59 Wadhurst Avenue Luton LU3 1UQ CAM/00KA/MNR/2022/0062

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CAM/00KA/MNR/2022/0062
Between
Mr Abdul Satar and Mrs Malali SatarApplicantDr Mehmood ShahRespondent
Before
Mary Hardman FRICS IRRV(Hons)Date 11 October 2022Property: 59 Wadhurst Avenue Luton LU3 1UQ

DECISION

[1]The tribunal has considered the Respondent’s request for permission to appeal dated 26 August 2022 and determined that:a. it will not review its decision dated 16 August 2022: andb. permission 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) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, Dr Shah may make further application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Such application must be made in writing and received by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) 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]Where possible, any further application for permission to appeal should be sent by email to Lands@justice.gov.uk, as this will enable the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to deal with it more efficiently. Alternatively, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) may be contacted at: 5th Floor, Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL (tel: 020 7612 9710). Original Application[4]The Original Application was made on 2 November 2021 by Mr and Mrs Satar, for the determination of a market rent under Section 14(1) of Housing Act 1988 following service of a notice in the prescribed form by the landlord on 18 September 2021.[5]The landlord’s notice proposed a new rent of £1500 per calendar month to be effective from 3 November 2021. This was in lieu of the £1300 per month.[6]On 28 March 2022 the tribunal determined a rent of £1250 per month.[7]On 9 May 2022 the landlord, Dr Shah wrote to the tribunal to say that he had not received any communication in respect of the case. The correspondence had been sent to the agent who had acted in respect of the original tenancy agreement and had not been forwarded.[8]The tribunal considered that the most appropriate way of proceeding was to set aside the previous decision in accordance with Rule 51 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (the Rules.) It then invited submissions from the landlord and gave the tenant the opportunity to respond.[9]Having reconsidered the original submissions together with new submissions from both the landlord and the tenant in response, the tribunal subsequently issued a new decision at £1300 per month with effect from 3 November 2021. 3

REASONS

[10]The tribunal has decided not to review its Decision and refuses permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal because it is of the opinion that there is no realistic prospect of a successful appeal in this case.[11]The tribunal did not wrongly interpret or wrongly apply the relevant law or take into account irrelevant considerations or fail to take account of relevant consideration or evidence.[12]For the benefit of the parties and of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (should a further application for permission to appeal be made), the tribunal has set out its comments on the specific points raised in the requests for permission to appeal. REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL[13]For the benefit of the parties and of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the tribunal records below its comments on the grounds of appeal, set out in the same order as in the Landlord letter seeking permission to appeal. Ground 1: The review was done by the same officer who make the last decision, so the revised decision is unlikely to be objective[14]The tribunal considered both the evidence originally provided and that provided subsequently by the landlord and the tenant. The tribunal set the initial decision aside and re-made the decision (pursuant to rule 51) with an open mind, taking into account all the evidence Ground 2: Evidence submitted was not considered[15]The tribunal did not disregard the two letting estimates (paragraph 37) provided by the landlord, which did not form part of the previous evidence. It made a modest deduction from the estimated market rent of £100 to reflect the ‘fairly tatty state of the property, in particular the basic nature of the kitchen and bathrooms and the blown double-glazed units.’ Nothing that the landlord has stated in his appeal suggests to the tribunal that it was inaccurate in its observations during the inspection nor in consideration of the evidence in making this deduction.[16]The hyperlinks send with the landlord submission to the properties for rent on Right Move were unfortunately not provided to the tribunal by its case officer. However, the tribunal does not believe that it would have made a different decision had this been the case. 4 Ground 3 – The property is a furnished let and this was not taken into account[17]The landlord informed the tribunal that he provided the washing machine and the fridge freezer but that he had told the tenant that he would not be responsible for the maintenance of these. He also said he left a cooker which the tenant subsequently removed. It would not be unusual for white goods to be provided in modern lets. The only item of furniture provided was a double bed. This does not in the view of the tribunal constitute a furnished let. Furthermore, it is debatable as to whether a furnished property would let necessarily for more – many tenants preferring to provide their own furniture. Ground 4 – Complaints of overcrowding by neighbours[18]The tribunal does not see the relevance of this to the determination of rental levels beyond any potential impacts of over occupation on the state of repair. The deduction from the open market rent was modest as referred to in paragraph 14 and related to matters which would not be impacted by any potential over occupation. The tenant refutes this claim, and the tribunal did not see any evidence of this during their inspection. Ground 5 – Tenant did not copy the landlord into his response to the landlord’s original submission[19]The tribunal received Dr Shah’s submission of 16 June 2022 in which Dr Shah said that he had not received Mr Satar’s claim and response form. It responded by email on 20 June 2022 enclosing the application form and Mr Satar’s submission and gave Dr Shah until 27 June 2022 to provide any additional response. Mary Hardman Regional Surveyor 11 October 2022 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL As the application for permission to appeal the decision is refused, an application for permission to appeal against that refusal may be made to the Upper Tribunal under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. An application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission must be made within 14 days of the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent you the refusal of permission. --- decision_2.pdf --- © CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/00KA/MNR/2021/0062 HMCTS code : P:PAPERREMOTE Property : 59 Wadhurst Avenue Luton LU3 1UQ Applicant : Mr Abdul & Mrs Malali Satar Respondents Represented by : Dr Mehmood Shah Promptmove Type of application : Section 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Determination of market rent payable. Tribunal member(s) Date of decision : : Mary Hardman FRICS IRRV(Hons) Peter Roberts FRICS CEnv 28 March 2022 DECISION Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which the parties are taken to have consented to. The form of remote hearing was P:PAPERREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because all issues could be determined on paper. The submissions were in an individual bundle produced by the Applicant. Nothing was received from the representative for the landlord. I have noted the contents and my decision is below. 2 Decision:[1]The Tribunal determined a rent of £1250 per calendar month to take effect from 3 November 2021 Reasons Background[2]The Landlord by a notice in the prescribed form dated 18 September 2021 proposed a new ‘rent’ of £1500 per month to be effective from 3 November 2021. On 2 November 2021 the tenant referred the Notice to the Tribunal. This was in lieu of the previous rent of £1300 per month.[3]Parties were requested to complete a pro forma supplying details of the accommodation on a room-by-room basis, the features of the property (central heating, white goods, double glazing, carpets and curtains) and other property attributes and any further comments that they may wish the tribunal to take into consideration. This could include any repairs and improvements that had been made, any comments on the condition of the property and rentals of similar properties – should they wish to rely on these.[4]The determination would take place based on the submissions from both parties unless either party requested a hearing. No further evidence was submitted by either the landlord or the tenant. Neither party requested a hearing. The Property[5]The tribunal inspected the property on 7 March 2022. The tribunal was accompanied by the tenants, Mr Abdul & Mrs Malali Satar[6]The property is a two-storey brick built, dormer style semi-detached house with a tiled roof located in a relatively quiet road some 2.2 miles from Luton town centre.[7]The accommodation comprises an entrance hall, kitchen, lounge, /dining room, bathroom with bath/wc/whb to the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom with an electric shower and wc to the first floor.[8]There is a small garden to the front and a reasonable sized garden to the rear. There is a single garage to the side of the property.[9]The property has gas fired central heating system. The tenant reported that it was temperamental and didn’t always work. 3[10]The property was somewhat tired and in need of refurbishment. There was evidence of damp in the property – predominantly in the downstairs bathroom and rear first floor bedroom. The tenant had purchased a dehumidifier to seek to deal with the damp in the first- floor bedroom. It was also evident the roof covering to the ground floor porch needed repairing.[11]The kitchen was basic and dated, with the cooker and washer provided by the tenant.[12]Whilst the property had double glazing, seals to the windows in some of the rooms were blown causing condensation to be evidenced between the panes. This was noted in the kitchen, lounge/dining room, first floor bathroom, rear bedroom and front bedroom. The Tenancy[13]The tenancy appears to be a statutory periodic monthly assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 which began on 3 February 2020. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies in respect of Landlord’s repairing obligations.[15]By virtue of section 14 (1) Housing Act 1988 the Tribunal is to determine a rent at which the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured periodic tenancy- (a) having the same periods as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; (b) which begins at the beginning of the new period specified in the notice; (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of rent) are the same as those of the subject tenancy[16]By virtue of section 14 (2) Housing Act 1988 in making a determination the Tribunal shall disregard –(a) any effect on the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant;(b) any increase in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a relevant improvement (as defined by section 14(3) Housing Act 1988) carried out by a tenant otherwise than as an obligation; and(c) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house due to the failure of the tenant to comply with any terms of the subject tenancy. 4 Representation – Tenant[17]In their initial submission the tenant provided a number of photographs of the double-glazing units showing moisture between the panes.[18]They also sent a photograph of the dehumidifier, which the tribunal noted in the first-floor rear bedroom during their inspection. Representations – Landlord[19]No submissions were received from the landlord or their representatives. Determination[20]The Tribunal determines a market rent for a property by reference to rental values generally and to the rental values for comparable properties in the locality in particular. It does not take into account the present rent and the period of time which that rent has been charged nor does it take into account the percentage increase which the proposed rent represents to the existing rent. In addition, the legislation makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot take into account the personal circumstances of either the landlord or the tenant.[21]The Tribunal assesses a rent for the Property as it is on the day of the hearing disregarding any improvements made by the tenant but taking into account the impact on rental value of disrepair (if any) which is not due to a failure of the tenant to comply with the terms of the tenancy.[22]No comparable evidence was provided by either party.[23]In the circumstances the tribunal is therefore required to use its experience and expertise to arrive at the open market value of the property in the condition which most modern properties in the area would be expected to let.[24]The tribunal is of the opinion that this would be in the region of £1350 per month[25]However, adjustment needs to be made both for the state of repair and the lack of white goods, which would normally be provided with property rentals.[26]The tribunal has made a deduction of £100 per month to reflect the fairly tatty state of the property including the basic kitchen and bathrooms and the blown double-glazed unit. 5[27]On the basis of the above the tribunal determines the rent for the subject property at £1250 per calendar month with effect from 3 November 2021[28]In the event that the tenant has paid in excess of this amount from 3 November 2021 the landlord is required to repay the difference within 28 days of the date of this decision. Mary Hardman FRICS IRRV(Hons) Regional Surveyor Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property 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 (Lands Chamber), 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. 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 property 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 (Lands Chamber).