DismissedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·24 February 2020

Tribunal Rejects Tenant's Rent Challenge Due to Lack of Dispute

Case No.

📌 In brief

A tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal to have their rent determined but did not actually dispute the rent amount. As a result, the Tribunal did not make a decision on the rent.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined by the Tribunal if they challenge it.

Topics

tenancy agreementsrent determinationfire risk assessment

Provisions

Housing Act 1988 s.22

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.22

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 22 allows a tenant under an assured shorthold tenancy to apply to the appropriate tribunal for a determination of the rent if the rent is considered excessive. However, the application cannot be made if the rent has already been determined under this section, if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy, or if the tenancy falls under certain conditions specified in subsection (4) of section 20.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal did not determine the rent as there was no challenge to it.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dismissed a tenant's application for rent determination under the Housing Act 1988, as the tenant did not challenge the rent amount.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Dismissed

MR23 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No CHI/29UN/MDR/2019/0005

Notice of the Tribunal Decision and Register of Rents under Assured Shorthold Tenancies (Section 22 Non - Determination)

Housing Act 1988 Section 22

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

[NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] [NAME] 64 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr & Mrs [APPELLANT] & [APPELLANT]

1. Date assured shorthold tenancy commenced 01 November 2019

2. Length of the term or rental period 6 months

3. Allocation of liability for repairs As per tenancy agreement

4. Furniture provided by [RESPONDENT] or superior [RESPONDENT] furnished

5. Description of premises Self contained first floor flat. 2 bedrooms, bath/WC, living room, kitchen, gas central heating.

6. The Tribunal did not make a determination when they considered the matter on 7 February 2020.

[NAME] of Decision 7 February 2020

Case Reference : CHI/29UN/MDR/2019/0005

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted] Tenants

Representative : Mr [COUNSEL]

Respondent: [redacted] : Ms [COUNSEL], [COMPANY], Managing Agent

Type of Application : Housing Act 1988 – Section 22(1)

Application for determination of a rent under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy

Tribunal Members : [NAME] – [NAME] [NAME] (Lay Member)

Date of Inspection : 7th February 2020

Date of Decision : 7th February 2020

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Background

1. The tenants of the above property made an application to the Tribunal under section 22(1) of the Housing Act 1988. The application was undated, but it was received by the Tribunal on 19th December 2019.

2. The tenancy commenced on 1st November 2019 and runs to 30th April 2020 and thereafter from rental period to rental period. The rent for the duration of the fixed term is £4,050.

3. The Tribunal were provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement with the application.

Inspection and Hearing

4. The Tribunal inspected the property on 7th February 2020, and this was followed by a Hearing.

5. At the Hearing Mr [NAME] stated he did not challenge the rent , but had made the application in an attempt to obtain a Fire Risk Assessment from the [RESPONDENT].

6. Consequently, as there is no challenge to the rent, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and did not make a determination.

[NAME]

Dated 7th February 2020

Appeals 1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), which may be on a point of law only, must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28- day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Dismissed9 cases

Allowed3 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 urgency and necessity of works can allow a landlord to bypass consultation requirements.
A landlord's right to propose a new rent is upheld if the notice meets statutory requirements.
Dispensing landlords from consulting tenants is allowed if the current system is inoperative and poses a security risk.

❌ Tends to be rejected

The rent challenged was not shown to be significantly higher than what the landlord might reasonably expect.
Insufficient evidence of comparable properties prevents a tenant from having their rent determined.
The rent requested reflects the open market value of the property, considering its condition and comparable rents.
A tenant's improvements to the property do not affect the determination of the market rent.
The willingness of a landlord to accept a certain rent does not alone justify a rent determination request.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided not to determine the rent because there was no challenge to it.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided not to determine the rent because the tenant did not challenge the rent amount.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The fact that the tenant did not challenge the rent amount was the most important argument.

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

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they clearly challenge the rent amount if they want the Tribunal to make a determination.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement and the application for rent determination were relevant.

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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for cases like this.

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.