VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Property Under Rent Act 1977

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 set by the Tribunal under the Rent Act 1977.

Topics

fair renttenancy agreementrent control

Provisions

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977.

📜 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?

It set a fair rent of £4900 per quarter for a property.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Rent Act 1977, ensuring the rent was fair and reasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument centered around what constitutes a fair rent under the Rent Act 1977.

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

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should seek a fair rent determination if they believe their rent is unfair.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence related to the property's value and comparable rents was likely considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can often be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.