VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the fair a person for a property, setting it at £268.50 per week. This decision was made after considering various factors and applying specific regulations under the a person Act 1977.

⚖️ Legal holding

The capped rent for a property is calculated by increasing the previous registered rent by the percentage change in the RPI and adding a specified percentage, as defined by the Rent Act 1977.

Topics

fair rent determinationcapping provisionsmaximum fair rent

Provisions

Rent Act 1977Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the capped rent based on the Retail Price Index (RPI) and applied the capping provisions of the Rent Act 1977.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the fair rent for a property to be £268.50 per week, applying the capping provisions of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, after considering the open market rent and making necessary adjustments.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FR27 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BK/F77/2024/0084

Notice of the Tribunal [NAME] 1977 Schedule 11

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were Flat 9, 50 St. [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge Foskett Mrs Flynn MA MRICS

Landlord [NAME]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The fair [NAME] is £268.50 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 29 April 2024

3. The amount for services is £6.22 Per Week

negligible/not applicable

4. The amount for fuel charges (excluding heating and lighting of common parts) not counting for [NAME] allowance is

N/A Per

negligible/not applicable

5. The [NAME] is not to be registered as variable.

6. The capping provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 apply (please see calculation overleaf).

7. Details (other than [NAME]) where different from [NAME] entry

8. For information only:

The fair [NAME] to be registered is the maximum fair [NAME] as prescribed by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. The [NAME] that would otherwise have been registered was £352 per week including £6.22 per week for services (variable).

Chairman Judge Foskett Mrs Flynn MA MRICS Date of decision 29 April 2024

FR27 [NAME] FIGURE X 383

PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 255.4

X 383 Minus Y 255.4 = (A) 127.6

(A) 127.6 Divided by Y 255.4 = (B) 0.499608

First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.549608

Last registered [NAME]* 173 Multiplied by (C) = 268.08 *(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p = 268.50

Variable service charge NO If YES add amount for services

[NAME] = £268.50 Per week

Explanatory Note

1. The calculation of the maximum fair [NAME], in accordance with the formula contained in the Order, is set out above.

2. In summary, the formula provides for the maximum fair [NAME] to be calculated by:

(a) increasing the previous registered [NAME] by the percentage change in the retail price index (the RPI) since the date of that earlier registration and

(b) adding a further 7.5% (if the present application was the first since 1 February 1999) or 5% (if it is a second or subsequent application since that date).

A 7.5% increase is represented, in the calculation set out above, by the addition of 1.075 to (B) and an increase of 5% is represented by the addition of 1.05 to (B).

The result is rounded up to the nearest 50 pence.

3. For the purposes of the calculation the latest RPI figure (x) is that published in the calendar month immediately before the month in which the Tribunal’s fair [NAME] determination was made.

4. The process differs where the tenancy agreement contains a variable service charge and the [NAME] is to be registered as variable under section 71(4) of the [NAME] 1977. In such a case the variable service charge is removed before applying the formula. When the amount determined by the application of the formula is ascertained the service charge is then added to that sum in order to produce the maximum fair [NAME]

FR27 SUMMARY REASONS

Background 1. The previous fair [NAME] for this property registered with effect from 16 January 2015 following a decision of the First Tier Tribunal was £173 per week including £14.05 per week for services, following the application of the capping provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999.

2. The Landlord applied on 19 October 2023 for the registration of fair [NAME] at £148.13 per week including £6.22 per week for services.

3. With effect from 10 December 2023, the [NAME] registered the fair [NAME] at £265 per week including £6.22 per week for services. The notice of registration of this [NAME] was received by the Tenant on 21 December 2023.

4. Following an objection made on 11 January 2024 on behalf of the Tenant to the determination by the [NAME], the Tribunal has made a determination under the provisions of the [NAME] 1977.

Inspection 5. No party requested an inspection by the Tribunal.

Evidence 6. The Tribunal considered the documents that had been sent by the Valuation Office Agency, the Landlord and the Tenant. There was no oral hearing.

Determination and Valuation 7. The property is self-contained flat within a converted Grade II listed building, built in the mid-19th century. The accommodation comprises 4 rooms, 1 kitchen, 1 bathroom and 1 WC. It is noted in the [NAME] to have been modernised, although the objection filed on behalf of the Tenant states that the Tenant has not “received … refurbishment works”. No photographs or other descriptions of the condition of the property were provided, apart from the [NAME]’s notes on the adjustments made to the open market [NAME], which noted that the Tenant was liable for decoration and the Landlord provided no furniture, floor coverings, curtains or white goods.

8. Having regard to our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market [NAME] for the property would be around £650 per week.

9. This hypothetical [NAME] is adjusted as necessary to allow for the differences between the terms and conditions considered usual for such a letting in today’s market and the condition of the actual property at the date of the determination under the [NAME] 1977. Any benefit derived from the tenant’s improvements (if any) is disregarded.

10. The Tribunal made adjustments amounting to £210 per week in line with the [NAME]’s notes on the condition of the property.

11. That gave a fair [NAME] of £440 per week.

FR27 12. A further deduction for scarcity of 20% was then made giving an uncapped fair [NAME] for the purposes of section 70 of the 1977 Act of £352 per week.

Decision 13. The capped [NAME] for the property according to the provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 is calculated at £268.50 per week including £6.22 for services (see calculation above). 14. In this case, the lower capped [NAME] of £268.50 per week including £6.22 for services is to be registered as the fair [NAME] for this property.

Chairman: Judge Rosanna Foskett, Mrs [NAME] MA MRICS

Date: 29 April 2024

APPEAL PROVISIONS

These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant provides evidence showing the property's condition and market comparables.
  • The tenant requests a fair rent calculation according to the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999.
  • The tenant seeks re-registration of their tenancy agreement to apply for a fair rent adjustment.
  • The tenant demonstrates the need for adjustments due to repairs and improvements made to the property.
  • The tenant presents comparable evidence reflecting current market conditions.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the fair rent for a property to be £268.50 per week.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court used the Rent Act 1977 and the capping provisions of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 to determine the fair rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 and the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the application of the capping provisions to ensure the fair rent was reasonable.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their fair rent to be determined using the same legal framework.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Documents related to the property's condition and the open market rent were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed through the appropriate legal channels.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving fair rent determinations.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.