Mr Stefano Alberici and Miss Lorna LovedayApplicantMiss Elizabeth ReesRespondent
Before
Tribunal Judge DuttonMiss M Krisko BSc (Est Man)Respondent : Miss Elizabeth Rees Representative : County Properties (Hatfield) Ltd. for the ApplicantCounty Properties (Hatfield) Ltd. Application under s13(4) Housing for the RespondentDate 30 April 2020Property: Hertfordshire AL9 5ES Mr Stefano Alberici and Miss LornaType of application: Act 1988 (the Act) Tribunal Judge Dutton
DECISION
2 Decisions of the tribunal The tribunal determines that the market rent is £850 per month effective from 9th February 2020. The application[1]The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act) following the service of a notice by the landlord proposing a rent increase to £900 per month from 9th February 2020 the rent previously payable was £850 per month. The Notice of Increase was dated 6th December 2019 with a stating date for the new rent of 9th February 2020 Background[2]On 7th February 2020 the tenants, Mr Stefano Alberici and Miss Lorna Lovedays, made an application to this tribunal challenging the increase. The application indicated that the tenants had been in occupation of the Property since 9th September 2011 and had acquired a statutory periodic tenancy since a written assured shorthold tenancy had expired on 8th June 2017 (the Agreement). The repairing obligations are as contained in the Agreement.[3]The tenants, through Miss Loveday lodged an undated submission. In that submission she said that the rent increase was “unfair and unrealistic” and that the rent proposed would be “above the market rate when the property is not in line with market standard”. In addition, the tenants averred that the rent increase was above that which was outlined in the contract at clauses 1.7.8, which provided for an RPI increase. In addition, they provided some comparable properties of which four where in Northcotts, although only two were the same accommodation, that is to say two bed roomed.[4]As a result of this last point was asked the parties to provide submissions as to whether we had jurisdiction by reason of s13(1)(b) of the Act. The landlord has played no part in these proceedings. The tenants, through Miss Loveday provided further submissions just before the 14 day deadline. Those submissions argue that we did have jurisdiction setting out four points and relying on the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act. On their assertion, the statutory periodic tenancy that arose on the termination of their contractual tenancy was a new one and that the rent determination provisions in the written agreement were superseded by the provisions of Section 5 of the Act thus enabling a notice to be served by the landlord under section 13. The submission cited details from websites indicating what constituted a statutory periodic tenancy, how to determine whether that was the case and the provisions for increasing rent in those 3 circumstances. In addition reference was made to three authorities. The first was Contour Homes Limited v Rowen, the second Chouhan v Earls High school [case which we referred to the parties] and the third, London District Properties Management limited v Ferguson and others.[5]Having considered the submissions made by the tenants and in the absence of any submission on behalf of the respondent we are prepared to accept in this case that the assured shorthold tenancy, which expired on the 8th of June 2017 converted to a statutory periodic tenancy the more so as this is the phraseology used by the landlords agents in correspondence seeking to increase the rent in the previous years. We should say that there has been an increase in rent from the cessation of the Agreement of £50 per month on an annual basis and this has not, until now, been challenged by the tenants. Inspection[6]We did conduct a drive by inspection of the property which confirmed the description set out in the application The building comprises three floors built in the 1970s, of standard brick and flat roof construction, surrounded by communal gardens which appear to be well maintained. The vehicular entrance is via a very complicated network of roads through a housing estate. There is allocated parking as well as a garage block and also 4 garages under the eastern wing of the flats. There is also covered bike shed. The external decorations are generally in a good condition, all windows appearing to be UPVC.[7]There appears to be communal TV system and security lighting. The location, via the road network, appears to be at the end of a large estate, but there is a pedestrian gate at the western boundary which leads onto the main road virtually opposite the railway station (25 minutes to Kings Cross). It is therefore very desirable for London commuting. This way also provides quick access to the shops in old Hatfield. From the photographs provided by the tenants it appears that both the kitchen and bathroom are dated. There is electric heating. There are repairs required and it would seem have been needed for some time.[8]In addition the tenants asked that any rent that we might determine, if it were above that being the current rent paid, should be fixed at today's date that is to say the date of the decision and not back dated . The Law[9]We must first determine that the landlord’s notice under section 13(2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. 4[10]The Housing Act 1988, section 14 requires us to determine the rent at which it considered that the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy.[11]In so doing we are required by section 14(1), to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2) of that Act. Valuation decision[12]We have taken into account all that was provided to us by the tenants. Having concluded that we do have jurisdiction to determine the rent we must consider what rent this property would fetch on the open market in this locality and in this condition.[13]Considering the comparable properties supplied by the tenants and our knowledge and experience of rents in the Hatfield area and in this locality would suggest that they sit somewhere between £800 and £900 per month. The Property is very well situated for commuters to London and for access to the old town of Hatfield. We do accept that it is not in the best condition as evidenced by the photographs provided by the tenants, which were not challenged.[14]Taking these matters into account we find that the rent currently being paid of £850 per month is the right rent for the Property going forward and determine that the monthly rent effective from 9th February 2020 should be £850. We see no need to date the effective date of payment from the date of this decision as we are merely continuing the rent being paid.[15]We should also comment on the tenants’ submission that the rental increase provided for in the Agreement should somehow limit the rent to be paid. With respect to the tenants they cannot have it both ways. Either the rent provisions remain, which would mean s13(1)(b) would bite or, on their argument, this is a statutory periodic tenancy and the rent terms in the Agreement are superseded by the law. We have for the purposes of this case, in the absence of any submissions on the part of the landlord, accepted that argument. Name: Tribunal Judge Dutton Date: 30th April 2020 5 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).