24 Woodbank, Burbage, LE10 2BY
Condition: Property had cracks to walls/ceilings, condensation mould, a boiler leak, a loose loft hatch, failed double glazing units, rat damage near a WC pipe, and draughty doors.
Evidence considered
- Tribunal's own expert knowledge of rental values in the area (no external comparables evidence detailed)
- Physical inspection findings used to justify a £40 condition deduction
- Tenant's liability for internal decoration used to justify a 5% (£60) deduction
Tenant submitted evidence: yes. Landlord submitted evidence: yes.
Tribunal's reasoning
The tribunal assessed the open market rent for the property in good condition at £1,200 pcm based on its own expert knowledge of local rental values, then deducted £40 for disrepair issues noted at inspection (cracks, condensation/mould, boiler leak, loose loft hatch, failed double glazing units, rat damage, draughty doors) and 5% (£60) for the tenant's liability to internally decorate, arriving at a determined rent of £1,100 pcm, unchanged from the existing rent and below the landlord's proposed £1,150.
Read the original decision (PDF, GOV.UK)
Want the evidence, not just the decision?
Around half of the decisions in this database cite a problem with the evidence submitted — comparable tribunal outcomes are usually what decides these cases, for both sides. We're testing a paid evidence pack and a guided walkthrough of the application, built from this database.
Landlord evidence pack — from £15
Nearby tribunal outcomes, a rent level likely to survive a challenge, and an evidence pack in the format the tribunal expects — timed for when you serve a section 13 notice.
Register interest in the landlord packTenant pack — from £19
Whether challenging your rent increase is worth it, plus the comparable decisions to include with your MR1 application to the tribunal.
Register interest in the tenant packNot built yet — register your interest by email and we'll let you know when it's ready. This isn't legal advice; see the law and free advice options.