VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Rent Registration for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The decision was made by Judge H Carr on 16th June 2023.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined according to the Housing Act 1988, section 14, which was applied in this case to set the rent at £1445 per month.

Topics

tenancy registrationrent determination

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 decide on the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The application must meet certain conditions, such as not being made if the rent is already set by a previous determination 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 set the monthly rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1445, excluding certain charges but including others specified in the judgment.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal decided on the rent registration for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The decision was made by Judge H Carr on 16th June 2023.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. TR/LON/00BA/MNR/2023/0095

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 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge H Carr Ms A Flynn MRICS

Landlord [NAME] 125 [ADDRESS] , [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1445.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 01 March 2023

*3. The amount included for services is/is

negligible/not applicable n/a Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 1st October 2017

6. Length of the term or rental period 1 month

7. Allocation of liability for repairs s.11 LTA 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Carpets, cooker

9. Description of premises Two bedroom self contained flat with bathroom and separate WC on third floor of purpose built block. Some evidence of mould and disrepair

Chairman Judge H Carr Date of Decision 16th June 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 tribunal determined the monthly rent for the property to be £1445.00.
  • The decision on the rent amount took effect on March 1, 2023.
  • The tenancy began on October 1, 2017, for a period of one month.
  • The landlord provided carpets and a cooker as part of the tenancy.
  • The premises were described as a two-bedroom self-contained flat with some evidence of mould and disrepair.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The rent for the assured periodic tenancy was set at £1445 per month.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the amount of rent for an assured periodic tenancy, specifically whether it should be set at £1445 per month.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £1445 per month, considering the condition of the premises and the services provided.

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 condition of the premises and the services provided by the landlord.

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 based on the condition of the premises and the services provided.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The condition of the premises and the services provided by the landlord were considered.

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.