First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Rent for Property

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : LON/00AW/F77/2023/0375

Hearing Type : [ADDRESS] of Written Representation followed by Inspection of the Property

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Referral of a Registration of [NAME] under the [NAME] 1977

Tribunal Members : [NAME], FIRPM

Valuer Chairman

: [NAME] Member

Date of Decision : 4th March 2024

REASONS

2

REASONS

Background

1. The landlord made an RR1 application for [NAME] registration of a fair [NAME] to the [NAME]. The previous [NAME] was determined by the [NAME] at £1,210 per calendar month effective from 24 April 2015.

2. The Valuation Officer subsequently determined a fair [NAME] of £1,235 per calendar month effective from 19 June 2023.

3. On behalf of the landlord, [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] wrote a letter of objection to the [NAME] in an email dated 4 July 2023. As a result of this, the [NAME] wrote to the Tribunal seeking a review and determination of [NAME] for the above-named property by way of email dated 6th December 2024

4. On 7 December 2023, the Tribunal issued Directions to the parties requiring them to produce any evidence on which they wished to rely in support of their respective cases, including by use of a reply form. The matter was set down for Determination on papers unless either party requested a Hearing.

5. [APPELLANT] on behalf of the [APPELLANT], [NAME], confirmed that they did not require a Hearing, but they did require an inspection, [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT], on behalf of the Landlord, advised that they required neither inspection nor a Hearing to take place.

6. As a result, the matter was set down to be heard on the basis of the papers and submissions provided but subject to an inspection of the property by the Tribunal.

7. In a letter dated 23 February 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the parties advising that an inspection of the property would take place on 4 March 2024 between the hours of 11.30am and 2.30pm. In addition to the above, both parties made further submissions within their replies. [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT], on behalf of the landlord, confirmed that the property was located on the fourth floor with lift and comprised living room, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom.

8. They submitted that the property was not centrally heated but was double glazed and that carpets, curtains and white goods were provided by the landlord. They also advised that the property benefitted from a Parking Permit.

3

9. On behalf of the [APPELLANT], [NAME] confirmed the property was on the fourth floor with lift and comprised a living room, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom/WC.

10. [NAME] confirmed that the property did not have central heating but also advised that the property did not have double glazing and that the white goods had, in fact, been provided by the [APPELLANT], contrary to the submissions of the landlord. They also advised that there was no Parking Permit.

11. In respect of disrepairs, they referred to cracks throughout the property, defects to the electrics, poorly fitted and draughty windows that also allow some water penetration , antiquated kitchen and bathroom areas and damp .

12. By way of separate submission, [NAME] for the [APPELLANT] also pointed out that furniture within the property was provided 49 years ago and that in the past the subject property has been the subject of a Repairs Notice in December 2019.

13. On behalf of the [APPELLANT], [NAME] submitted that the landlord did not undertake any improvements.

14. By way of comparable evidence, the [APPELLANT] has provided no comparable evidence on the reply form but in submissions have provided two schedules of comparable evidence detailing the rents , brief details of accommodation , floor and in some cases whether or not the flats had central heating . All rents detailed are registered rents. In a letter dated the 11th May 2023 they suggest that the registered [NAME] of the property should be “ no more than “” £1400 per month

15. On behalf of the landlord, [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] submitted that there has been extensive external redecoration to the property and the common parts and that these have all been paid for by the landlord. They submitted that rents had increased considerably since April 2015 but that this had not been reflected in the [NAME]’s increase in the fair [NAME], pointing out that even the [APPELLANT]’s solicitors had suggested that the [NAME] should be no more than £1,400 per calendar month. In addition, they pointed out in the original RR1 Application that the Landlord pays a services charge in respect of the above property and provided heads of expenditure with costings for the years 2022 to 2023 and 2023 to 2024.

4

16. The landlord provided a schedule of one bedroom flats in Queens Gate that have been let recently giving floor area, brief details of accommodation, floor and date of letting and ranging between £3,445 per calendar month to £4,312 per calendar month.

17. They submitted that the fair (Registered) [NAME] for the subject flat should be £2,492 per calendar month.

. The Inspection

18. The Tribunal inspected the property at approximately 12.00pm on 4 March 2024.

The Property

19. The property was found to comprise a small one bedroomed flat on the fourth floor of the building. The lift was found to only go to the third floor, but is in practice, two flights of stairs below the subject unit.

20. The accommodation comprised a lounge, bedroom, kitchenette and bathroom/WC.

21. The property was found to be in a poor and shabby condition. Windows are single glazed and fit loosely in the frame. Some sash cords were broken. The electrical wiring was surface mounted. The property was found to have no central heating. The bathroom was antiquated with an avocado suite and an intrusive boiler. The only exception being the bath which was nevertheless fairly badly worn.

22. In the kitchen there were inadequate work surfaces, only one wall unit and tiles were coming off the wall.

The Law

5

23. When determining a fair [NAME], the Tribunal, in accordance with the [NAME] 1977, Section 70, had regard to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property. Section 70 is set out in the Appendix below.

24. In [NAME] [COMPANY] -v- Chairman of The Greater Manchester, etc. Tribunal (1995) 28 HLR 107 and [NAME] -v- [NAME] Tribunal (1999) QB 92, the Court of Appeal emphasised that ordinarily a fair [NAME] is the market [NAME] for the property discounted for “scarcity” (i.e. that element, if any of the market [NAME] that is attributable to there being a significant shortage of similar properties in the wider locality available for letting on similar terms – other than as to [NAME] – to that of the [NAME]) and that for the purpose of determining the market [NAME], assured tenancy (market) rents are usually appropriate comparables (these rents may have to be adjusted where necessary to reflect any relevant differences between those comparables and the subject property).

Valuation

25. The Tribunal must firstly determine the market [NAME] for a property of this size, in this location and in its current condition. It must also disregard the personal circumstances of either party. The Tribunal notes the comments made by both the landlord and the [APPELLANT] in their submissions and takes these factors into consideration. Using its own general knowledge of the [NAME], in particular the property market in the immediate locality of the subject property, the Tribunal considers that the market [NAME] for a property of this size, in this location, in average condition with usual white goods, carpets, curtains and decorated to a good condition would be £2,600.00 per calendar month.

26. Taking into account both the landlord’s agent’s comments and those of the [APPELLANT] and her representative, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the landlord does not maintain the property and based on their own inspection of the property, that the property requires considerable modernisation and repair to bring it up to a standard where it could be placed on the open market at average rents.

27. The Tribunal, therefore, makes deductions from the market [NAME] of £2,600.00 per month to reflect a number of issues within the property.

28. These can be detailed as follows:

[NAME]:

£2,600.00 per month

6

• Less: (1) Partial stair access to the property

(2) A small and unmodernised kitchen (3) Unmodernised bathroom (4) Lack of central heating (5) Lack of double glazing (6) Condition of electric installation (7) Draughty windows (8) General disrepair

Less 35% £910.00 per month

[NAME] £1,690.00 per month

29. The Tribunal found that there was substantial scarcity in the locality of Greater London having taken judicial notice of long Housing Association and Local Authority waiting lists in Greater London. It, therefore, made deduction in respect of scarcity of 20% from the adjusted market [NAME] to reflect this element.

Adjustment for scarcity 20% £ 338.00 per month

[NAME] determination £ 1,352.00 per month

30. The Tribunal is then required to apply The [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. The calculation was included on the Decision Sheet and produced a maximum fair [NAME] of £1,847.00 per calendar month.

31. The Tribunal must determine the lower of the adjusted market [NAME], or maximum fair [NAME], as the fair [NAME] for the property. In this instance, the maximum fair [NAME] produces a higher figure and the Tribunal, therefore, determined the [NAME] at £1352.00 per calendar month for this property, with effect from 4th March 2024, being the date of the Tribunal Decision.

Name: Mr [NAME]

7

Date: 16 April 2024

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its Decision by virtue of the Rule 36(2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below:

If a party wishes to appeal against this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case

The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the Decision to the person making the application.

If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The application 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 making the application is seeking.

8

[NAME] 1977

Section 70 Determination of [NAME]

(1) In determining, for the purpose of this part of this Act, what [NAME] is or would be a fair [NAME] under a [NAME] of a dwellinghouse, regard shall be had to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) and, in particular, to –

(a) the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwellinghouse…F1

(b) if any furniture is provided for use under the tenancy, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture (F2 and)

(c) (F2(c)) any premium, or sum in the nature of a premium, which has been or may be lawfully required or received on the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of the tenancy)

(2) For the purpose of the determination, it shall be assumed that the number of persons seeking to become tenants of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to [NAME]) of the [NAME] is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in the locality which are available for letting on such terms.

(3) There shall be disregarded:

(a) any disrepair or other defect attributable to a failure by the [APPELLANT] under the [NAME] or any [NAME] to comply with any terms thereof;

(b) any improvement carried out, otherwise than in pursuance of the terms of the tenancy; by the [APPELLANT] under the [NAME] or any [NAME];

(c) (d)………………………………………………………………………F3

(d) If any furniture is provided for use under the [NAME], any improvement to the furniture by the [APPELLANT] under the [NAME]

9

or any [NAME] in [NAME] of theirs or, as the case may be, any deterioration in the condition of the furniture due to any ill-treatment by the [APPELLANT], any person residing or lodging with them, or any sub-[APPELLANT] of theirs.

(e) F4 [(3a) in any case where under Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the landlord or a superior landlord is liable to pay Council Tax in respect of a hereditament (“the relevant hereditament”) of which the dwelling-house forms part, regard shall also be had to the amount of Council Tax which, as at the date on which the application to the [NAME] officer was made, was set by the billing authority –

(a) for the financial year in which that application was made, and

(b) for the category of dwelling within which the relevant hereditament fell on that date,

but any discount or other reduction affecting the amount of Council Tax payable shall be disregarded.

(3b) In subsection (3a) above –

“hereditament” means a dwelling within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

“billing authority” has the same meaning as in that part of the Act, and

“category of dwellings” has the same meaning as in Section 30(1) and (2) of that Act.]

(4) In this section “improvement” includes the replacement of any fixture or fitting.

[F5 (4a) in this section “premium” has the same meaning as in part IX of this Act and “sum in the nature of a premium” means –

(a) any such loan as is mentioned in Section 119 or 120 of this Act,

(b) any such excess over the reasonable price of furniture as is mentioned in Section 123 of this Act, and

10

(c) Any such advance payment or [NAME] as is mentioned in Section 126 of this Act.]

…………………………………………………………………………………

FR27 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AW/F77/2023/0375

Notice of the Tribunal [NAME] 1977 Schedule 11

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

[NAME] [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The fair [NAME] is £1,352.00 Per Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 4th March 2024

3. The amount for services is £192.00 Per month

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 £ ............................ per ................................... including £ ...................... per ................................. for services (variable).

(b) The fair [NAME] to be registered is not limited by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, because it is below the maximum fair [NAME] of £1,847.00 per month. .

[NAME] of decision 4TH MARCH 2024

FR27 [NAME] FIGURE X 381

PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 258

X 381 Minus Y 258 = (A) 123

(A) 123 Divided by Y 258 = (B) .476744186

First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 YES/NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.526744186

Last registered [NAME]* £1210.00 Multiplied by (C) = 1.526744186

*(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p = £1847.00

Variable service charge YES / NO If YES add amount for services N/A

[NAME] = £1847.00 Per Month

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 application was the first since 1 February 1999) or 5% (if it is a second or subsequent application 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 application of the formula is ascertained the service charge is then added to that sum in order to produce the maximum fair [NAME].

FR24 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AW/F77/2023/0375

Notice of the Tribunal [NAME] 1977 Schedule 11

[NAME] Judge N [NAME]

Landlord [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]

[APPELLANT] [NAME]

1. The fair [NAME] is £1,248.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 20 December 2024

3. The amount for services is £192.00 Per Month

Per

not applicable

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

6. The capping provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 apply (please see calculation overleaf).

n/a

8. For information only:

The fair [NAME] to be registered is not limited by the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, because it is the below the maximum fair [NAME] of £1,248.00 per calendar month.

[NAME] of decision 20 December 2024

FR24 [NAME] FIGURE X 390.7

PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 258.0

X 390.7 Minus Y 258.0 = (A) 132.7

(A) 132.7 Divided by Y 258.0 = (B) 0.51434

First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 - NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.56434

Last registered [NAME]* £1,210.00 Multiplied by (C) = 1.56434 *(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p = £1,893.00

Variable service charge NO If YES add amount for services N/A

[NAME] = £1,893.00 Per Calendar Month

Explanatory Note

The result is rounded up to the nearest 50 pence.

1

Case Reference

: LON/00AW/F77/2023/0375

Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[APPELLANT]

: [NAME]

: [NAME]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY]

: [NAME] of Objection : 1 July 2023

Type of Application : Determination of a [NAME] under Section 70, [NAME] 1977

Tribunal Members : [NAME]

Judge N [NAME] & Venue

: 29 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Decision Date

: 20 December 2024

_______________________________________________

DECISION

The sum of £1,248 per calendar month will be registered as the fair [NAME] with effect from 20 December 2024, being the date the Tribunal made the Decision. ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 REASONS

Background 1. The Landlord applied to the [NAME] for registration of a fair [NAME] of £2,492 per calendar month in relation to [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], the subject property. The Landlord estimated that the [NAME] proposed included a sum of £192 per calendar month for services. The [NAME] payable at the time was £1,210 per calendar month. This was the [NAME] registered on 24 April 2015 and included a sum of £107.24 per calendar month for services.

2. On 19 June 2023, the [NAME] registered a fair [NAME] of £1,235 per calendar month and noted that £192 was attributable to services. The newly registered [NAME] was effective from the same day.

3. By email dated 1 July 2023, the Landlord objected to the [NAME] determination by the [NAME] and the matter was referred to the Tribunal on 6 December 2023.

4. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the property on 4 March 2024. On the same day, the Tribunal determined a [NAME] of £1,352 per calendar month. Full written reasons were requested by the Landlord and are dated 16 April 2024.

5. On 24 May 2024 the Landlord made an application to the Tribunal to appeal the [NAME] determination decision to the Upper Tribunal. The Tribunal refused permission to appeal and so the Landlord applied direct to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal, which was granted on 25 July 2024 6. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal was determined on papers on 1 November 2024. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to this Tribunal for redetermination.

7. On 12 November 2024, the Tribunal wrote by letter to both parties setting out that the Tribunal intended to redetermine the fair [NAME] at a hearing at 10 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] on 29 November 2024, with an inspection to follow on the same day. Hearing 8. The hearing opened at 10am and was adjourned at 10:15am as neither the [APPELLANT] nor the Landlord, or their representatives, were in attendance.

9. The Tribunal noted that the [APPELLANT]’s representative advised by letter of 20 November 2024 that their client was elderly and be unable to attend

3 in person and made written submissions for the Tribunal to consider. They did not explain why they would not attend on their client’s behalf.

10. By emails, also of 20 November 2024, the Landlord’s representative firstly stated that “This case has always been decided on paper. Hence unless the Respondent or their solicitor is attending the hearing we do not intend to do so.” In a second email, understanding that “the other side did not want a hearing or inspection” they confirmed that they “are happy for this case to be dealt with without a hearing and hence there will be no attendance by either party on 29 November.” 11. It is for the Tribunal to decide whether a hearing is to be held and, in this case, the Tribunal had made it clear in their letter of 12 November 2024 that they required a hearing, as it would have assisted the Tribunal in resolution of apparent disputes of fact contained in the parties’ respective statements of case. Inspection and property 12. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the property on 29 November 2024. The [APPELLANT] was present, but the Landlord did not attend.

13. The Tribunal found the property to be a small one-bedroomed fourth floor flat. The flat is reached via a communal front door with an entry phone system and shared hall, stairs and landings. Although externally the building appeared to be maintained, the internal communal halls were very tired and in need of redecoration. The building benefitted from a small lift to the third floor only, which appeared to be in good working order.

14. The property comprised a living room, a very small kitchen, a bedroom and a bathroom, with all rooms leading off an internal hallway. The general condition was very tired and in need of renovation, reflooring and redecoration to bring it up to basic modern standards. Throughout, there were notable cracks to the walls close to the ceiling, which the [APPELLANT] attributed to the effects of works previously carried out to add a fifth floor to the building.

15. There was no central or fixed heating. The windows were single-glazed wooden sash windows that appeared ill-fitting. This was particularly the case with the bedroom window, where the sash was broken, and the [APPELLANT] was using a rolled towel or small blanket with a small plastic sheet over to prevent drafts and water ingress.

16. There appeared to have been a central fire alarm system, which no longer worked, with the detector in the living room hanging from the ceiling. The [NAME] had fitted a battery-operated smoke alarm to the flat at the [APPELLANT]’s request.

4 17. The property appeared to have been relatively recently rewired including a replacement consumer unit. The wiring is surface mounted, and the [APPELLANT] reported that she was unable to use some of the sockets in the kitchen without ‘tripping’ a switch in the consumer unit.

18. The kitchen is particularly narrow and poorly equipped compared to modern standards, with inadequate work surface and the washing machine draining directly into the sink, presumably because of a lack of its own drainage.

19. The bathroom is very dated and tired. There is an issue with the WC cistern which requires a part to be tied in place with string. The boiler is above the bath and a little overbearing in comparison to the size of the room. There is a heated towel rail. Evidence 20. The Tribunal has carefully considered all written submissions provided by both parties. The Landlord’s case 21. In the Landlord’s reply form, received by the Tribunal on 21 December 2023, they describe the property as a one-bedroomed flat on the fourth floor with a lift, no central heating but with double-glazing, carpets, curtains and white goods provided by the Landlord. They also advised that the property benefitted from a parking permit and helpfully listed improvements carried out since the [NAME] was last registered in 2015. The Landlord went on to state that “There is no disrepair/defects outstanding”.

22. In the Landlord’s response to the [APPELLANT]’s submissions, received by the Tribunal on 11 January 2024, further information was provided in relation to improvements and can be summarised as: • installing new electricity consumer unit and sockets at a cost of £4,020; • overhaul of windows and window frames at a cost of £2,500, although the Tribunal noted that the Landlord’s reply form had stated that window frames had been replaced and double-glazing installed; • replacing bath and mixer taps at a cost of £360; • major external repair and redecoration works to the external building at a cost of £119,390; and

5 • major internal repair and redecoration to the internal common parts of the building at a cost of £79,720, which were said to be ‘underway’ in the Landlord’s reply form of 21 December 2023 but, on the Tribunal’s inspection, there was no evidence of such works having been, or being, carried out.

23. In addition to the reply form, the Landlord provided a schedule of nearby one-bedroom flats ranging in [NAME] from £3,445 to £4,312 per calendar month.

24. Finally, the Landlord made a number of other points in their response to the [APPELLANT]’s submissions that they asked the Tribunal to consider. These included that The [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 does not apply in this case as a result of the improvements carried out, that the comparable evidence provided by the [APPELLANT] is not relevant as it does not relate to market rents, that there are no outstanding issues with repairs raised with them by the [APPELLANT] and, finally, that the [APPELLANT]’s own solicitor invited the [NAME] to fix the [NAME] at £1,400 per calendar month. The [APPELLANT]’s Case 25. The [APPELLANT] made submissions to the [NAME] in relation to condition and comparable evidence. This was provided to the Tribunal along with a number of other submissions, the last being on 20 November 2024.

26. The [APPELLANT] provided a schedule of comparable uncapped [NAME] registrations downloaded from the online [NAME] register, and asserted that these were more relevant than nearby flats recently let on assured shorthold terms and refurbished to a high standard.

27. The property was described by the [APPELLANT] as having four rooms: living room (4.5m x 2.5m), kitchen of (2.9m x 1.5m), bedroom (5.2m x 2.4m) and bathroom (1.37m x 2.7m). They submitted that there was no central heating, double glazing or permit parking.

28. The [APPELLANT] provided helpful photographic evidence of the poor condition of the kitchen units and flooring, cracking to several walls, wiring, and the fire alarm hanging from the ceiling. They stated that the property is in very poor condition and decorative order and made the point that works ordered under an Improvement Notice in December 2019 have either not been carried out (improved lighting), or not completed to the correct standard (windows and wiring).

29. The [APPELLANT] accepts that windows were replaced but says that this was done before the [NAME] was last registered, in 2011 (living room) and 2012/13 (bedroom). However, the windows, as observed on the Tribunal’s inspection, are in disrepair and do not shut properly.

6 30. The [APPELLANT] was reimbursed for the cost of replacing the bath mixer taps in around 2019/20, but the bath has clearly not been replaced.

31. The [APPELLANT] accepts that the exterior of the building has recently been painted, however no work has been carried out to the interior common parts.

32. The [APPELLANT] has occupied the property since 1974. When she first took up occupation, the property was furnished. However, over the years, the Landlord has not replaced any furniture as it has become obsolete, except for the cooker, which the Landlord reimbursed the [APPELLANT] for. Consequently, the original furniture has either been replaced by the [APPELLANT] or is aged and of no value. The Law 33. The law is found in Schedule 11, Part 1, paragraph 9(1) to the [NAME] 1977, section 70 of the [NAME] 1977, and The [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, which in so far as is relevant in this case, provides: Schedule 11, Part 1, [NAME] 1977 Applications for Registration of [NAME] 9(1) The appropriate tribunal shall— (a) if it appears to them that the [NAME] registered or confirmed by the [NAME] officer is a fair [NAME], confirm that [NAME]; (b) if it does not appear to them that that [NAME] is a fair [NAME], determine a fair [NAME] for the dwelling house.

Section 70, [NAME] 1977 Determination of fair [NAME]. (1) In determining, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, what [NAME] is or would be a fair [NAME] under a [NAME] of a dwelling-house, regard shall be had to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) and in particular to— (a) the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling-house,

7 (b) if any furniture is provided for use under the tenancy, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture, and (c) any premium, or sum in the nature of a premium, which has been or may be lawfully required or received on the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of the tenancy. (2) For the purposes of the determination it shall be assumed that the number of persons seeking to become tenants of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to [NAME]) of the [NAME] is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in the locality which are available for letting on such terms.

(3) There shall be disregarded— (a) any disrepair or other defect attributable to a failure by the [APPELLANT] under the [NAME] or any [NAME] to comply with any terms thereof; (b) any improvement carried out, otherwise than in pursuance of the terms of the tenancy, by the [APPELLANT] under the [NAME] or any [NAME]; (c)(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) if any furniture is provided for use under the [NAME], any improvement to the furniture by the [APPELLANT] under the [NAME] or any [NAME] or, as the case may be, any deterioration in the condition of the furniture due to any ill-treatment by the [APPELLANT], any person residing or lodging with him, or any sub-[APPELLANT] of his.

The [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 2 (1) Where this article applies, the amount to be registered as the [NAME] of the dwelling-house under Part IV shall not, subject to paragraph (5), exceed the maximum fair [NAME] calculated in accordance with the formula set out in paragraph (2).

34. [COMPANY] v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and [NAME] (No1) (1995) 28 HLR 107 and

8 [NAME] v [NAME] [1999] QB 92 confirm that a fair [NAME] is the market [NAME] for the property discounted for “scarcity” ([NAME] 1977, s70(2)) and, for the purposes of determining the market [NAME], assured tenancy (market rents) are usually appropriate comparables. Those comparables should be adjusted where necessary, to reflect any differences between the comparables and the subject property, including tenancy terms where appropriate. Determination and Valuation 35. The Landlord having failed to attend at either the hearing or the inspection, the Tribunal must deduce such facts as it sees fit from its own observations and inferences.

36. Having considered the comparable evidence provided by the parties and the Tribunal’s own expertise and general knowledge of rental values in the area, the Tribunal considers that the market [NAME] for a property of this size and to the basic or average standard expected in this location would be in the region of £2,600 per calendar month. This has regard to the age and character of the property, and that it is effectively now unfurnished, given the furniture provided in 1974 has either needed to be replaced at the [APPELLANT]’s expense or no longer has any value.

37. In reaching this view, the Tribunal has considered the schedule of comparable rents provided by the Landlord. The six comparables are all one-bedroomed flats located close to the subject property in either Queen’s Gate or Queen’s [ADDRESS]. However, they appear to be significantly larger, ranging in size between 63m2 (674 ft2) and 98 m2 (1,057 ft2). The Landlord has not provided his estimate of the size of the subject property. The Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve the estimate of room sizes provided by the [APPELLANT] in their reply form, which broadly accord with what the Tribunal observed at the inspection. They suggest that the property is unlikely to be larger than 35-40m2 (375 – 430 ft2), which is significantly smaller than the comparables provided. From this the Tribunal draws the conclusion that the market [NAME] for the subject property would be notably lower than the Landlord’s comparables of £3,445 to £4,312 per calendar month.

38. The Landlord provided some high-level analysis of their comparable rents: annual [NAME] payable in comparison to size (£/ft2). For example, for the smallest comparable (63m2/674 ft2), the [NAME] of £4,312 per month equates to £77 per ft2 per year, and for the largest (98m2/1,057 ft2) the [NAME] of £3,770 per month equates to £43 per ft2 per year. This is a very crude way to analyse passing rents as it does not take into consideration other important variables such as condition and quality, furnished/unfurnished, whether there is any outdoor space, or the storey level of the flat, for example. However, the Tribunal noted that applying £77 per ft2 per year to the subject property would lead to a [NAME] broadly in the region of £2,400 to £2,560 per calendar month.

9 39. The Landlord asserts that the range in rents achieved, £3,445 to £4,312 per calendar month, once adjusted for scarcity and disrepair/disregards supports a fair [NAME] determination of £2,492 per calendar month. However, they do not provide their valuation or an explanation of how they have arrived at £2,492 from a starting point of £3,445 to £4,312.

40. The Tribunal also considered the [APPELLANT]’s evidence of similar uncapped registered rents. Although interesting, other registered rents are not relevant in determining the fair [NAME] of another property. The starting point must be the market [NAME] for the subject property, which is then adjustment for disrepair/disregards and scarcity (s70(1) – (3); [NAME] 1977).

41. The Tribunal adjusted the assumed market [NAME] for the general poor condition of the property including significant cracking to walls, the lack of central heating, condition of the electrical system, ill-fitting single glazed windows, very dated and poorly equipped kitchen and bathroom, lack of a modern fire alarm system, poor condition of carpets, limited lift access and the unmaintained condition of the communal areas.

42. The Tribunal then made an adjustment for scarcity using their own general knowledge and expertise. The Tribunal considers that in the wider geographical area there is an imbalance of supply and demand impacting on rental values and has, therefore, made a reduction of 20% for scarcity.

43. The full valuation is shown below:

per calendar month [NAME]

£2,600

Less Poor general condition incl. cracking to walls, )

No central heating

) Ill-fitting single glazed windows

) Condition of kitchen

) Condition of bathroom incl. damaged cistern ) approx. Condition of electrical system

) 40% No modern fire alarm system

) Lift access limited to 3rd floor

) Unmaintained communal areas

)

£1,040

£ 1,560 Less Scarcity

approx. 20%

£ 312

£1,248

10 44. The Tribunal determines an uncapped fair [NAME] of £1,248 per calendar month. Decision 45. The uncapped fair [NAME] determined by the Tribunal, for the purposes of section 70, was £1,248 per calendar month. The capped [NAME] for the property according to the provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 is calculated at £1,893 per calendar month. The calculation of the capped [NAME] is shown on the decision form. In this case, the uncapped fair [NAME] of £1,248 per calendar month is lower and is to be registered as the fair [NAME] of this property. For this reason, the Tribunal has not needed to consider whether any exemption applies to the capping provisions. Chair: [NAME]: 20 December 2024

APPEAL PROVISIONS 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The application should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp- pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands- chamber The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application 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 Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).