Flat 1, 8 Warrington Crescent Little Venice London W9 1EL
LON/00BK/MDR/2023/0001 · Westminster · decided 25 Apr 2023
old rulesfigures not yet checkedThe tribunal did not set a rent in this decision (for example, the application was withdrawn or struck out, or this is a later ruling on an earlier decision). See the original for details.
| Rent before the notice | £6,000 |
|---|---|
| Rent the landlord proposed | not stated |
| Date of the landlord's notice | not stated |
| Rules | Old rules (notice dated before 1 May 2026): the tribunal could also set a rent higher than the landlord's figure. |
| Property | flat, 3 bedrooms |
Rents per calendar month as the tribunal recorded them (weekly rents × 52 ÷ 12). Read from the PDF automatically; these figures haven't been checked yet and are left out of the statistics, so compare them with the original.
From the tribunal's valuation
13 The first consideration to be addressed by the Tribunal was section 22(3) (a) of the Act. In order to be able to make a determination, the Tribunal must first find there to be sufficient number of similar flats in the locality. … The second test for the Tribunal is found in section 22 (3)(b) The Tribunal have to be satisfied “that the rent payable under the shorthold tenancy in question is significantly higher than the rent which the landlord might reasonably be expected to get in comparison with other rents for similar properties” in order to make a determination. … Whilst we commend the detailed evidence prepared by Tenants, the Tribunal are of the opinion the comparable does not address: floor areas, specific location, condition, the rent achieved and timescale. Otherwise, the Tribunal is of the opinion the location of the underground rail line does not have a considerable impact on rental value. … The comparable evidence provided by the Landlords agent was considered more detailed and attempted to provided specific details of the evidence. … In coming to its decision, the Tribunal had regard to the representations made by each party and it preferred the evidence provided by the landlord for reasons given above. … In the Tribunal’s view, this case does not meet the test in section 22(3) as set out above. …
An extract. To keep people's names out, any sentence that might contain one is left out (marked …). The full reasons are in the original decision.
The original
Past decisions are not a prediction. Each tribunal decides on the evidence in front of it.