First-tier Tribunal Determines Rent for Assured Tenancy with Unusual Clause
📌 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.
📖 What the law says
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Decision — Case 4133983
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £1380/month rent for assured tenancy in Manchester
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Rent Reduction Due to Landlord's Neglect
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £1350/month rent for assured tenancy in Sheffield
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £600/month rent for assured periodic tenancy in Nottingham
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £100 weekly rent for assured tenancy in Preston
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rent Adjustment Based on Property Condition - First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £950/month rent for assured tenancy in Bradford
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £500/month rent for assured tenancy in Bradford
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £775/month rent for assured tenancy in Manchester
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Sets £680 Monthly Rent for Assured Tenancy in Barnsley
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal sets £750/month rent for assured tenancy in North Yorkshire
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 Tribunal set the rent at £325 per month for the assured periodic tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over the rent amount for an assured periodic tenancy, considering an unusual clause in the agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to set the rent at £325 per month, considering the unusual clause that allowed the landlord to stay occasionally at the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the unusual clause in the tenancy agreement that affected the property's use.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, setting the rent at £325 per month.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also have their rent adjusted if there are unusual clauses in their tenancy agreement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenancy agreement with the unusual clause was the primary document considered by the Tribunal.