VadeLab

Housing & Tenancy

Housing & Tenancy judgments from UK courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·04 Jun 2019

Tribunal Sets £13,603 Premium for Lease Extension in London Property

Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·04 Jun 2019

Appeal Against Improvement Notice Struck Out Due to Notice Revocation

DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·19 Jun 2019

Tribunal Rejects Rent Repayment Order for Unlicensed HMO

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·19 Jun 2019

First-tier Tribunal Grants Variation of Lease to Remove Resident Caretaker

The First-tier Tribunal granted a request to change the terms of a lease, removing the requirement for a resident caretaker and instead providing an emergency call system. The decision was based on the statutory requirements being met.

DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·19 Jun 2019

Rent Repayment Order Refused for Unlicensed HMO

DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·19 Jun 2019

Tribunal dismisses £4550 rent repayment claim for unlicensed HMO in Birmingham

DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·19 Jun 2019

Tribunal dismisses £4550 rent repayment claim for unlicensed HMO in Birmingham

Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·17 Jun 2019

Tribunal reduces £17,250 financial penalty to £7,500 for housing offences in Newcastle

The First-tier Tribunal reduced the financial penalty imposed on a landlord who failed to comply with an Improvement Notice. The landlord argued that some work was unnecessary and disputed the amount of the penalty. The Tribunal considered various factors and reduced the penalty to £7,500.

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·13 Jun 2019

Tribunal sets £33,500 premium for lease extension in London

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·04 Jun 2019

Financial Penalty Reduced for License Failure in Selective Licensing Area

A landlord appealed a financial penalty for failing to get a license in a designated area. The penalty was reduced because the harm was low and the landlord's fault was medium.

Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·04 Jun 2019

First-tier Tribunal Reduces Financial Penalty for Selective Licensing Failure

Allowed in PartFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·31 May 2019

First-tier Tribunal assesses costs in tenant case

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·22 May 2019

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4172785

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. The rent was determined to be £675 per month, effective from May 22, 2019.

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·22 May 2019

Tribunal confirms £575/month rent for assured tenancy in Manchester

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·22 May 2019

Tribunal sets £675/month rent for assured tenancy in Manchester

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·11 Jul 2019

Tenant's Cost Determination Under Leasehold Reform Act

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·11 Jul 2019

Tribunal Sets £25,170 Premium for Collective Enfranchisement of London Property

DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·24 Jun 2019

Tribunal Rejects Service Charge Claims for Damp Proofing and Intercom Damage in London

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·06 Jun 2019

Tenant Found in Breach for Using AirBnB

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant's use of a person violated the lease terms. The tenant was found to be in breach of clauses requiring the property to be used solely as a private residence and ensuring that the use does not affect the insurance adversely.

AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·06 Jun 2019

Tribunal Upholds £2,452.34 Service Charge Claims for Assured Tenancy in Romford

The First-tier Tribunal ruled on the reasonableness of service charges and administration costs under a lease agreement. The applicant sought recovery of arrears from the respondent, who failed to challenge the charges adequately. The Tribunal found the charges reasonable and payable by the respondent.

← PreviousPage 762 · 16096 judgmentsNext →