First-tier Tribunal Determines New Fair Rent for Tenant

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/22UF/F77/2025/0035 Property : 57 [NAME] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] (Agent) Type of [NAME] : S.70 Rent Act 1977 – Determination of a new fair rent Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 1 December 2025 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 1 December 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 By a RR1 [NAME] dated 9 July 2025, the landlord applied to the Rent Officer for registration of a fair rent of £1050 pcm. The fair rent payable from 9 October 2023 was £877 pcm following a Tribunal decision.

2 The Rent Officer registered a fair rent of £935 pcm, uncapped but, on [NAME] from the tenant the matter was referred to the Tribunal for a re-determination.

2 Directions

3 Directions dated 2 October 2025 were issued for case progression. A hearing was not requested. A determination was set down for 1 December 2025, on the papers.

Representations

4 A standard Reply Form was sent to the parties by the Tribunal but neither party returned it. The landlords were able to confirm that the front door had been replaced with a new double glazed version since the last rent review. The Tribunal received copies of the papers sent to the Rent Officer effecting the appeal and Tribunal is grateful for such information as they contained.

Inspection

5 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property. The Tribunal was however able to externally view the Property from Google Streetview (@ May 2024). The house appears to date from the early 1960’s and is typical of the smaller semi detached houses in the road in an otherwise established residential estate.

6 The 1960’s two storey house has part brick faced external walls ground lvele and part tile hung finishes to first floor. There is a double pitched roof finished to single lap concrete tiles. Externally, to the front elevation, the Property appears in a fair to good condition. Windows appear to be in plastic with double glazed units. There is central space heating. The accommodation is ground floor: living room, kitchen, first floor 2 bedrooms bathroom/ WC. There is a single car garage to the side and single car driveway. Gardens front and rear. There does not appear to be any on road parking restrictions.

Law

7 When determining a fair rent the Committee, in accordance with the Rent Act 1977, section 70, had regard to all the circumstances including the age, location and state of repair of the property. It also disregarded the effect of (a) any relevant tenant's improvements and (b) the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title under the regulated tenancy, on the rental value of the property.

8 In [COMPANY] v [NAME] of the Greater Manchester etc. Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and [NAME] v [NAME] [1999] QB 92 the Court of Appeal emphasized

(a) that ordinarily a fair rent is the market rent for the property discounted for 'scarcity' (i.e. that element, if any, of the market rent, that is attributable to there being a significant shortage of similar properties in the wider locality available for letting on

3 similar terms - other than as to rent - to that of the regulated tenancy) and

(b) that for the purposes of determining the market rent, 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).

9 Where the condition of a property is poorer than that of comparable properties, so that the rents of those comparables are towards twice that proposed rent for the subject property, it calls into question whether or not those transactions are truly comparable. Would prospective tenants of modernized properties in good order consider taking a tenancy of an un-modernised house in poor repair and with only basic facilities or are they in entirely separate lettings markets? The problem for the Tribunal is that the only evidence of value levels available to us is of modernised properties. We therefore have to use this but make appropriate discounts for the differences, rather than ignore it and determine a rent entirely based on our own knowledge and experience, whenever we can.

10 On the evidence of the comparable lettings and our own general knowledge of market rent levels in and around [NAME], the Tribunal accepts that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1250 pcm. This then, is the appropriate starting point from which to determine the rent of the property as it falls to be valued.

11 A normal open market letting would include carpets, curtains and “white goods”, there is no detail on these arrangements but, the Tribunal concludes that these are provided by the tenant, since the start of the tenancy, which was by way of a transfer of tenancy. Deductions for these limited shortcomings at the Property, amount to £50 pcm leaving the adjusted market rent at £1200 per calendar month.

12 The Tribunal also has to consider the element of scarcity and whether demand exceeded supply in this locality. The Tribunal found that there was no scarcity in the locality of [NAME] for this type and size of property and therefore makes no further deduction from the adjusted market rent to reflect this.

13 The fair rent to be registered on this basis alone would be £1200 pcm, but, the new rent can be limited by the statutory Maximum Fair Rent (MFR) Cap calculation. This limits any increase to the change in RPI between the date of the last registration of a fair rent and the current, plus 5%.

14 The calculations are shown in the MFR form attached. This caps the new rent at £993 pcm. As this is lower than the adjusted uncapped fair rent above, the new fair rent remains reduced and capped at £993 pcm.

4 The Rent Act makes no allowance for the Tribunal to take account of hardship arising from the new rent payable compared with the existing rent.

15 The landlord is entitled but, not compelled, to charge the new fair rent at the registered figure from the date of this Decision. However the landlord may not charge more than this rent.

[NAME] 1 December 2025

Rights of appeal

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 either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to [NAME] such an appeal, an [NAME] must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such [NAME] must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the [NAME] (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).