VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the rent at £1300 per month, excluding certain costs like water rates and council tax but including service charges.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord would charge in the open market for a similar tenancy.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. The rent was set at £1300 per calendar month, excluding water rates and council tax but including service charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AC/MNR/2019/0016

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Periodic Tenancies (Section 14 Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 14

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 25 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT], 166 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1300.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 01 March 2019

*3. The amount included for services is

not applicable

Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced Unknown

6. Length of the term or rental period Calendar monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11 applies

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Nil

9. Description of premises Purpose built ground floor flat:3 bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom/wc & garden c.1930’s.

Chairman N [NAME] of Decision 7/6/19

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 cases

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 tribunal determined the rent for the property to be £1300.00 per calendar month.
  • The new rent determination took effect from March 1, 2019.
  • The property is a purpose-built ground floor flat with three bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, bathroom/wc, and a garden.
  • The tenancy is an assured periodic tenancy, with a calendar monthly rental period.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided the rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Housing Act 1988, which provides the framework for determining rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument centered around the application of the Housing Act 1988 to determine the rent.

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 should refer to the Housing Act 1988 for guidance on rent determination.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence related to the property and the terms of the tenancy agreement were likely considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

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

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.