VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets £5000 Monthly Rent for Assured Tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the monthly rent at £5000, excluding water rates and council tax, effective from 23 August 2023.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent set according to the Housing Act 1988 Section 14, specifically for a self-contained property in London.

Topics

tenancy agreementrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, a tenant with an assured tenancy can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their 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, a tenant can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). The tribunal will then determine the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

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

📖 Technical summary

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £5000 per month, effective from 23 August 2023.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The decision took effect on 23 August 2023, setting the monthly rent at £5000 excluding water rates and council tax.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. TR/LON/00AE/MNR/2023/0217

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 37 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

J A NAYLOR MRICS FIRPM

Landlord [APPELLANT]

Tenant [APPELLANT] [NAME] & [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 5000.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 23 August 2023

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable Nil Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 9th April 2022

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord repairs

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises Lounge , Kitchen, three / four bedroomed , Four bathroom self-contained property built over the ground ,first and loft floors of a converted end of terrace house with a garden to the rear

Chairman J A NAYLOR MRICS FRIPM Date of Decision 23rd August 2023

📊 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 tribunal determined the rent for the property to be £5000.00 per month.
  • The decision regarding the rent determination takes effect on 23 August 2023.
  • The property is a self-contained house with a lounge, kitchen, three/four bedrooms, and four bathrooms.
  • The landlord is responsible for repairs to the property.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £5000 per month, effective from 23 August 2023.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the monthly rent for an assured periodic tenancy, which was set at £5000 per month.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £5000 per month based on the provisions of the Housing Act 1988, section 14.

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 application of the Housing Act 1988, section 14 to determine the rent for the assured periodic tenancy.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their rent to be set according to the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 1988, section 14.

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.