Flat 2, 44 Lower High St., Wednesbury, WS10 7AQ

BIR/00CS/MRA/2026/0017 · Decided 2026-09-30 · bedsit · 0 bed

£500current rent (pcm)
£700landlord proposed (pcm)
£600tribunal decided (pcm)

Condition: Tenant reported the shower was not working properly and access to the flat was shared with other tenants.

Evidence considered

Tenant submitted evidence: yes. Landlord submitted evidence: yes.

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal rejected the landlord's characterisation of the property as a one-bedroom flat, finding it was more accurately a bedsitting room with a combined living room/bedroom. This made most of the landlord's comparable evidence (separate-bedroom 1-bed flats and bills-included studios) less relevant, while the tenant's lower comparables were considered more representative. The tribunal determined a market rent of £600 pcm, below the landlord's proposed £700 but above the tenant's current £500, with the increase effective from the date in the landlord's notice as no undue hardship case was established.

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 pack

Tenant 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 pack

Not 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.