VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets 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 weekly rent at £103.34, which includes service charges but excludes water rates and council tax.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set according to the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The application cannot be made if the rent is already set by a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The rent was set at £103.34 per week, 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. MAN/00ET/MNR/2024/0152 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 191 Cherry Sutton, [ADDRESS], Widnes, [POSTCODE] [NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT] Landlord [COMPANY] 6, 6 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is: £103.34 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3 & 4)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 1 April 2024 3. The amount included for services £10.20 Per week 4. Date periodic/statutory periodic assured tenancy commenced N/K 5. Rental period Weekly (as per tenancy agreement, rent is charged for only 48 weeks per annum).

6. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord N/A 8. Description of premises Second Floor Flat: 1 Living Room, 1 Bathroom, 1 Kitchen, 1 Bedroom Chairman S [NAME] of Decision 21 January 2025

📊 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 tenant disagrees with the landlord's proposed rent.
  • The rent is adjusted based on the condition of the property.
  • The rent is adjusted considering the tenant's ability to pay.
  • The rent is set according to fair market values in the area.
  • The rent is set according to the Housing Act 1988.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £103.34 per week.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Housing Act 1988, ensuring the rent was fair and reasonable.

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 setting a fair and reasonable rent under the Housing Act 1988.

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 setting a fair rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement and relevant statutory provisions were considered.

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 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.