AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·23 October 2023

First-tier Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy as part of a Section 14 assessment under the Housing Act 1988. The decision sets a weekly rent excluding water rates and council tax, effective from June 5th, 2023.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent assessed and set by the First-tier Tribunal under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Topics

tenancyrent assessment

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.14

📖 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. 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 determination considers the periodic nature of the tenancy, the start date of the new tenancy, and the terms of the original tenancy, excluding certain factors like improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal assessed the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. The decision sets a weekly rent excluding water rates and council tax, effective from June 5th, 2023.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. JM/LON/00AY/MNR/2023/0270

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 83b Landor road, London, [POSTCODE]

[NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY] 45-47 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Ms [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 361 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 5 June 2023

3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 31 May 2010

5. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord, save for minor repairs

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None notified.

8. Description of premises 1 bed ground floor flat with small garden area in 4 storey period building.

[NAME] of Decision 12 September 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 tenant is entitled to a fair market rent assessment.
The rent must be determined based on the property's condition and location.
The tenant is entitled to a rent adjustment based on market conditions.
The tenant is entitled to have their rent assessed and set by the First-tier Tribunal under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
The tenant is entitled to have their rent determined under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord, specifically Peabody Trust as the landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal assessed the rent based on the statutory requirements under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

Which laws or rules were applied?

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

What argument mattered most?

The statutory framework under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 provided the basis for determining the rent.

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

The decision was in favour of the tenant, setting a fair rent as required by law.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek a rent assessment under Section 14 if they believe their rent is unfair or不合理的地方在于JSON对象中的“resumo_leigo_qa”部分的最后一个问答对的答案需要与判决结果（resultado）一致。根据提供的案例摘要，租金额已经确定，并且没有显示任何一方胜诉或败诉的信息。因此，“Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?”的问题答案应该反映这个事实，即决策是基于法律要求进行的租金评估，而不是支持或反对某一方的具体立场。以下是修正后的JSON对象部分代码，确保与判决结果一致并符合所有规则和格式要求：{

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can seek a rent assessment under Section 14 of the Housing Act if they believe their rent is unfair or不合理的地方在于，我需要确保最后一个问答对的答案与判决结果一致，并且考虑到案例中没有明确的胜诉或败诉情况。因此，答案应该强调这是基于法律要求进行的标准租金评估过程，而不是特定一方的胜利或失败。以下是修正后的完整JSON对象代码：{

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

The decision was a standard rent assessment under Section 14 of the Housing Act, not specifically for or against either party.

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.