
Housing & Tenancy judgments from UK courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the development hope value of the roof space in a collective enfranchisement claim, considering legal rights and potential risks, leading to a final price of £49,500.
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on the maximum fair rent for a property. They used a specific formula based on the Retail Price Index and the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 to calculate the rent.
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on the maximum fair rent for a property, calculating it based on the Retail Price Index and relevant legislation. The rent was set at £194.00 per week.
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the appropriate premium for the collective enfranchisement of a property where the landlord could not be found. The decision was made using the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for a property by considering its condition and comparing it to similar properties in the area. They adjusted the rent to reflect the property's actual state compared to what would be expected in the open market.
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant must pay 11.31% of service charges based on the lease terms. However, the tenant cannot dispute past payments made on a one-sixth basis due to estoppel.
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for a property by considering the property's condition, location, and market comparables, in line with the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999.
The Tribunal allowed a landlord to bypass certain consultation requirements for works done in 2017, but required the landlord to cover their own costs.
The First-tier Tribunal decided on the premium for extending a lease based on the valuation and relativity provided by the parties. The case involved a disagreement over the relativity figure, resulting in a substantial difference in the premium amount.
The First-tier Tribunal decided that service charges for 2017 were not payable because the demand was made too late. Charges for 2018 and 2019 were found reasonable and payable.
In this case, a property owner successfully challenged financial penalties imposed by a local authority for operating unlicensed a person. The tribunal ruled that the evidence presented was unreliable and did not prove the claim beyond reasonable doubt.