VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Affordable Shorthold Tenancy Rent at 80%

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an Affordable Shorthold Tenancy, setting it at 80% of the standard rate. This decision affects tenants in similar situations.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set at 80% of the standard rate under Affordable Shorthold Tenancy conditions.

Topics

Affordable Shorthold TenancyRent determination

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 might reasonably expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an Affordable Shorthold Tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled on the rent for an Affordable Shorthold Tenancy, determining it should be 80% of the standard rate, as per the Housing Act 1988 Section 14.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00EJ/MNR/2024/0084

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 20 The Heathers, Esh Winning, Durham, [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Newcastle upon Tyne, [POSTCODE]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £200.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 April 2024

3. The amount included for services is Nil

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 17 July 2017

5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Standard- Landlord & Tenant Act 1984 Section 11

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

8. Description of premises A modern 2 Bedroom Bungalow plus Garage on a small estate of around 30 similar Bungalows in Esh Winning, a former mining village west of Durham. Bungalow has radiator central heating, double glazing, gardens and garage.

8A This is understood to be an Affordable Shorthold Tenancy by both parties, thus the maximum rent charged should be 80% of the Rate of £200.00 at 1 above, i.e. a figure of £160.00 per week.

[NAME] of Decision 25 June 2924

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed11 cases
Other1 case

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 £200.00 per week.
  • The decision on the rent amount takes effect from April 1, 2024.
  • The property is considered an Affordable Shorthold Tenancy by both the landlord and tenant.
  • The maximum rent for this tenancy should be 80% of the standard rate.
  • The final rent for the Affordable Shorthold Tenancy was set at £160.00 per week.

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 for an assured periodic tenancy at £200 per week, excluding water rates and council tax but including other specified amounts.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the amount of rent charged for an assured periodic tenancy, specifically whether it adhered to statutory limits.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £200 per week, considering the statutory limits and the specific circumstances of the property.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied to determine the rent for the assured periodic tenancy.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the application of statutory limits to ensure the rent was affordable and fair.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing the rent to be set at £200 per week.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek to have their rent set according to statutory limits if they believe it is unfair or unaffordable.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.

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.