VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent of £1,456 Per Month

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on a fair rent for a property. They set the rent at £1,456 per month, excluding water rates and council tax but including certain service charges.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent set by the tribunal under the Rent Act 1977.

Topics

fair rentrent act 1977property chamber

Provisions

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal set a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) set a fair rent of £1,456 per month for a property under the Rent Act 1977. The tribunal considered the property's characteristics and determined the fair rent accordingly.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FR27 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. HS/LON/00AU/F77/2023/0251

Notice of the Tribunal Decision

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 1st and 2nd [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [APPELLANT] c/o [APPELLANT]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT] J [APPELLANT]

1. The fair rent is £1,456 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 10th October 2023

3. The amount for services is

Per

negligible

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

Per

not applicable

5. The rent is not to be registered as variable.

6. The capping provisions of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 do not apply because it is a 1st registration

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

The property has a bathroom on the second floor and a disused bathroom on the fist floor.

8. For information only:

The fair rent to be registered is not limited by the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, because it is a 1st registration.

[NAME] of decision 10th October 2023

FR27

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a fair rent set by the Tribunal under the Rent Act 1977.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal set a fair rent of £1,456 per month for the property.

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 Rent Act 1977 and the property's characteristics.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument about the property's characteristics and the fair rent calculation was crucial.

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 may also seek a fair rent determination through the tribunal.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Documents related to the property's characteristics and rental history were important.

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 consult a solicitor for advice on 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.