VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy with Unusual Clause

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy after considering a unique clause in the agreement that allowed the landlord to stay at the property occasionally. This clause affected the final rental amount, which was set at £325 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined by the First-tier Tribunal under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, taking into account any unusual clauses in the tenancy agreement.

Topics

tenancy agreementsrent assessmentunusual terms

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 the appropriate tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, tenants can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). When determining the rent, the tribunal considers the open market rent for a similar tenancy with the same terms, excluding certain factors like improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal assessed the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, considering unusual terms in the agreement.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the rent for an assured periodic tenancy, considering a clause allowing the landlord to stay at the property occasionally. The unusual nature of this term led to a discounted market rent assessment.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00CG/MNR/2022/0198

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 9 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] 212 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £325 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 November 2022

3. The amount included for services is: not applicable

4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 1 April 2020

6. Rental period Calendar Month

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord – Section 11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1988

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Fixtures and fittings; whites in kitchen/cellar head and settee and chair in living room.

9. Description of premises Whilst the property is a three bedroom 3-storey terrace property, clause 35 of the tenant agreement provides that the Landlord is entitled upon 24 hours’ notice to come and stay at the property “on an occasional basis”. Although this has not occurred, we formed the view that this is not a term of an agreement which ordinarily a willing tenant entering into a tenancy agreement on the open market might readily agree. In fact, we thought that the arrangement was one that would be permissible as part of a less formal arrangement. The landlord has kept his belongings in the attic bedroom where it was envisaged, he might stay from time to time and the tenant has not had usage of this room. We appreciate that he has not actually taken advantage of this clause but nevertheless it is one which we have to take into account under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Accordingly, approached this property as a 2-bedroom terrace house. A market rent in good condition we assess at £650 but we discount that rent by 50% to take account of the unusual nature of clause 35.

[NAME] of Decision 19 April 2023

📊 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, excluding water rates and council tax.
  • The tribunal considered the property as a 2-bedroom house due to the landlord's right to stay.
  • The unusual clause allowing the landlord to stay occasionally significantly reduced the market rent.
  • The landlord kept belongings in the attic bedroom, meaning the tenant could not use that room.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was determined by the First-tier Tribunal.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the unusual clause allowing the landlord to stay at the property occasionally and discounted the market rent accordingly.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 was applied in determining the rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The unusual clause allowing the landlord to stay at the property occasionally was central to the decision.

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

The decision was for the tenant, as it set a lower rent based on the unusual clause.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone with an assured periodic tenancy and unusual terms may have their rent assessed differently by the First-tier Tribunal.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement containing the unusual clause was crucial to the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can typically be appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

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

It is advisable to seek legal 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.