First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Semi-Detached House with Agricultural Tie

OUTCOME: Allowed

FR24 First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber File Ref No. BIR/47UF/F77/2019/0047

Notice of the Tribunal Decision

Rent Act 1977 Schedule 11

Address of Premises The Tribunal members were 3 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Mr [APPELLANT] Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME]

Landlord [APPELLANT] & [APPELLANT]

Tenant Mr D [RESPONDENT]

1. The [NAME] is £425.00 Per Calendar Month (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3&4)

2. The effective date is 20 January 2020

3. The amount for services is not applicable N/A Per N/A

4. The amount for fuel charges (excluding heating and lighting of common parts) not counting for rent allowance is not applicable

N/A Per N/A

5. The rent is not to be registered as variable.

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

7. Details (other than rent) where different from Rent Register entry

N/A

8. For information only:

The [NAME] to be registered is not limited by the Rent Acts ([NAME]) Order 1999, because it is below the maximum [NAME] of £470.00 prescribed by the Order.

[NAME] of decision 20 January 2020

FR24 [NAME] FIGURE X 291.0

PREVIOUS RPI FIGURE Y 275.8

X 291.0 Minus Y 275.8 = (A) 15.2

(A) 15.2 Divided by Y 275.8 = (B) 0.0551

First application for re-registration since 1 February 1999 NO

If yes (B) plus 1.075 = (C)

If no (B) plus 1.05 = (C) 1.1051

Last registered rent* £425.00 Multiplied by (C) = £469.66 *(exclusive of any variable service charge)

Rounded up to nearest 50p = £470.00

Variable service charge NO If YES add amount for services

[NAME] = £470.00 Per month

Explanatory Note

1. The calculation of the maximum [NAME], in accordance with the formula contained in the Order, is set out above.

2. In summary, the formula provides for the maximum [NAME] to be calculated by:

(a) increasing the previous registered rent 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 [NAME] determination was made.

4. The process differs where the tenancy agreement contains a variable service charge and the rent is to be registered as variable under section 71(4) of the Rent Act 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 [NAME].

1

Case Reference : BIR/47UF/F77/2019/0047

Property

: 3 Underhill Cottages, Charlton, Nr.Pershore, Worcestershire,

[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

: [APPELLANT]

Respondent: [redacted] : Appeal against the Rent Officer's Decision of [NAME] under

s.70 of the Rent Act 1977

Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME].[NAME]. [NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS

Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and Venue of : Not Applicable, paper determination Hearing

Date of Decision : 20th January 2020

Date of Reasons : 17th February 2020

____________________________________________________________

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

1 The [NAME] is determined at £425.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Five Pounds) per calendar month from 20th January 2020.

REASONS

Introduction

2 Mr [RESPONDENT] holds a protected tenancy of 3 Underhill Cottages, Charlton, Nr.Pershore, Worcestershire, [POSTCODE]. The [NAME] had previously been registered by the First-tier Tribunal at £425.00 per month on 7th November 2017. On 9th August 2019 the landlord applied for a rent increase to £510.00 per calendar month and on 8th October 2019 the Rent Officer registered a new rent of £440.00 per month to take effect from 7th November 2019.

3 The landlord appealed against the Decision by letter received by the Valuation Office Agency on 6th November 2019 and the matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal for Determination. The Tribunal inspected the property and reached its decision on 20th January 2020 determining a [NAME] of £425.00 from that date and the Decision papers were sent to the parties.

4 The Landlord's agents requested Reasons by letter received 28th January 2020 which are the subject of this document.

The Law

5 Mr [RESPONDENT] is a protected tenant as acknowledged by the landlord. The Tribunal had not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement but understood from the application for [NAME] completed by the landlord that the property had been let unfurnished, with the landlord responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior and the tenant responsible for internal repair and decoration in accordance with s.11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

6 Accordingly, the rent was to be determined under s.70 of the Rent Act 1977.

7 S.70(1) states that in determining a [NAME], regard has to be had to all the circumstances of the tenancy (other than personal circumstances) including the age, character, locality and state of repair of the house, whether the property is let furnished and whether a premium had been paid or would be required to renew, continue or assign the tenancy.

8 s.70(2) adds a further qualification that it is assumed that the number of parties seeking to become tenants of similar houses in the locality on the terms of the tenancy (other than the rent) is not substantially greater than the number of houses available to let on such terms. This is usually referred to as 'scarcity' and the Court of Appeal held in [COMPANY]. v Chairman of the Greater Manchester Rent Assessment Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and [NAME] v [NAME] (1999) QB 92 that under normal circumstances the [NAME] is the market rent discounted for scarcity. [ADDRESS] also held that assured tenancy rents could be considered comparable to market rents.

9 s.70(3) requires the valuation to disregard any disrepair due to a tenant's failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy and any improvements carried out by the tenant or their predecessor in title.

3

Facts Found

10 The Tribunal inspected the property on 20th January 2020 and found it to be in basic unmodernised condition. It is a semi-detached house in a rural area on the fringe of Charlton, a village mid-way between Pershore and Evesham. It is subject to an agricultural tie.

11 The house is two storey brick and tile construction with an entrance lobby, two reception rooms, kitchen and toilet on the ground floor with a landing, three bedrooms, shower room and separate w.c. on the first floor. There are gardens to the front and rear and space to park a car on the adjoining roadway. The house has double glazing but no central heating. There is no mains gas supply.

12 The tenant has improved the property by fitting the kitchen units and flooring, new internal doors and architrave, which are improvements to be disregarded for the purposes of the current valuation.

Submissions

13 Neither party requested a Hearing.

14 The landlord's agent sent written submissions that described the house and referred to two properties they considered comparable; a 1960s 3 bedroom semi-detached house in Pershore (full address not supplied), with gas-fired central heating, a fully fitted kitchen, front and rear gardens and attached garage advertised at £750 per month and a 1960s 3 bedroom semi-detached house in [ADDRESS], [NAME] (house no. not supplied) advertised at £795 per month, again with gas-fired central heating and modern fitted breakfast kitchen. One of the bedrooms had an en-suite shower.

Using these properties as points of reference, they submitted that the market rental value of the subject house would be at least £750 per month if it had the same facilities as the comparables. However, to allow for the difference in amenities, they deducted £100 for five facilities found in the comparables but unavailable in the subject property:

1 modernised bathroom

£20

2 floor coverings

£20

3 white goods

£20

4 mains gas supply

£20

4 garage

£20

i.e. a deduction of £100 per month.

They then deducted £15 pcm for tenant's improvements and £125 pcm for the agricultural tie to leave a net figure of £510.00 per calendar month.

15 No representations were received from the tenant.

Decision

16 To assess the [NAME] the Tribunal need to assess the rental value of the house in good condition as a starting point, assuming it had been well maintained and modernised with central heating, reasonable kitchen units and a bathroom suite in fair condition, fully

4

equipped with carpets and curtains and ready to let in the open market. The Tribunal did not consider the properties referred to by the landlord comparable since they were both modernised, offered better facilities in more popular locations. The Tribunal therefore applied its own general knowledge and experience (but no specific or secret knowledge) to assess the rental value and found the full rental value in good condition, fully modernised to have been £700.00 per month.

17 However, the property had not been let in that condition. It was subject to an agricultural tie which restricted the potential letting market for which the Tribunal deducted 25% (£175.00 per month), there was no central heating for which the Tribunal deducted £50.00 per month, no carpets or curtains included in the tenancy for which the Tribunal deducted £25.00 and no white goods for which the Tribunal deducted £10.00.

The deductions for lack of amenity were £85.00.

18 The Tribunal deducted £15.00 per month to reflect the value of the tenant's improvements.

19 In summary, £700.00 less £175.00 for the agricultural tie, £85.00 for lack of amenity and £15.00 for tenant improvements left £425.00 per month.

20 The Tribunal considered the question of scarcity in s.70(2) of the Rent Act 1977 and found that the number of potential tenants looking for accommodation of this type in the

area may not have exceeded the number of units available to let due to the agricultural tie. Had it been free of tie, the Tribunal may have deducted 10% for scarcity but to do so in this instance where allowance has already been made for the tie would have amounted to double counting. Accordingly it made no further discount.

21 The Rent Acts ([NAME]) Order 1999 was of no effect as £425.00 was less than the maximum that could have been registered under the Order, as in the calculation sheet sent with the Decision Notice.

22 There was no service charge and the rent was not registered as variable.

23 Accordingly, the Tribunal determined the [NAME] at £425.00 per month with effect from the date of decision on 20th January 2020.

[NAME] B.Sc.(Est.Man.) FRICS Chairman

Appeal

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision an application may be made to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Property Chamber (Residential Property) on a point of law only. Any such application must be received within 28 days after these reasons have been sent to the parties under Rule 52 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.