VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Regulated Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair a person for a regulated tenancy, considering factors like market conditions and the scarcity of similar properties in the area. This decision was made under the a person Act 1977 and the a person Acts (Maximum Fair a person) Order 1999.

⚖️ Legal holding

The fair rent is determined by considering the market rent for the property, adjusted for any scarcity of similar properties in the locality, under the Rent Act 1977.

Topics

fair renttenancy agreementrent regulation

Provisions

Rent Act 1977Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent of £392.50 per week based on market rents and adjusted for the scarcity of available properties in the locality.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined a fair rent for a regulated tenancy, taking into account the market conditions and scarcity of similar properties in the locality. The decision was made under the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FR27 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AY/F77/2024/0612

Notice of the Tribunal [NAME] 1977 Schedule 11

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 51 [ADDRESS],[POSTCODE]

[NAME] [NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT] and Mrs [APPELLANT]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The fair [NAME] is 392.50 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 20 November 2024

3. The amount for services is

Per

negligible/not applicable

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

Per

negligible/not applicable

5. The [NAME] is/is not to be registered as variable.

6. The capping provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 apply (please see calculation overleaf)/ do not apply because 1st registration/15% exemption.

7. Details (other than [NAME]) where different from [NAME] entry

8. For information only:

(a) The fair [NAME] to be registered is the maximum fair [NAME] as prescribed by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. The [NAME] that would otherwise have been registered was £300.00 .................. per week .......................... including £ ...................... per ................................. for services (variable).

(b) The fair [NAME] to be registered is not limited by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, because it is the same as/below the maximum fair [NAME] of £ .................... per week ........... including £ ......................................... per week ........................ for services (variable) prescribed by the Order.

[NAME] of decision 20 November 2024

FR27 [NAME] FIGURE Y

X

Minus Y

= (A)

(A)

Divided by Y

= (B)

First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 YES/NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C)

Last registered [NAME]*

Multiplied by (C) =

*(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p =

Variable service charge YES / NO If YES add amount for services

[NAME] =

Per

Explanatory Note

1. The calculation of the maximum fair [NAME], in accordance with the formula contained in the Order, is set out above.

2. In summary, the formula provides for the maximum fair [NAME] to be calculated by:

(a) increasing the previous registered [NAME] by the percentage change in the retail price index (the RPI) since the date of that earlier registration and

(b) adding a further 7.5% (if the present application was the first since 1 February 1999) or 5% (if it is a second or subsequent application since that date).

A 7.5% increase is represented, in the calculation set out above, by the addition of 1.075 to (B) and an increase of 5% is represented by the addition of 1.05 to (B).

The result is rounded up to the nearest 50 pence.

3. For the purposes of the calculation the latest RPI figure (x) is that published in the calendar month immediately before the month in which the Tribunal’s fair [NAME] determination was made.

4. The process differs where the tenancy agreement contains a variable service charge and the [NAME] is to be registered as variable under section 71(4) of the [NAME] 1977. In such a case the variable service charge is removed before applying the formula. When the amount determined by the application of the formula is ascertained the service charge is then added to that sum in order to produce the maximum fair [NAME].

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AY/F77/2024/0612

Property : 51 [ADDRESS],[POSTCODE]

Tenant

: Mrs [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [APPELLANT] and Mrs [RESPONDENT] of Objection : 2 August 2024

Type of Application : Section 70, [NAME] 1977

Tribunal

: Mr [NAME] [NAME] of Reasons

: 20 November 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The sum of £392.50 per week (£1700 per month) will be registered as the fair [NAME] with effect from 20 November 2024, being the date the Tribunal made the Decision. ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

REASONS

Background

1. The property has not previously the subject of a registered [NAME] so that the provision of the maximum fair [NAME] order do not apply.

2. Following an application by the landlord the [NAME] was registered on 17 July 2024 and effective from the same date at £340.20 per week.

3. Following an objection from the Landlord dated 24 July 2024 to the determination of the fair [NAME] by the [NAME], the Tribunal has made a determination under the provisions of the [NAME] 1977.

Inspection

4. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the papers provided by the parties.

5. The property is described on the [NAME] registration certificate as a terraced House circa 1919 to 1944 with central heating and comprising 1 room, kitchen diner 1 WC on the ground floor, 3 rooms, kitchen, bathroom/WC on the first floor and 1 room on the second floor. There is a garden.

Evidence

6. There were written submissions from the Landlord. No representations were made by the Tenant.

7. Four comparables were referred to by the Landlord.

[ADDRESS] – A late Victorian mid terrace house converted to flats with a three bedrooms and 2 bathrooms upper maisonnette. A letting has been agreed based on an asking [NAME] of £2700 per month.

[ADDRESS] – a mid terrace flat fronted house of early Victorian construction with 3 bedrooms. A letting has been agreed based on an asking [NAME] of £3300 per month.

[ADDRESS] – a similar age and style to the subject property, mid terrace house with 3 bedrooms with a let agreed off an asking [NAME] of £2200 per month

[ADDRESS] – a late Victorian 3 story house converted to flats. A 3 bedroom garden maisonette is reported to be let off an asking [NAME] of £2500 per month.

8. The Landlord has analysed the rents by counting double bedrooms or equivalent to arrive at an average asking [NAME] of £930.75 per double

3 bedroom. The Landlord has also allowed a 10% margin between quoting rents and those agreed.

9. The subject property is said to have 4 bedrooms although one is a single and the loft conversion is also counted as a single room due to reduced headroom. The subject house has central heating with a new gas boiler, double glazing and a garden. It cannot be less sought after than the comparables.

10. The Landlord has arrived at a market [NAME] of £579.93 per week which has been adjusted by the same percentage used by the [NAME] officer of 72.08% or ££418.00 per week (£1811 per month)

The Law

11. When determining a fair [NAME] in accordance with section 70 of the [NAME] 1977, the tribunal has regard to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property.

12. In [COMPANY] v Chairman of the Greater Manchester etc. Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and [NAME] v [NAME] [1999] QB 92 the Court of Appeal emphasized that ordinarily a fair [NAME] is the market [NAME] for the property discounted for 'scarcity' (i.e. that element, if any, of the market [NAME], that is attributable to there being a significant shortage of similar properties in the wider locality available for letting on similar terms - other than as to [NAME] - to that of the regulated tenancy) and that for the purposes of determining the market [NAME], assured tenancy (market) rents are usually appropriate comparables. These rents may have to be adjusted where necessary to reflect any relevant differences between those comparables and the subject property.

13. The [NAME] has not been previously registered, and the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 therefore does not apply.

Determination and Valuation

14. The tribunal has relied on the comparables provided and our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area. We consider that the open market [NAME] for the property in the condition and with the amenities the market would expect would be in the region of £2500.00 per month (£577 per week). From this level of [NAME] we have made adjustments in relation to: 15. a. No carpets curtains or white goods and probable dated kitchen and bathroom fittings given the tenancy started in 2006 and there is no reference to updating.

4 b. The Tribunal found that there was substantial scarcity of letting property in the locality of Greater London and using its knowledge and experience made a deduction of 20% from the adjusted market [NAME].

16. The full valuation is shown below:

Decision

17. The Tribunal determines a [NAME] of £1700 per month (£392.31 per week)for the purposes of s70.

Chairman: [NAME]: 20 November 2024

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber

The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. [NAME] pm PW [NAME] 2,500.00 £ 576.92 £ less condition & terms 15% 375.00 -£ 86.54 -£ adjusted [NAME] 2,125.00 £ 490.38 £ less scarcity off adj [NAME] 20% 425.00 -£ 98.08 -£ [NAME] 1,700.00 £ 392.31 £

5

The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. Please note that if you are seeking permission to appeal against a decision made by the Tribunal under the [NAME] 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this can only be on a point of law.

If the First-tier Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 considered the market rent for the property to be around £2500.00 per month.
  • A 15% deduction was applied to the market rent due to the property's condition and terms, such as lack of carpets or white goods.
  • A 20% deduction was made from the adjusted market rent due to substantial scarcity of letting property in Greater London.
  • The tribunal used its expert knowledge of rental values in the area to determine the fair rent.

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 a fair rent of £392.50 per week for a regulated tenancy.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court considered the market conditions and the scarcity of similar properties in the locality to determine the fair rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 and the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the analysis of comparable properties and their rents.

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

The decision was for the tenant, setting a fair rent that reflects current market conditions.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect a fair rent determination that takes into account the local market conditions and scarcity of similar properties.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Comparables provided by the landlord and the tribunal's own knowledge of rental values in the area were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving fair rent determinations.

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.