VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal sets £615 weekly rent for assured tenancy in Newcastle

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the weekly rent at £615, which excludes water rates and council tax but includes other specified amounts.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined by the First-tier Tribunal under the Housing Act 1988, section 14, for an assured periodic tenancy, as seen in this case involving a 2-bedroom flat in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Topics

rent determinationassured periodic tenancy

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

Under the Housing Act 1988, a tenant can apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under their assured tenancy. However, the application cannot be made if the rent is based on a previous determination under this section or if more than six months have passed since the start of the tenancy. Additionally, a tenant can also apply to challenge a new rent proposed in a notice under sections 13(2) or 13A(2). The tribunal will then determine the rent that a willing landlord would expect to receive for letting the property in the open market.

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

📖 Technical summary

The rent for an assured periodic tenancy was set at £615 per week by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the rent for an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The rent was set at £615 per week, effective from 10 February 2024.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00BK/MNR/2024/0073

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 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr [RESPONDENT] Mr [RESPONDENT]

[RESPONDENT], St. [ADDRESS], Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, [POSTCODE]

Tenant Miss [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 615 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 10 February 2024

3. The amount included for services is not applicable N/A Per

4. Date assured tenancy commenced 8 June 2022

5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

6. Allocation of liability for repairs Landlord

7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

8. Description of premises 2 bed flat on 3rd floor of larger period building.

[NAME] of Decision 29 August 2024

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed12 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

  • A tenant is entitled to have their rent determined under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal set the weekly rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £615, excluding certain charges but including others specified in the judgment.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was over the amount of rent to be paid for an assured periodic tenancy.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to set the rent at £615 per week, considering the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988, specifically section 14, was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument centered on the calculation of the rent based on the statutory requirements.

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

The decision was for the tenant, allowing the rent to be set as determined by the Tribunal.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can expect their rent to be set according to the statutory guidelines.

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.