VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal sets £4900/quarter fair rent for assured tenancy in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tribunal decided on a fair rent for a property, setting it at £4900 per quarter. This decision was made under the Rent Act 1977, which regulates rents for certain properties.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent assessment under the Rent Act 1977, which in this case resulted in a fair rent of £4900 per quarter.

Topics

fair renttenancy agreementrent control

Provisions

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a fair rent of £4900 per quarter for an assured tenancy, excluding certain charges.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal set a fair rent of £4900 per quarter for a property, excluding water rates and council tax but including fuel charges. The decision was made under the Rent Act 1977.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FR24 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AW/F77/2019/0147

Notice of the Tribunal Decision

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 32 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Lawyer Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [APPELLANT]

Tenant [NAME] [APPELLANT]

1. The fair rent is 4900.00 Per Quarter (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 11 October 2019

3. The amount for services is n/a Per

negligible/not applicable

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

n/a Per

negligible/not applicable

5. The rent is not to be registered as variable.

6. The capping provisions of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 do not apply.

7. Details (other than rent) where different from Rent Register entry

(a) The fair rent to be registered is not limited by the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, because it is below the maximum fair rent of £5360 per quarter.

[NAME] Lawyer Date of decision 11 October 2019

FR24

📊 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 set by the Tribunal under the Rent Act 1977.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No significant factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the fair rent for an assured tenancy at £4900 per quarter, excluding water rates and council tax.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the fair rent for an assured tenancy, specifically the amount to be charged per quarter.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the fair rent at £4900 per quarter, based on the provisions of the Rent Act 1977.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument centered on the calculation of the fair rent according to the Rent Act 1977.

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

The decision was in favour of the person who brought the case, setting the fair rent at £4900 per quarter.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their fair rent to be assessed according to the Rent Act 1977.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents used.

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.