set back from the pavement with a garden to rear at a lower level than the front, offering the following accommodation: Entrance hall, living room, kitchen, two bedrooms (1 double and 1 single), bathroom/w.c. with shower over bath, and basement accessed via rear garden (Not inspected. Understood to be used for storage).[12]The Property is situated in the Little Hulton, Walkden area of Salford, Greater Manchester. Manchester City Centre is 9-10 miles to the Southeast. Evidence[13]Both the Tenant and the Landlord submitted written submissions and the Landlord also submitted comparable evidence. The Tenant.[14]The Tenant made the following comments: a) The proposed increase is excessive and is not in line with local rental values and inflation trends. b) The Tenant alleges that there is long-standing disrepair at the Property and an unresolved rodent infestation (which the Tenant says she addressed at her own cost). The Tenant also says that she replaced a faulty electrical kitchen light (caused by a water leak from the bathroom) at her own cost. The Tenant also provided evidence of communications with the Landlord in August 2025 in relation to power socket failure at the Property. c) The Tenant stated in written submissions that other tenants on the street pay £600 or less. However, during the hearing, the Tenant stated 194 Manchester Road North was let for £650 pcm but was in much better condition than the Property. d) The Tenant offered a rent increase of £650 pcm as a concession, but this was not accepted by the Landlord. The Landlord[15]The Landlord made the following comments: a) The Landlord asserts that the proposed increase in rent is in line with market rents, further asserting in support that the current Local Housing Allowance rate for a 2-bedroom property in the M postcode area is £875 pcm. b) Since acquiring the Property in or around April 2025, the Landlord says it has installed a new bathroom suite, new PVC front and back doors, replaced a failed window panel and resolved drainage issues in the rear garden. c) The Landlord offered £750 pcm as a concession, but this was not accepted by the Tenant.[16]The following comparables were provided by the Landlord (all two-bedroom terraced houses, four in the vicinity of the Property and two further away from the Property): a) Bridgewater Street M38. This was marketed to let in March 2025 at £995.00 pcm. b) Manchester Road East M38. This was marketed to let in October 2025 at £975.00 pcm. c) Manchester Road East M38. This was marketed to let in February 2025 at £900 pcm. d) Manchester Road East M38. This was marketed to let in November 2024 at £900 pcm. e) Hilton Lane M28. This was marketed to let in October 2024 at £875 pcm. f) Newholme Gardens M28. This was marketed to let in November 2024 at £800 pcm.[17]At the hearing, the Landlord accepted that, of his comparables, those marketed at £900 pcm and above had very modern kitchens and were fully carpeted. With its current kitchen, the Landlord accepted the Property’s current market value was £750 pcm. Determination and Valuation[18]In the written submissions and during the hearing, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the Landlord had purchased the Property on the basis vacant possession was being provided, and as to whether the Tenant’s previous landlord had let the Property at a discounted rent. Neither issue was relevant to the Tribunal’s task of determining the current market value.[19]The Tribunal considered the Landlord’s comparable evidence but noted that the Landlord accepted that the properties in the vicinity being marketed at £900 pcm and above had very modern kitchens and were fully carpeted and were, therefore, in a better condition than the Property. The Tribunal also noted that the Landlord’s comparables evidenced the rents that the properties were marketed at and not the actual rents achieved.[20]The Tribunal noted that the Tenant stated that the next-door property was let at £650 pcm and was in much better condition than the Property. However, the Tenant had not provided any evidence to support those facts.[21]The Tribunal considered that the fact that the current Local Housing Allowance rate for a 2-bedroom property in the M postcode area is £875 pcm was not evidence as to the market value of the Property.[22]Relying on its own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal considers that the market rental of the subject Property, modernised and in good order, would be in the order of £850 pcm.[23]From this level of rent, the Tribunal has made adjustments in relation to the following: a) Furnishings and fittings and improvements provided by the Tenant and for which they should not pay. In particular, carpets to stairs and first floor, white goods except cooker, and replacement of the faulty kitchen light. b) Issues with the condition of the Property which reduce its value. In particular, faulty fencing to the rear garden and broken kitchen floor tiles. c) Necessary Improvements. In particular, a new kitchen to address the dated kitchen currently in the Property. The full valuation is shown below: Starting Rent £850.00 pcm Less a) Items given under a) above £65.00 b) Items given under b) above £10.00 c) Items given under c) above £65.00 £140.00 Market rent £710.00 pcm Undue hardship[12]The new rent takes effect from the date specified in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase unless that would cause undue hardship to the tenant. In cases of undue hardship, the Tribunal has a discretion to fix a later starting date up to the date a Tribunal makes its determination.[13]The Tenant has not specifically asked the Tribunal to fix a later starting date in this case. However, the Tenant has referred to her “ongoing hardship” and that “this increase is not only excessive but unaffordable to me based on my current financial circumstances”. In the circumstances, the Tribunal treated this as a request to postpone the increase and considered whether it should exercise its discretion.[14]At the hearing, the Tenant confirmed that she could not afford more than £650 and explained that she was looking after her mother who had had a stroke and that that had a financial impact on her. That said, the Tenant has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate her financial position to the Tribunal.[15]The Landlord’s response, at the hearing, was that he opposed fixing a later start date. However, he said that, if it would cause hardship to the Tenant, he would consider agreeing to accept 50% of the increase for the intervening period. The Tribunal does not have the power to make an order to that effect although the parties are free to agree that between themselves.[16]Whilst recognising the hardship that the Tenant said she would suffer, given that the Tenant has not provided any evidence to support that assertion, the Tribunal is not able to exercise its discretion to fix a later starting date in the circumstances. Decision[17]Therefore, the Tribunal determines the market rent at £710.00 per calendar month with effect from 1 August 2025. APPEAL PROVISIONS If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision. 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 statement of reasons (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.