First-tier Tribunal Adjusts Rent for Assured Tenancy

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. BIR/17UH/MNR/2018/0062

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] (Hons) FRICS Mr [RESPONDENT]

Landlord [RESPONDENT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £70.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 08 January 2019

*3. The amount included for services is not applicable 0.00 Per

*4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced September 2005

6. Length of the term or rental period Weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs L + T 1982

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord None

9. Description of premises Flat above retail premises

[NAME] (Hons) FRICS Date of Decision 30 January 2019

Page 1 of 4

Case Reference : BIR/17UH/MNR/2018/0062

[NAME] : 2/4 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Landlord : [APPELLANT]

Tenant : [APPELLANT] of Application : An Application for a Determination under

Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME] [NAME] Lawyer

Date of Decision : 30 January 2019

Date of Statement of : 7 February 2019 Reasons

_____________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF REASONS _____________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME])

Page 2 of 4

BACKGROUND

1. By way of a notice dated 28 November 2018, [RESPONDENT] (“the Landlord”), sought to increase the rental in respect of 2/4 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“[NAME]”) to £150.00 per week under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) with effect from 8 January 2019.

2. The tenancy commenced in September 2005 and the rent payable at the time of the notice was £61.00 per week set by the Tribunal in the form of a Rent Assessment Committee from 6 October 2008.

3. In error, the Rent Officer registered rents in September 2013 (£20.00 per week) and October 2016 (£22.00). These registrations have no effect as they were based on the erroneous assumption that the tenancy was regulated when it is in fact an assured tenancy.

4. By an application received on 5 December 2018, Mr [APPELLANT], (“the Tenant” of [NAME]), referred the Notice of increase of rent served by the Landlord to the Tribunal.

5. After consideration of the available evidence and the applicable law, the Tribunal determined a rental of £70.00 per week with effect from 8 January 2019.

[NAME]

6. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of [NAME] on 21 January 2019. Present at the inspection was the Tenant and his brother Mr [APPELLANT] who also resides in [NAME].

7. [NAME] was found to be a flat situated above a [NAME] in the centre of New Mills.

8. The accommodation comprises the following:

First floor: hall, kitchen, two reception rooms, two bedrooms and bathroom with full suite. NB [NAME] could be construed as offering three bedrooms.

9. [NAME] benefits from double glazing. [NAME] does not benefit from a central heating system, there was night storage heating present in [NAME] but the Tribunal was advised that this no longer functions. The only heating available to the Tenant was plug in portable heaters.

10. [NAME] itself was generally in poor condition. [NAME] has suffered from settlement and there was evidence of cracking to many walls. Kitchen

Page 3 of 4

facilities were basic comprising only of a sink unit. From the evidence presented to the Tribunal it appeared that the Landlord had made efforts to improve the condition of [NAME] but the these had been resisted by the Tenant who appeared satisfied with the condition.

EVIDENCE

11. The Tribunal received written representations from both parties which were copied across accordingly. Additionally, when showing the Tribunal around [NAME], the Tenant elaborated on his representations. Both parties requested an oral hearing which was held later that day at Stockport Magistrates Court. The Tenant did not attend the hearing due to the very poor weather (heavy snow made travelling difficult). The Tribunal advised the Tenant that his absence could be excused but that if the Landlord’s representatives wanted to question the Tenant it might be necessary to either adjourn the hearing or write to the Tenant with such questions, however, Ms [APPELLANT] employed by the Landlord as a [NAME] Manager was in attendance and had no questions for the Tenant.

12. The representations from the Tenant included a summary of [NAME]’s defects which can be summarised as follows:

Cracks to numerous walls Rotten flooring Damaged ceilings and walls Insufficient power points No fire protection to the staircase Water ingress

13. On behalf of the Landlord, Ms [RESPONDENT] made representations both in writing and also at the hearing. These gave background to the tenancy including details of the erroneous rent registrations and also stated that following research on the [NAME] [NAME] portal, which indicated rentals for 3 bedroom flats of between £180.00 and £210.00 per week, requested that the Tribunal determine a rental of £150.00 per week for [NAME].

THE LAW

14. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal must determine the rent at which it considers that the subject [NAME] might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

15. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), must ignore the effect on the rental value of [NAME] of any relevant tenant’s improvements as defined in section 14(2) 0f the Act.

Page 4 of 4

VALUATION

16. In the first instance, the Tribunal determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for [NAME] if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by using its own general knowledge of the market rent levels in the area of North Derbyshire. Taking all factors into consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the likely market rental would be £110.00 per week.

17. [NAME] is not in a condition that could be considered usual. Accordingly to allow for [NAME]’s generally dilapidated condition, the lack of central heating (or any form of fixed heating system) and poor kitchen and bathroom fittings, the Tribunal made a deduction of £40.00 per calendar week.

18. The rent determined by the Tribunal for the purposes of Section 14 was, therefore, £70.00 per week with effect from 8 January 2019.

19. In reaching its determination, the Tribunal had regard to the evidence and submissions of the parties, the relevant law and their own knowledge and experience as an expert Tribunal but not any special or secret knowledge.

20. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law only. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rule 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

[NAME] (Hons) FRICS