First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair a person for a property, taking into account its condition and current market value. The a person was set at £17,500 per year, excluding certain costs but including fixed service charges.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a fair a person that reflects the property's condition and market value, adjusted for any deficiencies.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined a fair a person for a property based on its condition and market value.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a fair rent for a property, considering its condition and market value. The rent was set at £17,500 per annum, excluding water rates and council tax but including fixed service charges.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Page 1 of 3
SUMMARY REASONS
Background
1. The Landlord applied to register a fair [NAME] by application dated 24 October 2023 and the [NAME] registered £17,775 per annum (including £1,779.21 per annum attributable to services by way of fixed service charge) with effect from 19 December 2023.
2. The previous [NAME] registered on 2 December 2021 (with effect from 21 January 2022) was £18,375 per annum (including £841.62 attributable to services by way of fixed service charge).
3. Following an objection made on behalf of the Landlord (made by email to the Valuation Office Agency on 8 January 2024) to the determination by the [NAME], the Tribunal has made a determination under the provisions of the [NAME] 1977.
Inspection
4. The Tribunal inspected the property in dry, sunny weather on 12 April 2024.
Evidence
5. 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
6. The property is self-contained flat in a 1904 mansion block. The accommodation comprises 4 rooms (1 living room, 2 bedrooms and what is now a “TV room” but must previously have been another bedroom), 1 kitchen, 1 shower room and 1 WC on the ground floor of the mansion block. It has no central heating and is heated by some electric heaters and an electric fire. Hot water is produced by an immersion heater installed in the 1960s.
7. Having regard to our own [NAME], general knowledge of rental values in the area (including by reviewing local properties on [NAME]), we consider that the open market [NAME] for the property would be around £35,000 per annum.
8. 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] 2 of 3
Act 1977. Any benefit derived from the tenant’s improvements (if any) is disregarded.
9. The following deductions were made:
Condition of kitchen
10% Condition of bathroom
5% No central heating
5% State of electrical installation
2.5% No curtains or white goods provided by landlord 7.5% Damp
7.5% Total
37.5%
10. That gave a fair [NAME] of £21,875 per annum (62.5% of £35,000 = £21,875). 11. 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 £17,500 per annum, including £1,779.21 per annum for fixed service charge.
Decision
12. The capped [NAME] for the property according to the provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 is calculated at £22,955 per week, including the figure of £1,779.21 per annum as fixed service charge (see calculation above).
13. In this case, the lower [NAME] of £17,500 per annum (uncapped) including £1,779.21 per annum for fixed service charge is to be registered as the fair [NAME] for this property.
Chairman: Judge Rosanna Foskett, Mrs [NAME] MA MRICS
Date: 12 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.
Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 3
First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HS/LON/00AT/F77/2024/0074
Notice of the Tribunal [NAME] 1977 Schedule 11
Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 42 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Judge Foskett Mrs Flynn MA MRICS
Landlord [APPELLANT]
Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]
1. The fair [NAME] is £17,500 Per annum (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)
2. The effective date is 12 April 2024
3. The amount for services is £1,779.21 Per annum
4. The amount for fuel charges (excluding heating and lighting of common parts) not counting for [NAME] allowance is
Per
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 not limited by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, because it is below the maximum fair [NAME] of £ 22,955 per annum including £ 1,779.21 per annum for services prescribed by the Order.
Chairman Judge Foskett Mrs Flynn Date of decision 12 April 2024
Page 2 of 3
[NAME] FIGURE X 381
PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 317.7
X 381 Minus Y 317.7 = (A) 63.3
(A) 63.3 Divided by Y 317.7 = (B) 0.199245
First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 YES/NO
If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)
If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.249245
Last registered [NAME]* 18375 Multiplied by (C) = 22954.87 *(exclusive of any variable service charge)
Rounded up to nearest 50p = 22,955
Variable service charge NO If YES add amount for services
[NAME] = £22,955 Per Annum
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
Page 3 of 3
formula is ascertained the service charge is then added to that sum in order to produce the maximum fair [NAME].
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent at £800 Per Month
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Adjusts Fair Rent for Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent at £850 for East Sussex Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent at £840 Per Month
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Regulated Tenancy
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Property Considering Market Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent of £165 Per Week
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 rent reflects the property's condition and market value.
- The rent reflects the property's condition and market conditions.
- The rent reflects the property's condition and market value, adjusted for the tenant's improvements and responsibilities.
- The rent reflects the market conditions and the state of the property, adjusted for any tenant-provided amenities and disrepair.
- The rent reflects the property's market value, adjusted for certain factors.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided on a fair rent of £17,500 per annum for the property.
Who was involved?
The decision involved a landlord and a tenant.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court considered the property's condition and market value 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 condition of the property and its market value.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their property is well-maintained and accurately valued.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Documents sent by the Valuation Office Agency, the landlord, and the tenant were considered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed through the appropriate legal channels.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving fair rent determinations.
