Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Property Under Rent Act 1977

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference

: CAM/00MC/F77/2021/0004

Property

: 16 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant (Tenant) : Mrs [APPELLANT]

Respondent (Landlord): [APPELLANT] of [NAME] : Determination of a fair [NAME] under section

70 of the [NAME] 1977

Tribunal Members : Judge JR Morris Mrs M Wilcox BSc MRICS

Date of Decision : 22nd March 2021

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

DECISION

1. The [NAME] for the Property is determined to be £1,135.00 (including a fixed service charge of £72.24) per calendar month which is below the capped [NAME] under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999.

REASONS

THE PROPERTY

2. No inspection of the Property took place due to measures introduced to combat the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and to protect the parties and the public, particularly those at risk. The Procedural Judge issued Directions on 11th January 2021 saying:

The tribunal will seek to determine the [NAME] for the Property during the week commencing 22nd March 2021 based on the written submissions by the parties. The Tribunal does not intend to hold an oral hearing or inspect the property internally. This is following the Government’s requirements to avoid non-essential travel and social interaction for the time being.

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 However, either party may request a hearing and any request should be made to the tribunal copying the request to the other side by 8th February 2021.

3. No request for an oral hearing was received.

4. Attached to the Directions was an Information Sheet and a Reply Form which the parties were encouraged to complete in order to provide details about the type, accommodation and features of the Property. Unfortunately, neither party completed the form and as the Property is situated on a private road the Tribunal was not able to obtain a street view of it on the Internet. Nevertheless, the Tribunal was able to obtain sufficient information from the knowledge of its members, similar properties for sale and to let in the same area on the Internet, the [NAME] register and the representations made by the [NAME] in order to make a determination.

5. According to the [NAME] and the [NAME], the Property is a three storey mid-terraced house. It has gas central heating and double- glazed windows. There is a garden and off-street parking.

6. The Property comprises two living rooms, kitchen and w.c. on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom with w.c. on the first floor. The Property is let unfurnished and carpets, curtains and white goods are not provided.

7. It is situated on a private road in Caversham close to a wide range of amenities. A service charge is levied on the Estate for Gardening, public liability insurance and estate repairs

THE TENANCY

8. The Tenancy is regulated under the [NAME] 1977 and commenced on 18th June 1979. As a Tenancy, not being for a fixed period of 7 years or more, s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies in respect of the Landlord’s liability for repairs.

THE REFERRAL

9. A [NAME] of £1,010.00 per calendar month, which was below the capped [NAME] under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, was registered on 7th November 2018 and effective from 6th December 2018. The Landlord by a notice in the prescribed form received by the [NAME] on 7th December 2020 proposed a new [NAME] of £15,753.00 including a fixed service charge of £866.90 per annum, which equates to £1,312.75 including £72.24 fixed service charge per calendar month which is the tenancy period. On 17th November 2020 the [NAME] registered a [NAME] effective from 6th December 2020 of £1,135.00 including a fixed service charge of £72.24 per calendar month, which was below the capped [NAME] under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. On 7th December 2020 the Landlord referred the [NAME]’s assessment to the Tribunal. The referral was by way of written representations.

THE LAW

10. The Law relating to these reasons is contained in section 70 [NAME] 1977.

3 REPRESENTATIONS

11. The Tenant did not make any representations.

12. The [NAME] made written representations which are summarised as follows:

13. It was submitted that comparable properties of the same size in the same area are achieving between £18,000.00 and £22,800.00 per annum and that a market [NAME] for the Property would be £20,160.00 per annum if let on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy with carpets and white goods.

14. The Agent provided the following list of properties and rental values. The figures in brackets indicate the number of miles distant from the Property.: (1) [ADDRESS], Henley on Thames (4.60 miles) 4 bedroom detached house, £3,500 pcm. (2) [ADDRESS], Three Mile Cross (4.58 miles) 4-bedroom detached house, £2,250.00 pcm. (3) [ADDRESS], Twyford (4.38 miles) 4-bedroom semi-detached house, £2,500 pcm. (4) [ADDRESS] (1.36 miles) 4-bedroom detached house £2,500 pcm. (5) [ADDRESS] (3.83 miles) 4-bedroom detached house £2,650 pcm (6) [ADDRESS], Reading (4.42 miles) 4-bedroom detached house £2,100 pcm. (7) [ADDRESS], Caversham 4-bedroom detached house £2,100 pcm (8) [ADDRESS], Reading (2.16 miles) 4-bedroom detached house £2,000 pcm. (9) [ADDRESS] (1.88 miles) 4-bedroom apartment £2,000 pcm. (10) [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS] (1.03 miles) 4-bedroom detached house £2,000 pcm. (11) [ADDRESS] (2.09 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house £1,800 pcm. (12) [ADDRESS], Reading (1.58 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house £1,700 pcm. (13) [NAME], Caversham (0.85 miles) 4 bedroom detached house £1,725 pcm. (14) [ADDRESS], Reading (1.54 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house £1,700 pcm. (15) [ADDRESS], Reading (2.09 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house £1,700 pcm. (16) [ADDRESS] (4.96 miles) 4-bedroom detached house £1,654 pcm. (17) [ADDRESS], Reading 4-bedroom terraced house £1,600 pcm. (18) [ADDRESS], Reading, 4-bedroom terraced house £1,500 pcm. (19) [ADDRESS], Reading (2.24 miles) 1970s 4-bedroom semi-detached house £1,300 pcm. (20) [ADDRESS], Reading (1.28 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house

4 £1,300 pcm. (21) [ADDRESS], Reading (2.05 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house £1,300 pcm. (22) [ADDRESS], reading (1.71 miles) 4-bedroom town house £1,750 pcm. (23) [ADDRESS], Reading (1.96 miles) 4-bedroom terraced house £1,100 pcm.

15. In addition, the Agent identified the following as being particularly comparable, all are let on assured shorthold tenancies, and have four bedrooms. Details were only provided for [NAME]:  [ADDRESS], has two bathrooms and an asking [NAME] of £22,800 pa (£1,900 pcm)  [NAME], has three ensuite bathrooms and an asking [NAME] of £20,700 pa (£1,725 pcm)  [ADDRESS], has one bathroom and an asking [NAME] of £19,140 pa (£1,595 pcm)  [NAME], has one bathroom and an asking [NAME] of £18,000 pa (£1,500 pcm)

16. Scarcity – it was stated that 414 comparable properties were available to [NAME] within a 5-mile radius of the Property and therefore no deduction should be made to take account of scarcity as it is not inflating rental prices in the area as current demand does not outstrip supply.

17. Condition – it was stated that the Agent was not aware of any failure by the Landlord to fulfil its statutory or contractual duties as defined in the tenancy agreement and that if there is disrepair that has not been reported by the Tenant it was felt inappropriate to make a deduction and so no deduction should be made in respect of it as there had been no opportunity to remedy the defect.

18. Location – the Property was said to be in the quiet village of Caversham within easy distance of Reading Station, local car parks and amenities.

19. Conclusion - the following calculation was submitted: [NAME]

£20,160.00 p.a. (£1,680.00 pcm.) Less deductions for:

Lack of carpets and white goods (13%) £2,620.80 Sub Total

£17,539.20 Updating of kitchen/bathroom (15%) £2630.88 Sub Total

£14,908.32 Scarcity @ 5%

£745.76 Total

£14,162.90 pa. (£1,180.25 pcm.)

20. A calculation under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 was made which gives a maximum fair [NAME] of £14,277.00 pa. (£1,189.75 pcm.)

ASSESSMENT OF A [NAME]

21. The Tribunal decided that as the current situation regarding COVID 19 was likely to continue for a considerable time it was in the interests of justice that a determination should be made if possible. In doing so it took into account:

5 Article 6 of the Human Rights Act which states that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

Rule 3 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 which states that: (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. (2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes— (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties and of the Tribunal; (b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings; (d) using any special expertise of the Tribunal effectively; and (e) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues. (3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a) exercises any power under these Rules; or

(b) interprets any rule or practice direction. (4) Parties must— (a) help the Tribunal to further the overriding objective; and (b) co-operate with the Tribunal generally.

22. The parties had been given an opportunity to make representations regarding the assessment of [NAME] and no hearing had been requested. The Tribunal would normally make an inspection of the Property but the Tribunal considered that it had sufficient information to make a determination in this case.

23. The Tribunal assessed the [NAME] for the Property pursuant to section 70(1) [NAME] 1977 (having regard in particular to the age, character, locality, state of repair of the property and all the circumstances other than personal circumstances). The Tribunal took account of the relevant cases and legislation including [COMPANY] v [NAME] (1996) 28 HLR 107, [NAME] v [NAME] [1997] 4 All ER 842 and [COMPANY] v Merseyside and [NAME] 24th May 1991.

24. The Tribunal, like the [NAME], is required under the legislation and case law to assess a [NAME] for the Property by reference to comparable properties in the open market taking into account the matters referred to above. It then considers whether or not a deduction for scarcity should be made, which varies depending on the market within a locality from time to time.

25. The Tribunal is not able to take the personal circumstances of either party into account.

26. The Tribunal noted that a fixed service charge was made. This is assessed as part of the [NAME] and does not vary according to the actual cost of the services. There are no provisions to assess the reasonableness of fixed service charges separately. Under section 71 of the [NAME] 1977 a tribunal determines a [NAME] taking into account the

6 services that are provided. The landlord may provide a schedule of services, as is the case here, that sets out the costs attributed to each item at the time of a [NAME] increase. The purpose of the schedule is to identify the services provided and to indicate the level and value of services by reference to the amount attributed to them, which is included in the [NAME]. It appears from the Schedule provided in this case that the Landlord adjusts the service charge when the registered [NAME] is re- assessed by the [NAME] to take account of the actual costs incurred and this is in keeping with the fixed nature of the service charge.

27. The Schedule items applicable to the Property relate to the Estate and for 2018/2019 were as follows:

Items 2019 Actual £ 2018 Actual £ Management Fees 3,585 3,480 Company Secretary Honorarium 200 200 Accountancy Fees 1,321 1,242 Bank Charges 70 73 Pest Control 576 576 Gardening 3,420 4,423 Estate repairs 186 2,213 [NAME] 145 77 [NAME] 144 81 Reserve Provision 2,900 2,900 Total 12,546 15,264

28. It is not known how many properties share the service charge or how it is apportioned. The service charge attributed to the Property is £72.24.

29. With regard to the condition of the Property, the [NAME] and the [NAME] recorded that the Property had central heating. The [NAME] also stated that the Property was double glazed. The Tenant had an opportunity to challenge these statements if they had been incorrect but had not done so. The Tribunal therefore had no reason to doubt its veracity and found that the Property has central heating and is double glazed installed by the Landlord.

30. Most properties on the market are let with carpets and white goods and this would be reflected in the [NAME]. The [NAME] in its calculations made a deduction in respect of these items indicating that they were not provided and even if they had been originally, they had been replaced by the Tenant. Similarly, in its calculations the Agent had made a deduction to reflect the kitchen and bathroom being dated, indicating that the fittings and installations were either original or had not been replaced by the Landlord for some considerable time, even if they had been by the Tenant. The Tribunal therefore found that the Property had a dated kitchen and bathroom.

31. The Tribunal considered the properties submitted by the [NAME]. The Tribunal considered the detached properties to be of a different type from the Property which was terraced and therefore not comparable to the Property. Of the terraced houses where details were provided, several were being let as student accommodation such as (11) [ADDRESS] and (18) [ADDRESS], and so may well

7 have different tenancy terms. From the photograph (19) [ADDRESS] appeared to be similar, as a 1970s family home. Taking into account the general level of rents for terraced properties, and with the information available, and using the knowledge and experience of its members the Tribunal determines that a market [NAME] for the Property is £1,450.00.

32. The Tribunal considered the evidence that it had available and made a deduction of a global figure of £300.00 per calendar month for the lack of floor coverings and white goods and the dated kitchen and bathroom. It should be noted that this figure cannot be a simple arithmetical calculation and is not based specifically upon capital cost but is the Tribunal’s estimate of the amount by which the [NAME] would have to be reduced to attract a tenant.

SCARCITY

33. Assessing a scarcity percentage cannot be a precise arithmetical calculation because there is no way of knowing either the exact number of people looking for properties similar to the subject property in the private sector or the exact number of such properties available. It can only be a judgement based on the years of experience of members of the Tribunal together with a consideration of the properties advertised as being to let as at the time of the assessment.

34. That experience and consideration leads the Tribunal to the view that at the time of the determination demand for “... similar dwelling houses in the locality...” that are available for letting was not significantly greater than supply. “Locality” in this case being Berkshire. Therefore, no deduction was made to take account of scarcity.

TRIBUNAL’S CALCULATIONS

35. [NAME]:

£1,450.00 per calendar month Less global deduction

£300.00 [NAME]

£1,150.00

36. The provisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999 require that the registered [NAME] is either the capped [NAME] or the [NAME] decided by the Tribunal whichever is the lower. The capped [NAME] is £1,187.50 per calendar month, which is higher than the [NAME] assessed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the [NAME] assessed by the Tribunal is to be registered.

37. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of Schedule 11 of the [NAME] 1977 the Tribunal shall confirm the [NAME] registered by the [NAME] if it appears to be a fair [NAME]. The Tribunal notes that the fair [NAME] assessed by the [NAME] was £1,135.00 including a fixed service charge of £72.24 per calendar month. Therefore, the difference between the [NAME] assessed by the [NAME] and that assessed by the Tribunal is £15.00. As the two assessments are so close the Tribunal confirms the [NAME] assessed by the [NAME] as a fair [NAME].

[NAME] = £1,135.00 (including a fixed service charge of £72.24) per calendar month.

Judge JR Morris

8

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]) then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

2. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

3. 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.

4. 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.