VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Sets Rent for Assured Periodic Tenancy

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on the rent for an assured periodic tenancy. They set the monthly rent at £1350.00, which includes some service charges but excludes water rates and council tax.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a fair rent determination under the Housing Act 1988.

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 takes into account the type of tenancy, the start date, and the terms of the existing tenancy, excluding certain factors like improvements made by the tenant.

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy.

📜 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 £1350.00 per calendar month, excluding water rates and council tax but including service charges.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. JM/LON/00BK/MNR/2022/0141

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]

[NAME]

Landlord [COMPANY] 45-47 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1350.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 02 October 2022

*3. The amount included for services is

negligible

Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 2 October 2007

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs As per Agreement

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None.

9. Description of premises Basement flat in purpose built block c1980 comprising living room/kitchen, bedroom and bathroom/wc.

[NAME] of Decision 15 November 2022

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Allowed11 cases
Other1 case

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 tribunal determined a new rent of £1350.00 per calendar month for the property.
  • The new rent decision took effect on October 2, 2022.
  • The amount included for services in the rent was considered negligible.
  • The tenancy was an assured periodic tenancy that began on October 2, 2007.
  • The premises were described as a basement flat with a living room/kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom/wc.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set the rent for an assured periodic tenancy at £1350.00 per month.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the Housing Act 1988, ensuring a fair rent determination.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 Section 14 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

Ensuring a fair rent determination was the central reasoning.

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 expect a fair rent determination based on the Housing Act 1988.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The agreement between the tenant and landlord likely played a significant role.

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's always 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.