VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal sets £480/month rent for assured tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They considered the state of the property and the services provided, setting the rent at £480 per month, effective from January 1, 2020.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined under Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, taking into account the condition of the premises and the services provided, as seen in this case involving a flat in poor decorative condition.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, section 14 allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the rent based on what a willing landlord might expect to receive for letting the property in the open market. The determination considers the condition of the property and the services provided.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the monthly rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £480, effective from January 2020.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988, considering the condition of the property and the services provided.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BJ/MNR/2019/0156

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 1 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] c/o [RESPONDENT], 104 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 480.00 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 January 2020

*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 10 May 1989

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S11

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Nil.

9. Description of premises Ground floor 2 bed flat in a mansion block. The flat is in poor decorative condition. No heating supplied. Electrics wired 1999. Some structural cracking.

[NAME] of Decision 13/2/20

📊 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 rent set at the market rate as determined by a First-tier Tribunal.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent reduction based on the condition of the property.
  • The tenant is entitled to a market rent adjustment based on the property's condition and lack of modernisation.
  • The tenant is entitled to a fair determination of rent under an assured periodic tenancy.
  • The tenant is entitled to a rent reduction reflecting the poor condition of 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 £480 per month, effective from January 2020.

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 £480 per month.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £480 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.

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

The decision was for the tenant 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 their premises and the services provided.

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.