Tribunal Upholds £169.50/Week Rent for Assured Tenancy in Buckinghamshire

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference

: CAM/11UB/F77/2019/0007

Property

: [COMPANY], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant (Tenant) : Mrs [APPELLANT]

Respondent (Landlord): [APPELLANT] : The [RESPONDENT] (Ms [NAME])

Type of Application : Determination of a fair [NAME] under

Section 70 of the [NAME] 1977

Tribunal Members : Judge JR Morris Mrs [NAME] of Decision : 30th April 2019

_______________________________________________

DECISION ____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

DECISION

1. The [NAME] for [NAME] payable from the 30th April 2019 is determined to be £169.50 per week which is the capped [NAME] under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. The uncapped [NAME] being £185.00 per week.

[NAME]

2. [NAME] is a Victorian two-storey semi-detached house of brick with stone mullioned windows under a clay tile roof. The attached building is the old school and is now commercial premises.

[NAME] comprises a hallway with stairs rising to the first floor, two living rooms, a kitchen and utility room on the ground floor, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a shower room with w.c on the first floor. There are gardens to FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 the rear and a garage in the commercial premises car park which was once the school playground.

[NAME] has mains electricity, water and drainage. Space and water heating are by an oil-fired central heating system.

[NAME] is let unfurnished.

[NAME] is situated in a rural village equidistant between Oxford and Aylesbury.

THE TENANCY

3. The Tenancy is a statutory regulated weekly tenancy, which commenced in 1966. Being a tenancy for 7 years or less, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies in respect of Landlord’s repairing obligations. The Tenant is responsible for internal decoration.

THE REFERRAL

4. The current [NAME] is £152.00 per week registered on the 13th February 2017 and effective from 5th April 2017. The Landlord by a notice in the prescribed form received by the Valuation Office Agency on the 1st February 2019 proposed a new [NAME] of £691.59 per calendar month which equates to £160.00 per week. On the 25th February 2019 the [NAME] registered a [NAME] of £169.50 per week effective from 5th April 2019. The registered [NAME] was capped under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999, the uncapped [NAME] being £185.00 per week. On 6th March 2019 the Tenant referred the [NAME]’s assessment to the Tribunal. The referral was by way of written representations.

THE INSPECTION

5. The Tribunal inspected [NAME] in the presence of the Tenant.

6. [NAME] is in good condition and appeared well maintained by the Landlord. There are upvc double glazed windows and secondary double glazing. There are upvc rainwater goods. There is a garden to the side and rear. The garage is of asbestos construction and is in fair to poor condition in that it leaks.

7. [NAME] is in good condition and kept well by the Tenant. The kitchen was refitted by the Tenant and the original would have been dated if the tenant had not installed new units. The white goods are the Tenant’s. The bathroom and shower room are well fitted. Floor coverings are the Tenant’s. The Tenant’s husband was a carpenter and built cupboards into the chimney breast alcoves of the living rooms and wardrobes in the bedrooms.

3 8. There is a conservatory which was built by the Tenant and so is disregarded for the assessment of [NAME] being a Tenant’s improvement.

THE LAW

9. The law applicable to this application is contained in the [NAME] 1977.

REPRESENTATIONS

10. In written representations the Tenant stated that she considered the increase on the previous [NAME] of £75.54 per month excessive when the previous increase was only £56.33. She noted that Landlord had proposed a [NAME] of £691.59 per calendar month which she considered reasonable (being an increase of £32.93. She found the increase difficult to afford as a widow.

11. The Landlord made no representations.

[NAME]

12. The Tribunal assessed the [NAME] for [NAME] as at the day of the inspection pursuant to section 70(1) [NAME] 1977 (having regard in particular to the age, character, locality, state of repair of [NAME] 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.

13. The Tribunal is required under the legislation and case law to assess a [NAME] for [NAME] 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.

14. Neither party provided rental values of comparable properties, therefore the Tribunal used the knowledge and experience of its members. The Tribunal determined that the [NAME] for [NAME], taking into account the location, in good condition with central heating, double-glazing, modern kitchen and bathroom, and let with carpets, curtains and white goods on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy on the same terms at the time of inspection would be £240.00 per week, the Tribunal made a global deduction of £55.00 per week to take account of what would be a dated kitchen but for the Tenant’s improvements, the Tenant having fitted cupboards and wardrobes and the lack of floorcoverings and white goods which are provided in most comparable properties let on assured shorthold lettings. 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.

4 SCARCITY

15. 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.

16. That experience and consideration leads the Tribunal to the view that there is no substantial scarcity of “... similar dwelling houses in the locality...”, in this case Buckinghamshire as at the day of the inspection, that are available for letting, and so no deduction is made to reflect this.

TRIBUNAL’S CALCULATIONS

17. [NAME]:

£240.00 per week Less global deduction

£55.00

£185.00

As the uncapped [NAME] of £185.00 per week assessed by the Tribunal is the same as that assessed by the [NAME], the Tribunal therefore confirms the [NAME]’s assessment.

18. 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 calculated in accordance with a statutory formula using the existing [NAME] as a base. The capped [NAME] in this case is £169.50 per week, which is less than the [NAME] assessed by the [NAME] which is confirmed by the Tribunal of £185.00 per week and therefore the capped [NAME] is to be registered.

19. The Tenant wondered why the [NAME] had risen so much. It will be noted that the market [NAME] for [NAME] in 2017 was assessed as being £175.00 per week and in 2019 as being £185.00 per week, a rise of only £10.00. This is because over the two years there has not been a significant increase in rents in this area. However, both rents are ‘capped’ under the [NAME] ([NAME]) Order 1999. This legislation has the advantage to tenants of tenancies under the [NAME] 1977 of ensuring that rents do not rise more than inflation as measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI). However, there are occasions when the RPI rises faster than rents, as in the present case. So, although the market [NAME] only rose £10.00 per week, the capped [NAME], which is linked to the RPI, rose by £17.50 (£152.00 to £169.50) per week. However, is should be noted that the capped [NAME] in this instance is £15.50 below the current market [NAME].

20. Although the [NAME] set by the [NAME] and tribunal is the maximum [NAME] that may be charged a landlord may charge a lesser amount as a landlord can take factors into account, such as personal circumstances, which neither the [NAME] nor the Tribunal can under the legislation.

5 [NAME] = £169.50 per week

Judge JR Morris

Caution: The Tribunal inspected the subject property for the purposes of reaching this decision. The inspection was not a structural survey and any comments about the condition of [NAME] in this statement must not be relied upon as a guide to the structural or other condition of [NAME].

APPENDIX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

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

3. 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.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.