VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Tenancy Under Rent Act 1977

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the fair a person for a property using the a person Act 1977 and the Maximum Fair a person Order 1999. The a person was set at £266.31 per week, effective from 15 December 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

The capped fair rent is determined by applying the formula specified in the Rent Act 1977 and the relevant Order 1999.

Topics

fair renttenancy disputesrent regulation

Provisions

Rent Act 1977Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal allowed the appeal, determining a capped fair rent of £266.31 per week based on the Rent Act 1977 and the relevant Order 1999.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal determined the fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977, applying the Maximum Fair Rent Order 1999. The rent was calculated to be £266.31 per week, effective from 15 December 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AG/F77/2025/0277

Notice of the Tribunal [NAME] 1977 Schedule 11

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

Judge N O’[NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The fair [NAME] is £266.31 Per week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 15 December 2025

3. The amount for services is 12.31 Per week

negligible/not applicable

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

Per

negligible/not applicable

5. The [NAME] is/is not to be registered as variable.

6. The capping provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 apply (please see calculation overleaf)/ do not apply because 1st registration/15% exemption.

7. Details (other than [NAME]) where different from [NAME] entry

8. For information only:

(a) The fair [NAME] to be registered is the maximum fair [NAME] as prescribed by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. The [NAME] that would otherwise have been registered was £ 357.54 ....................................................................................................................................................................... per week .......................... including £ 12.31 ............. per week ........................ for services (variable).

(b) The fair [NAME] to be registered is not limited by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, because it is the same as/below the maximum fair [NAME] of £ ................... per .................... including £ ......................................... per ................................. for services (variable) prescribed by the Order.

Chairman N O’Brien Date of decision 15 December 2025

[NAME] FIGURE X 407.4

PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 257.1

X 407.4 Minus Y 257.1 = (A) 150.3

(A) 150.3 Divided by Y 257.1 = (B) .58459743

First [NAME] for re-registration since 1 February 1999 YES/NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.63459743

Last registered [NAME]* £161.50 Multiplied by (C) = £263.987 *(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p = 264

Variable service charge YES / NO If YES add amount for services 12.31

[NAME] = £266.31 Per week

Explanatory Note

1. The calculation of the maximum fair [NAME], in accordance with the formula contained in the Order, is set out above.

2. In summary, the formula provides for the maximum fair [NAME] to be calculated by:

(a) increasing the previous registered [NAME] by the percentage change in the retail price index (the RPI) since the date of that earlier registration and

(b) adding a further 7.5% (if the present [NAME] was the first since 1 February 1999) or 5% (if it is a second or subsequent [NAME] since that date).

A 7.5% increase is represented, in the calculation set out above, by the addition of 1.075 to (B) and an increase of 5% is represented by the addition of 1.05 to (B).

The result is rounded up to the nearest 50 pence.

3. For the purposes of the calculation the latest RPI figure (x) is that published in the calendar month immediately before the month in which the Tribunal’s fair [NAME] determination was made.

4. The process differs where the tenancy agreement contains a variable service charge and the [NAME] is to be registered as variable under section 71(4) of the [NAME] 1977. In such a case the variable service charge is removed before applying the formula. When the amount determined by the [NAME] of the formula is ascertained the service charge is then added to that sum in order to produce the maximum fair [NAME].

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AU/F77/2025/0277 Tenant : Mrs [APPELLANT] Landlord : [COMPANY] : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Type of [NAME] : Section 70 [NAME] 1977 Tribunal : Judge N O’Brien, [NAME] of Decision : 15 December 2025

______________________________________________ DECISION

The sum of £266.31 per week will be registered as the fair [NAME] with effect from 15 December 2025, being the date the Tribunal made the Decision. ____________________________________

Background 1. Following an objection from the Tenant to the determination of a fair [NAME] by the [NAME], the Tribunal has made a determination under the provisions of the [NAME] 1977. The [NAME] concluded that the [NAME] 1999 applied and assessed the capped [NAME] payable for the property at £263 per week from 1st September 2025. The uncapped [NAME] would have been £405 per week. The last registered [NAME] was £161 per week from 23 December 2014. Inspection

2. The Tribunal did not inspect the property but considered this case on the basis of the written submissions and evidence provided by the parties. Evidence 3. There were no detailed submissions from the Landlord save for a description of the property set out in the Landlord’s Reply Form. The tenant did not complete the Reply Form but we have noted her submissions to the [NAME] and her reasons for referring their assessment to the FTT. The last registered [NAME] was £161 per week from 23 December 2014. Description of the Property 4. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor and lower ground floor maisonette in a converted terraced house which was constructed circa 1900. According to the Landlord it has one bathroom, a living room and a kitchen. There is no garden. The present bathroom fittings were installed by the landlord in 2015. The kitchen was fitted in 2013. The property has gas fired central heating and the windows are said to be double glazed. There was some work to the wiring in the communal areas in 2019.

5. In her submission to the [NAME] the tenant complained of disrepair to the property in the form of damp and mould and insect infestation. She has not provided any further information or evidence regarding the condition of the property.

Determination and Valuation 6. Having consideration of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market [NAME] for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £507.69 per week. From this level of [NAME] we have made adjustments in relation to: a. Damp and mould- extent unclear b. No white goods c. Decorations tenant’s responsibility 7. The Tribunal has also made an adjustment for scarcity.

8. The full valuation is shown below:

[NAME] per week

£507.69

Less Damp/mould

10%) No white goods

2.5%) approx. 15% Decorations tenant’s responsibility 2.5% )

£ 76.15

£431.54

Less Scarcity

approx. 20%

£86.31

£345.23

9. The Tribunal determines an uncapped fair [NAME] of £345.23 per week. Decision 10. The uncapped fair [NAME] initially determined by the Tribunal, for the purposes of section 70, was £345.23 per week. The capped [NAME] for the property according to the provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 is calculated at £266.31 per week. The calculation of the capped [NAME] is shown on the decision form. In this case the lower [NAME] of £266.31 per week is to be registered as the fair [NAME] for this property. Chairperson: Judge N O’Brien

Date: 15 December 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for-permission-to- appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. Please note that if you are seeking permission to appeal against a decision made by the Tribunal under the [NAME] 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this can only be on a point of law. If the First-tier Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 effective date for the fair rent determination was December 15, 2025.
  • The amount for services was included in the fair rent calculation at £12.31 per week.
  • The capping provisions of the Maximum Fair Rent Order 1999 applied to the rent calculation.
  • The Tribunal determined an uncapped fair rent of £345.23 per week.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the fair rent for a property at £266.31 per week, effective from 15 December 2025.

Who was involved?

The tenant and the landlord were involved in the dispute.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court used the Rent Act 1977 and the Maximum Fair Rent Order 1999 to determine the fair rent.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Rent Act 1977 and the Maximum Fair Rent Order 1999 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument centered around the calculation method for determining the fair rent.

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 can expect their fair rent to be determined similarly under these laws.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written submissions and evidence provided by both parties were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving fair rent determinations.

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.