VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal sets £1035.23/month rent for assured tenancy in residential area near city centre

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal determined a fair rent of £1035.23 per month for a property under the Rent Act 1977, considering factors such as the property's condition and location.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent calculation under the Rent Act 1977, taking into account the property's condition and services provided, resulting in a rent of £1035.23 per month.

Topics

fair rentRent Act 1977property condition assessment

Provisions

The Rents Act 1977

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rent of £1035.23 per month for a property located in a residential area near the city centre.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal determined a fair rent of £1035.23 per month for a property under the Rent Act 1977, taking into account the property's condition and location.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST – TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : CAM/12UB/F77/2018/0041

Property : 8, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant : Mr [APPELLANT]

Landlord : [NAME] of Application : Determination of rent under Rent Act 1977

Tribunal Members : [NAME] Valuer Member

Date of Decision : 18 March 2019

_______________________________________________

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REASONS

DECISION The Tribunal determined a Fair Rent of £1035.23 per month.

THE PREMISES: The Tribunal inspected the Property in the presence of the Tenant and found it as described in the Rent Register. The Tribunal noted that the Property is on the second floor and there is no lift, double-glazing has not been provided, secure parking is provided, and the Tenant benefits from solar panels installed on the roof by the Landlord. The Tribunal noted that no curtains, carpets, or furniture had been provided by the Landlord.

CONDITION: External; satisfactory Internal: Dated electric panel heaters, dated kitchen and bathroom fittings. Dated lino flooring provided by Landlord

2

SERVICE CHARGE The rent includes a monthly service charge. A Statement of Anticipated Service Charge expenditure for 1/4/18 to 31/3/19 shows the main items being caretaker services, which the Tenant said relates to upkeep of the communal gardens, general maintenance, building insurance premiums, management fee and major works provision. Total anticipated expenditure was £17,422.00. The sum of £445.00, for the whole building (13 flats) for the year, for window cleaning was included – the Tenant said this was no longer carried out.

TENANT’S IMPROVEMENTS: UPVC windows.

LOCATION: In residential area approximately ½ to ¾ mile from city centre. SCARCITY: Assessed at 0%

THE LAW APPLIED: As attached.

OPEN MARKET RENT: Taking into account the Tribunal members’ knowledge and experience, decided at £1250.00 per month for similar property in good condition with modern facilities, carpets, curtains and some white goods, and services provided, excluding window cleaning.

TRIBUNAL’S CALCULATIONS:

Open market rent £1250.00pm less global deduction for condition, lack of modern facilities, carpets and curtains £ 200.00pm Open market rent for subject property £1050.00pm Deduction for scarcity £0.00 £1050.00 pm

THE RENT ACTS (MAXIMUM FAIR RENT)

ORDER 1999: The ‘capped’ rent calculated in accordance with the formula set out in the Order is £1035.23 per month. This is higher than the ‘capped’ rent calculated by the Rent Officer due to a change in the Retail Price Index since the date of the Rent Officer’s determination – the ‘capped’ rent is calculated as at the date of the Tribunal’s determination, using the latest RPI figures at that date.

3

DETERMINATION: As the rent determined by the Tribunal is greater than the amount ‘capped’ by the order, the ‘capped’ rent, £1035.23 per month, applies.

Judge Lancaster

Important Note: This is a summary of the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision. Should you require more detailed reasons, they can be supplied but only if a written request for such reasons is received by the Panel Office within 21 days from the receipt of this document. The papers will then be returned to the Chair for such detailed reasons to be prepared.

Caution: For the purpose of reaching a decision the Tribunal inspected the subject property. Such inspection is not a structural survey and only takes a few minutes. Any comments about the condition of the subject property in this Statement of Reasons are made as a result of casual observation rather than a detailed inspection. Please do not rely upon such comments as a guide to the structural condition of the subject property.

4

📊 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 tenant is entitled to a fair rent calculation based on the property's condition.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair rent that reflects the market value of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair rent determination under the Rent Act 1977.
  • The fair rent must be determined by considering the market rent adjusted for statutory disregards.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair rent calculation based on the property's location.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • (No factors identified that went against the claimant in the provided cases.)

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set a fair rent of £1035.23 per month for the property.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about determining the fair rent for a property near the city centre.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set a fair rent of £1035.23 per month, considering the property's condition and the service charge.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 was applied to determine the fair rent.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the condition of the property and the service charge.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, setting a fair rent of £1035.23 per month.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also seek a fair rent determination based on their property's condition and location.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the property's condition, the service charge, and the location near the city centre.

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.