VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977. The decision took into account the property's condition and the scarcity of similar properties in the area. The rent was set at £1723.30 per calendar month, including a service charge.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent that reflects the market conditions and the state of repair of the property, adjusted for local scarcity.

Topics

fair rent determinationRent Act 1977property valuation

Provisions

Rent Act 1977 s.70Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977, considering various factors including the property's condition and local scarcity of similar properties.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977, considering various factors including the property's condition and local scarcity of similar properties. The decision was made by Neil Martindale FRICS on 28 June 2022.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AW/F77/2022/0064

Notice of the Tribunal Decision

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were Flat 1, 6 Sydney St. London [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT]

Tenant [NAME]

1. The fair rent is £ 1723.30 inc sc Per cal. month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 28 June 2022

3. The amount for services is £ 64.30 included Per cal. month

negligible/not applicable

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

nil Per

negligible/not applicable

5. The rent is to be registered as variable.

6. The capping provisions of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 apply.

7. Details (other than rent) where different from Rent Register entry

As rent register.

The landlord can charge this new rent or a lower figure but, may not charge a higher figure than the fair rent.

8. For information only: Part (a) below, applies.

(a) The fair rent to be registered is the maximum fair rent as prescribed by the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. The rent that would otherwise have been registered was £ 1800 per calendar month…… including £ 64.30 .............. per cal. month…………….. for services (variable).

(b) The fair rent to be registered is not limited by the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, because it is the same as/below the maximum fair rent of £ ......... per ................... including £ ......................................... per ................................ for services (variable) prescribed by the Order.

[NAME] of decision 28 June 2022

MAXIMUM FAIR RENT CALCULATION

LATEST RPI FIGURE X 334.60

PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 291.90

X 334.60 Minus Y 291.50 = (A) 42.7

(A) 42.7 Divided by Y 291.9 = (B) 0.1463

First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 - NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.1963

Last registered rent* 1386.70 (exc. sc) Multiplied by (C) = 1658.91 *(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p = 1659

Variable service charge YES / If YES add amount for services 64.30

MAXIMUM FAIR RENT = £1723.30 (inc. sc) Per month

Explanatory Note

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

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

(a) increasing the previous registered rent 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 rent determination was made.

4. The process differs where the tenancy agreement contains a variable service charge and the rent is to be registered as variable under section 71(4) of the Rent Act 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 rent.

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00AW/F77/2022/0064 Property : [ADDRESS], London Sw3 6PP Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : None Type of Application : S.70 Rent Act 1977 – Determination of a new fair rent Tribunal Member : [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 28 June 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The landlord applied to the Rent Officer for registration of a fair rent. The rent registered as already payable at the time of the application was £1451 pcm including a service charge of £64.30 pcm., capped, with effect from 18 February 2020.

2 In response the Rent Officer registered a fair rent of £1651 pcm with effect from 24 February 2022, including a service charge of £84.63 pcm. Subsequently a party (it is unclear from the correspondence available the Tribunal) objected and sought a re-hearing of the application, by the Tribunal.

Inspection

3 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property owing to the restrictions imposed and arising from Covid 19. The Property appears from Google Streetview (@December 2021), to be part of a substantial mid Victorian terrace formerly composed of houses but many have since been converted to flats, as at the Property. The Block has 5 levels including basement.

4 The Property has 3 rooms, kitchen, bathroom & WC. There is full gas fired central heeting. It appears to have been converted/ refurbished some time in 1980’s. The roof appears to be flat but is most likely of butterfly design with hidden internal gutters taking water from two pitched roof surfaces facing inwards above the top floor. It is not possible to see beyond the verge/ eaves from ground level photography. The windows appear to be double glazed units in plastic frames. The front elevation of the Block within which the Property appears in fair condition. full gas central heating and glazing was provided by the landlord. The block is located in North Chelsea north of the River Thames.

5 The property comprised 3 rooms, kitchen, bathroom, WC. The Tribunal made the assumption common in older established tenancies such as this one, that there were no carpets or curtains, or white goods included in the letting by the landlord and kitchen and bathroom functional only. The tenant did not report to the Tribunal any improvements which they had carried out or any items of disrepair which the landlord had not.

Evidence

6 Directions, for the progression of the case were issued. The Tribunal received brief representations. Neither party requested a hearing. The case was determined only on the papers.

Law

7 When determining a fair rent the Committee, in accordance with the Rent Act 1977, section 70, had regard to all the circumstances including the age, location and state of repair of the property. It also disregarded the effect of (a) any relevant tenant's improvements and (b) the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title under the regulated tenancy, on the rental value of the property.

8 In [COMPANY] v [NAME] of the Greater Manchester etc. Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and [NAME] v [NAME] [1999] QB 92 the Court of Appeal emphasized

(a) that ordinarily a fair rent is the market rent for the property discounted for 'scarcity' (i.e. that element, if any, of the market rent, that is attributable to there being a significant shortage of similar properties in

the wider locality available for letting on similar terms - other than as to rent - to that of the regulated tenancy) and

(b) that for the purposes of determining the market rent, assured tenancy (market) rents are usually appropriate comparables. (These rents may have to be adjusted where necessary to reflect any relevant differences between those comparables and the subject property).

Decision

9. The condition of a property is inferior of that of comparable properties, so that the rents of those comparables are towards twice that proposed rent for the subject property, it calls into question whether or not those transactions are truly comparable. Would prospective tenants of modernized properties in good order consider taking a tenancy of an unmodernised house in poor repair and with only basic facilities or are they in entirely separate lettings markets? The problem for the Tribunal is that the only evidence of value levels available to us is of modernised properties. We therefore have to use this but make appropriate discounts for the differences, rather than ignore it and determine a rent entirely based on our own knowledge and experience, whenever we can.

10. On the evidence of the tribunal’s general knowledge of market rent levels in this location, the subject property if modernized and in good order would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £2,600 pcm.

11. Tribunal makes allowance for the absence of carpet and curtains, for the lack of white goods, basic kitchen and bathroom. These adjustments total a £400 pcm deduction, producing a market rent of £2200 pcm, prior to considering scarcity.

12. The Tribunal also has to consider the element of scarcity and whether demand exceeded supply. The Tribunal found that there was a substantial scarcity in the locality of Greater London and therefore makes a further deduction of 20% from the adjusted market rent to reflect this element. This deduction results in an uncapped rent of £1800 pcm.

13. The Tribunal is also required to calculate the Maximum Fair Rent Cap (MFRCap) which serves to limit the extent of increase in a fair rent on review. The cap is determined by a formula under statutory regulation, which whilst allowing for an element of inflation may serve to prevent excessive increases. The cap as the date of the tribunal’s determination produces a figure of £1743.63 pcm. This figure is a combination of the previously registered rent being subject to the change in RPI between registration dates rounded up to the nearest 50p. There is a service charge element. In this case the cap did apply according to the MFRCap regulations.

14. As the cap applies, the new rent calculated above is capped. The fair rent is £1743.63 pcm including a service charge of £84.63 pcm. This is a slight correction from the new rent set out in the original Form. It takes effect from and including the date of determination, 28 June 2022. This is a correction

to the earlier decision and MFR calculations. The revised calculation and Form is attached.

[NAME] 15 August 2022

📊 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 fair rent was determined by considering the property's age, location, and state of repair.
  • The Tribunal made deductions for the absence of carpets, curtains, white goods, and basic kitchen and bathroom facilities.
  • A 20% deduction was applied to the adjusted market rent due to a substantial scarcity of similar properties in Greater London.
  • The maximum fair rent cap applied, limiting the rent increase based on a statutory formula and RPI changes.
  • The Tribunal used market rents of modernized properties as comparables, making appropriate discounts for differences.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal determined a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and the scarcity of similar properties in the area.

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 the scarcity of similar properties in the area.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a fair rent that reflects the market conditions and the state of repair of the property.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the condition of their property and the local market conditions when seeking a fair rent determination.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the property and the local market conditions were key pieces of evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to seek legal 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.