First-tier Tribunal Sets New Rent Based on Market Conditions

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case Reference : CAM/42UD/ MNR/2022 0046 [NAME] : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : Home from Home (letting agents) Type of Application : Section 13(4) Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] and venue of Hearing : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 18 July 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application dated 10 May 2022 from the tenant of the [NAME], regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice, dated 17 March 2022, proposed a new rent of £495 per calendar month, with effect from and including 13 May 2022. The passing rent was £430 per calendar month with effect from 18 September 2021.

2

3 The Tribunal received brief written representations from each party. A copy of the existing assured shorthold tenancy and of the notice of rent increase, were included. There was no hearing.

Tenants’ Representations

4 The tenant and landlord both set out the accommodation at the [NAME], briefly: A double room on the first floor with double bed, wardrobe and chest of drawers; with ensuite, in a former mid Victorian 2 storey detached house: 7 letting rooms in all and shared lounge, kitchen, 2 shower/wc rooms. This room had a new carpet when it was first let in 2019. Adjacent shared side garden and off road parking. The house fronts the busy one way city centre road, the A1156.

5 The tenant mentioned defects and limitations of the accommodation in the [NAME] and shared areas. There was concern over the limitations of the fixed heating system and its timings from the tenant.

6 The tenant did not offer any rental market evidence.

Landlord’s Representations

7 The landlord set out the accommodation briefly as had the tenant. The [NAME] had full central heating but, no double glazing. The landlord provided carpets and curtains and white goods to the shared kitchen.

8 The landlord included lettings evidence from this HMO where the room is located. These included room 3 just let, same size, without ensuite for £475 pcm; of room 5 smaller, let for £425 pcm with shower/ basin but no WC and of room 6 let for £445 pcm without ensuite.

9 There was also reference to the rental market more generally for double rooms with ensuite in Ipswich which were said to range from £475 to £575 pcm. Besides general rising rents, the landlord suggested that a major cause for the change in rent was down to rising costs from power companies; and from increased use of the [NAME] with tenants increasingly working from home rather than at an outside workplace as prior to national lockdowns. In the case of this room there was additional concern over extensive use of a portable heater which added to the justification of a rent rise, according to the landlord.

Inspection

10 Owing to the ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic across England the Tribunal does not currently carry out either internal or external inspections.

3 Law

11 Under S.14 of the Act the Tribunal determines the rent at which it considers the [NAME] might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the [NAME] falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the [NAME] to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

12 The passing rent was £430 set in September 2021. The proposed increase of £65 pcm from April 2022 therefore represented a 15% increase in approximately 9 months. This increase appeared excessive to the Tribunal.

13 Based on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in and around Ipswich, Suffolk, the Tribunal determines that the subject [NAME] would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £475 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order. In doing so the Tribunal takes account of the rise in market rents, of power consumed the cost of which is included in the rent and its rising cost since the passing rent was set. The lease contains no limitation on the use of power at the HMO by the tenant.

14 The Market rent with effect from and including 13 May 2022 is determined at £475 pcm.

Name: [NAME]: 18 July 2022

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] 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 ([NAME]), 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.

4 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 [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME]) Case reference : CAM/42UD/MNR/2022 0046 [NAME]

: Room 7, 68 Grimwade St. Ipswich, Suffolk, [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : None Respondent: [redacted] : None

Type of application : Application by the Appellant for permission to appeal Tribunal :

[NAME] & Venue : 26 August 2022

HMCTS, Cambridge County Court 197 East St. Cambridge [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 26 August 2022

DECISION

2 Decision

1. The Tribunal has considered the tenant’s, application for a review and permission to appeal, dated 17 May 2022 and determines that: (a) it will review part of its decision of 18 July 2022 (‘the Decision’); but it will not review the remainder. (b) permission to appeal, be refused.

2. In accordance with section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2010, the respondent may make further application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]). Such application must be made in writing and received by the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) no later than 14 days after the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent notice of this refusal to the party applying for permission to appeal.

3. The Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) may be contacted at: 5th [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (tel: [PHONE]); or by email: [EMAIL] ‘Clerical Mistakes’ 4. The applicant requests a correction of two non-material items in the decision of 18 July 2022. The first is to clarify what the rent includes. The Tribunal therefore deletes at para 1 “excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3”. The Tribunal inserts at para 1 “including water rates and council tax and any amounts in paras 3)”. The second is to clarify the start date of the original contractual tenancy. The Tribunal deletes at para 5 “18 September”. The Tribunal inserts at para 5 “13 September”.

5. The applicant offers a counter representation, to representations made about a let room in the same house. Room 6 is said to have been let for £445 pcm without ensuite (Per the landlord) whereas the applicant states that Room 6 does have an ensuite. The explanation from the landlord already submitted in representations is that increases to the rent for Room 6 often lags others. The tenant has been there for some 8 years. The landlord does not represent this rent as recently reset for a room with or without an ensuite.

6. The applicant refers to seasonal increases in the heating bills whereas the all inclusive rents have risen even in summer when space heating demand is low. Inclusive rents have to anticipate rises in charges for mains services.

7. The applicant refers to the rent for his room being the only one recently increased. This Tribunal is only tasked with setting the rent on this room after reference to it, under the Act. The landlord is free to set a rent up to the market level on any room.

3 8. The applicant refers to the sizes of rooms and that room 3 is larger than room 6 and 7, these two being the same size. The Tribunal notes these observations.

9. The applicant refers to an attachment advertisement for a room in this house at £390 inclusive. There was nothing attached. In any event the time to provide this would have been prior to the determination, such representations now are rejected. Reason for the Decision 10. “The requirement of leave to appeal requires one to submit one’s grounds of dissatisfaction for scrutiny to see whether they have sufficient merit to justify an appeal.” [[NAME] v SoS for the Home Department [2001} 1 WLR 443, per Hale LJ @459]. However; “It is Parliament’s wish and intention that resources should not be devoted to continuing appeals at higher levels if an appeal fails to cross the threshold test of permission to appeal.” [[NAME] v [COMPANY] [2004] EWCA Civ 1269, per Brooke LJ @ 31].

11. Rule 55, [NAME] Chamber Rules 2013, restricts the power of review: “The Tribunal may only undertake a review of a decision – (a) pursuant to rule 53 (review on an application for permission to appeal); and (b) if it is satisfied that a ground of appeal is likely to be successful.” 12. The refusal of a review and of permission to appeal excepting those first two non-material items set out above, is because the grounds stated, are not arguable and there is no realistic prospect of success.

[NAME]

26 August 2022