First-tier Tribunal Sets Assured Periodic Tenancy Rent and Resolves Garden Dispute

OUTCOME: Allowed

First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. LON/00AZ/MNR/2023/0178

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 19 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Judge [NAME]

Landlord [NAME] [RESPONDENT] 7 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mr [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £ 1550 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 18 May 2023

3. The amount included for services is not applicable

Per

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 18 April 2021

6. Length of the term or rental period Monthly periodic

7. Allocation of liability for repairs S.11 – Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Part-furnished.

9. Description of premises Ground floor flat/maisonette containing a living room, kitchen, 2 bedrooms, bathroom and separate WC.

Chairman Judge Professor Percival Date of Decision 16 August 2023

Addendum: Decision as to responsibility for maintenance of the gardens.

The parties disputed responsibility for the maintenance of the front and back gardens. If the tenant were responsible, we should disregard any reduction in value of the property attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with a term of the tenancy (Housing Act 1988, section 14(2)(c)). The tenancy agreement (which it appears was not professionally produced) only described the subject matter of the tenancy as “the house, known as [ADDRESS]”. There is no express reference to either garden in the tenancy agreement at all. The property is in fact a flat or maisonette comprising the ground floor of the building. Number 17, which has a separate front door, comprises the first floor. It is clear that number 17 has physical access to the garden, via a door to the side of the back garden. It must also have access along the path through the front garden to reach the front door of 17. In her evidence, Ms [RESPONDENT], the landlord (who has a long lease of the property), said that she had discussed clearing and maintenance of the gardens with the freeholder, and had been told that they could undertake to do so, but that it would involve more “rent”. She used that term, but we think she must mean service charge. It seems to us inherently unlikely that the gardens to which number 17 has access is part of Ms [NAME] demise. We asked her what the terms of her leasehold interest were, but she was unable to say. Further, the exchange with the freehold strongly supports the proposition that the gardens are both common areas, rather than demised under Ms [NAME] lease. We conclude that (a) Ms [NAME] does not have responsibility to maintain the garden under her long lease; and accordingly (b) that the tenant, Ms [APPELLANT], does not have that responsibility under her tenancy agreement. We have taken into account these conclusions in arriving at the market rent.