Rent Determination for Property Condition - First-tier Tribunal Decision

OUTCOME: Allowed

MR22 First-tier Tribunal – [NAME] Chamber File Ref No. BIR/00CN/MNR/2020/0050

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 14 North Gate, Birmingham, West Midlands, [POSTCODE]

[NAME] Mr [RESPONDENT], St. James' Boulevard, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, [POSTCODE]

Tenant Mrs [APPELLANT]

1. The rent is: £195.00 Per Week (excluding water rates and council tax but including any amounts in paras 3)

2. The date the decision takes effect is: 19 October 2020

3. The amount included for services is not applicable --- Per ---

4. Service charges are variable and are not included

5. Date assured tenancy commenced 6 April 1992

6. Length of the term or rental period weekly

7. Allocation of liability for repairs s11 LTA 1985

8. Furniture provided by landlord or superior landlord Not applicable - none

9. Description of premises 3 bed mid terrace house comprising two ground floor living rooms, kitchen + bathroom / WC

[NAME] of Decision 18 December 2020

Page 1 of 5

Case Reference : BIR/00CN/MNR/2020/0050

[NAME] : 14 North Gate, Harborne, Birmingham, [POSTCODE]

Landlord : [RESPONDENT] : BPT ([APPELLANT]

Tenant : [APPELLANT] of Application : An Application for a Determination under

Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988

Tribunal Members : [NAME] (Chair)

[NAME] of Decision : 18 December 2020

Date of Statement of : 16 February 2021 Reasons

_____________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF REASONS _____________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] CHAMBER ([NAME])

Page 2 of 5

BACKGROUND

1. By way of a notice dated 8 September 2020, [RESPONDENT] (“the Landlord”), sought to increase the rental in respect of 14 North Gate Harborne Birmingham [POSTCODE] (“[NAME]”) to £205 per week under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 (“the Act”) with effect from 19 October 2020.

2. The tenancy commenced on 6 April 1992 for the term of one year and the rent payable at the time of the notice was £195 per week.

3. By an application received on 12 October 2020, [NAME], (“the Tenant” of [NAME]), referred the Notice of increase of rent served by the Landlord to the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal issued its Directions dated 21 October 2020 advising that it would seek to determine the Market Rent for [NAME] based on written submissions by the parties. In accordance with Public Health England’s advice the Tribunal did not inspect [NAME] and neither party requested a hearing.

5. The Tribunal received submissions from Mr [RESPONDENT] who is employed by the Landlord as Portfolio Manager and from Mrs [RESPONDENT] representing herself.

6. After consideration of the available evidence and the applicable law, the Tribunal determined a rental of £195 per week with effect from 19 October 2020.

7. On the 13 January 2021 the Landlord requested the Tribunal provide extended reasons which is the basis upon which this decision is made.

[NAME]

8. In accordance with the guidance the Tribunal was unable to carry out an internal inspection of [NAME].

9. The parties are however in agreement that the accommodation briefly comprises a traditional 2 storey three-bedroom mid-terrace house with a pitch slate tiled roof. The ground floor extends to two reception rooms and a kitchen and bathroom with the first floor providing three bedrooms and a w.c.

10. The windows are timber frame and single glazed and there is full gas fired central heating throughout [NAME] as well as a separate gas fire in each of the living rooms.

11. Externally there is a garden area to the front and rear but there is no off-road parking.

Page 3 of 5

12. In terms of location, [NAME] is located in the area known as Moor Pool in Harborne amongst properties of a similar age, type and class approximately 3 miles south west of Birmingham city centre.

13. The Tenant advises that [NAME] was originally 2 bedrooms with the third bedroom having been converted from a former bathroom on the first floor. The bathroom (including w.c. and wash hand basin) having been relocated to the ground floor w.c. In effect the Tenant considers [NAME] to be 2 bedrooms and a box room only sufficient to take a single bed without any furniture.

14. The Tenant also suggests that there are issues with heating [NAME] arising from the single glazed windows, its traditional construction and minimal loft insulation. The Tenant also raises issues concerning the external paintwork and a general lack of maintenance carried out by the Landlord.

15. In support of these claims the Tenant has provided a number of photographs for the Tribunals consideration.

16. The Landlord advises that [NAME] is located in a sought-after location close to a number of amenities, leisure facilities and transport links. It also considers [NAME] is generally in a fair condition and whilst it may not be up to all modern standards will always attend to any matters when these are reported.

17. As regard [NAME]’s specification the Landlord accepts that the bathroom and kitchen are both in need of modernisation and that similar comparable properties benefit from double glazing and include carpets and curtains.

18. The Tenant advises that all the white goods in [NAME] are owned by her as well as the carpets. In addition, she has installed a wardrobe in one of the bedrooms and erected a fence panel down the side of [NAME]. Mrs [NAME] also points out that there is no fixed shower in the bathroom.

EVIDENCE

19. The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the parties and also had regard to its own experience and expertise in such matters.

20. The representations received from the Landlord set out a number of comparable properties that were available through local agents in the local area. In particular High Brow Harborne - a 3-bedroom mid-terrace [NAME] at £312 per week, [ADDRESS] - a 3-bedroom mid-terrace [NAME] also at £312 per

Page 4 of 5

week and High Brow Harborne a – a 3-bedroom semi-detached [NAME] at £368 per week.

21. Based on this evidence, Mr [NAME] considered that the subject [NAME]’s rental value should be based on £205 per week taking into account its age, condition and tenancy type. In effect Mr [NAME] valued [NAME] at £312 per week less various adjustments for a modernised bathroom and kitchen, double glazing and floor coverings and curtains and has rounded this down.

22. Mrs [NAME] evidence in support of her rental value were based on a 3- bedroom semi-detached [NAME] on [ADDRESS], a 3-bedroom end-terraced house on [ADDRESS] at £850 per calendar month and a 3-bedroom mid terrace house on [ADDRESS] at £700 per calendar month.

23. Neither party provided any further comments on the evidence adduced by the other side and each has referred to different comparable properties from the immediate area.

THE LAW

24. In accordance with the terms of section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal must determine the rent at which it considers that the subject [NAME] might reasonably be expected to let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.

25. In so doing the Tribunal, as required by section 14(1), must ignore the effect on the rental value of [NAME] of any relevant tenant’s improvements as defined in section 14(2) 0f the Act.

VALUATION

26. In the first instance, the Tribunal determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for [NAME] if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. It did this by using its own general knowledge of the market rent levels in and around the Harborne area and had regard to the evidence and submissions of the parties, the relevant law and their own knowledge and experience as an expert Tribunal but not any special or secret knowledge.

27. The Tribunal had particular regard to [NAME]’s location, accommodation and specification in relation to the evidence adduced by the parties.

Page 5 of 5

28. Taking all factors into consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the likely market rental would be £310 per week.

29. However, to allow for [NAME]’s smaller sized third bedroom, limited parking arrangements, general condition and the need to modernise the kitchen and bathroom as well as the lack of double glazing the Tribunal made a deduction of £60 per week.

30. A further deduction of £55.00 per week was then made to allow for the Tenant’s fittings (floor coverings and white goods and other minor additions) and to reflect the Tenant’s liability for decoration.

31. The rent determined by the Tribunal for the purposes of Section 14 was, therefore, £195.00 per week with effect from 19 October 2020.

APPEAL

32. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a point of law only. Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME] Chamber) Rule 2013) stating the grounds upon which it is intended to rely in the appeal.

[NAME] (Hons) FRICS

Dated: 16 February 2021