41 Hazelwood Road, Birmingham, B27 7XL
Condition: Assumed to have central heating and double glazing; no inspection was carried out and no specific condition issues were noted.
Evidence considered
- Neither party submitted comparable rental evidence
- Tenant submitted a Universal Credit statement relevant to hardship, not rental value
- Tribunal relied solely on its own expert knowledge of local rental values
Tenant submitted evidence: no. Landlord submitted evidence: no.
Tribunal's reasoning
The landlord proposed increasing the rent from £1,450 to £1,550 pcm. Neither party provided comparable evidence or requested an inspection/hearing, so the tribunal relied on its own expert knowledge of local rental values to determine a market rent of £1,550 pcm, matching the landlord's proposed figure. Due to evidence of tenant hardship (rent partly funded by Universal Credit, which would not cover the increase), the tribunal postponed the effective date of the new rent to the date of its decision rather than the date in the landlord's notice.
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.