First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent Considering Tenant's Improvements

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. MAN/00CE/MNR/2023/0361 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 56 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME] Mrs [RESPONDENT] Landlord [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Tenant [NAME]

1. The rent is:£ 136.15 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 05 February 2024 3. The amount included for services is not applicable 0.00 Per 4. Date assured tenancy commenced 25th June 2008 5. Length of the term or rental period Weekly 6. Allocation of liability for repairs Per Tenancy Agreement 7. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None 8. Description of premises 3 Bedroomed Semi-Detached house with living room. Kitchen, Bathroom and downstairs toilet. Garden to front and rear patio with garage built by tenant. Situate on large housing [NAME]. [NAME] of Decision 5th February 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/OOCE/MNR/2023/0361 Property : 56 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] deceased Representative : [COUNSEL] of Application : Housing Act 1988 Section 13 Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] Tribunal Member [NAME] of Determination : 5th February 2024 Date of Decision : 5th February 2024

DECISION

Decision 1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application.

2. The rent payable for [ADDRESS], Askern, Doncaster, (‘[NAME]”) is £136.15 per week with effect from 5th February 2024. Application 3. This is an application by [APPELLANT] (“the Applicant”) for the determination of the rent payable in respect of [NAME], pursuant to Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (‘the Act”).

4. The tenancy of [NAME] commenced in 1992, but when [NAME] was sold to [NAME] and [RESPONDENT], a new tenancy agreement was entered into, dated 25th June 2008.

5. The tenancy agreement provided for a tenancy of [NAME] to commence on 25th June 2008, subject to a rent of £100 per week. 6. [COUNSEL], as agent for the Respondent, served a notice to increase the rent for [NAME] (“the Notice”) from the existing rent of £100 per week (expressed in the Notice as £400 per calendar month) to £675 per calendar month. The Notice, dated August 2022, stated the increase was to take effect from 25th October 2023.

7. The Applicant objected to the proposed increase and filed an application with the First-tier Tribunal for the issue to be determined.

8. Both parties made submissions to the Tribunal and the matter was listed for a hearing on 5th February 2024.

9. The Tribunal inspected [NAME] on 5th February 2023 in the presence of the Applicant. Mr [APPELLANT] did not attend. Inspection 9. [NAME] is a semi-detached house on a housing [NAME] in Askern Doncaster. The [NAME] comprises housing of a similar age and style.

10. The accommodation comprises three bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom with WC, downstairs WC, garage with driveway and front and rear gardens. The rear garden has been paved by the Applicant where a summer house has also been built.

11. In his written submissions and at the inspection the Applicant told the Tribunal of the work undertaken by him to [NAME] which it was able to observe.

12. In the first tenancy, from 1992-2008 the Applicant advise he had removed 34 toms of rubbish, laid the driveway, landscaped the gardens and erected fences to the side and rear of [NAME]. Internally, he had replaced the downstairs basin and toilet and kitchen worktops, laid laminate flooring in the living

room and new carpets on the stairs and in the bedrooms. Repairs had also been carried out to the roof.

13. During the current tenancy, from 2008, further work had been carried out. [NAME] the Applicant had installed steel gates to both the driveway and front path. He had replaced the side fence on two occasions, built the garage and had subsequently replaced the original roof with a steel roof. He had removed a large tree from the rear garden which was said to be causing damage to the neighbouring property and had the laid decking to cover the stump. He had also laid a brick patio to the remainder of the rear garden and built a wooden summer house with hot tub. The Applicant confirmed the exterior of [NAME] had been cladded to provide insulation, but that had been done with the aid of a government grant. A grant had also provided for the front wall to be built, but the Applicant had built the side brick walls at the front of [NAME].

14. Internally, in the same period, the Applicant had replaced the kitchen including a built-in oven and hob. In the living room he had remedied the floor when the back boiler was replaced. Central heating had been installed with the aid of a government grant. He had also replaced the bathroom, including tiling and a power shower. In the bedrooms there had been some replastering due to the roof leaking and floor coverings had been replaced.

15. The Applicant advised he had paid for all the gas and electricity checks during both tenancies.

16. The Tribunal noted the double glazing was defective, in that several of the units had “blown”. The Applicant advised there remain issues with the roof that is leaking. The central heating boiler, whilst working is unreliable. A gas engineer had recently advised the system required a power flush and a new filter. The Tribunal also noted the ridge tiled require repointing. Hearing 17. The Applicant attended the hearing and Mr [APPELLANT] attended on behalf of the Respondent.

18. Mr [APPELLANT] did not dispute the work undertaken by the Applicant to [NAME].

19. The Tribunal queried the tenancy agreement the Applicant advised had been shown to him in November 2023 and of which he said he had no knowledge. Mr [NAME] advised the agreement was dated the 25th June 2008, the date of the commencement of the tenancy. The Applicant advised he didn’t recall signing the agreement, but Mr [NAME] confirmed his signature was witnessed by the former owner, [NAME]. The agreement provided for rent payable at £100 per week.

20. The Applicant agreed there had been no increase to the rent since 2008, but this had been compensated for by his upkeep of [NAME]. He confirmed he was in receipt of benefits and the rent was paid every four weeks, Consequently the rent being paid is £430 pcm and not £400 pcm as set out in the Notice.

21. Mr [NAME] confirmed he had only had responsibility for [NAME] since 2012 when one of the joint owners had died and he was acting as trustee for his [NAME]. It was the [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] who held [NAME] jointly. He had limited knowledge of the rent, hence the error in the Notice.

22. The Applicant confirmed he did not agree with the proposed rent increase and consideration should be made for the substantial improvements he had carried out together with the defects in [NAME].

23. Mr [NAME] advised the proposed rent increase reflected the current property market and a rent of £675 pcm for [NAME] was not unreasonable. Indeed, he considered a rent of £800 per calendar month would now be more appropriate. In looking at comparable properties within the area a flat was letting at £500 pcm.

24. Mr [NAME] queried whether some of the work undertaken by the Applicant should have been done, especially when no permission to undertake the same was sought from the Respondent. This was the case when removing the tree. The Applicant advised the removal of the tree was discussed with the owner, [NAME] [RESPONDENT], prior to his death.

25. The Applicant advised he had notified Mr [APPELLANT] of remedial works required on 13th November 2023. This included problems with the central heating, the roof and a light in the downstairs toilet. No works were done to the roof and they remain outstanding. Mr [NAME] confirmed a power flush to the central heating, as recommended, would normally be done in warmer weather when the central heating is not normally in use and this would therefore be done at a later date.. The workmen did not see any defects to the roof and the Applicant has made no subsequent complaint and so no further work had been undertaken.

26. The Tribunal enquired of the Applicant whether any increase to the rent would cause him financial hardship were it to be effective from the date in the Notice. The alternative would be for any increase to be effective from the date of the hearing. The Applicant confirmed he was in receipt of benefits.

27. The Applicant stated that earlier in 2023 Mr [APPELLANT] had contacted him regarding a rent increase and he had sought an increase in benefits to cover this, but it had been refused. The Tribunal was shown a letter where the increase was refused because it appeared the proposed increase had not been done in accordance with the requirements of the Act, namely by the service of the Notice. It was said no further application for a review of the rent could be made for a further 12 months unless there was an increase in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The Applicant advised he had no monies with which to pay any arrears not covered by his benefits. Determination 28. The Tribunal firstly considered whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the application. The tenancy must be one that falls within section 13 of the Act.

29. The criteria for this are: • the tenant must have exclusive occupancy of [NAME]; • [NAME] must be a dwelling house;

• the dwelling house must be let as a separate property; • the tenant must be an individual; • the tenant must occupy [NAME] as their principal home; all these conditions are met in this case. 30.The following criteria must then be satisfied: • the tenancy is a periodic tenancy that makes no provision for a rent increase; • any rent increase is in the prescribed form; • the rent increase must be 52 weeks after the commencement of the tenancy; • the rent increase must also be 52 weeks after any previous increase; • the notice period for the increase must be at least one month; • the notice must be signed by the landlords; • the proposed rent must be specified to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy.

31. The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the parties. It noted the Notice was defective to the extent the existing rent was incorrectly described as payable pcm. However, at the hearing the Applicant confirmed the rent was being paid by the Benefits Agency at the rate of £100 per week in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal did not therefore consider the Notice to be invalid for this reason. 32.The Tribunal thereafter considered the appropriate market rent for [NAME]. The parties had filed no evidence of comparable properties in the area.

33. The Tribunal considered the open market rent of [NAME], relying upon its on knowledge and expertise and also in the absence of any evidence from the parties. In this, it referred to properties currently on the market for rent. It found there were 5 properties comparable with [NAME] as follows: - [ADDRESS], Askern -3 bedroomed link property with no garage-£600 pcm - [ADDRESS] – 2 bedroomed semi-detached with garage - £700 pcm - [ADDRESS] -3 bedroomed semi-detached with no garage- £650 pcm - [ADDRESS], Askern-3 bedroomed semi-detached with no garage- £825 pcm - [ADDRESS], Campsall-3 bedroomed semi-detached house with no garage-£750 pcm It determined the open market rent for [NAME] would be in the sum of £750 pcm. 34.The Tribunal considered that from the market rent there should be a deduction of ££145 pcm for the substantial improvements undertaken to [NAME]. The Tribunal accepted there was evidence of disrepair for which an allowance should be made. This relates to the issues with the central heating

system, the double glazing, ridge tiles and roof. A sum of £20 pcm would be deducted for these items. 35.The rent for [NAME] is therefore in the sum of £590 per calendar month, equivalent to £135.15 per week with effect from 5th February 2024, being the date of the Tribunal’s decision. 36.In making its decision the Tribunal had regard to section 13(7) of the Act and considered the matter of undue hardship. It noted there was insufficient information provided to determine whether any arrears accrued, should the date of increase be the 25th October 2023 as specified in the Notice, be paid via [NAME]. The Applicant had advised the Tribunal he would struggle to pay the arrears without assistance.

Accordingly, the Tribunal determined the rent of £136.15 per week is payable from 5th February 2024.