480 Norwich Road Ipswich IP1 6JS CAM/42UD/F77/0039

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CAM/42UD/F77/0039
Between
Mr L Crosby & Mr A CrosbyApplicantMr M LastRespondent
Before
Mrs E Flint FRICSDate 2 February 2026Property: 480 Norwich Road Ipswich IP1 6JSType of application: Determination of the registered rent under Section 70 Rent Act 1977

DECISION

This has been a hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties. A face to face hearing was not held because, no-one requested the same and I determined that the matter could be dealt with on the papers. The documents which I was referred to were in a bundle the contents of which I have recorded. The registered rent with effect from 2 February 2026 is £149 per week. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Background[1]On 29 September 2025 the landlord applied to the rent officer for registration of a fair rent of £185 per week for the above property.[2]The registered rent at the date of the application was £151 per week which had been registered by the rent officer on 13 November 2023 with effect from 24 November 2023.[3]On 14 November 2025, the rent officer registered a fair rent of £163 per week with effect from 24 November 2025.[4]The landlord objected to the registered rent on 28 November 2025.[5]The tribunal issued Directions on 8 December 2025. The landlord and tenant. The Inspection[6]As there was no answer when I visited the house I was only able to carry out an external inspection of the front and part of the side of the property.[7]The property is a semi detached house c1930 situated on a busy main road and bus route. There were double yellow lines in this section of the road. There was a narrow, poorly surfaced driveway to the side, double wrought iron gates led into the rear garden where there was a garage. The pedestrian path leading to the front door was in poor condition.[8]The house appears to be in poor condition. There were spalling bricks to the right of the front door, the pointing in the same area and below the entrance door was in in need of attention; the first floor bay was pebbledashed and appeared to indicate some movement due to the cracking at the junction with the main front wall; the single glazed timber window frames did not appear to have been painted for many years. The gutters were the original cast iron gutters, and the timber soffits were in poor condition. The Evidence[9]The landlord suggested that it would be appropriate to split the difference between the recently registered rent and the proposed rent, giving a figure of £175 per week. He stated that the house had not changed since 2013 and the tenant had declined to have any changes regarding double glazing and heating which would increase the rent. The registered rent was about 50% of a fully refurbished property.[10]The tenant stated that the house was in very poor state of repair. He asserted that the landlord did not respond to messages regarding repairs. He listed the items which he stated were outstanding in a letter dated 12 December 2025. These were as follows: hot water system not functioning (this had been outstanding for over four years), rotten back door allowing water ingress, plaster missing in smaller downstairs room, hole in kitchen ceiling, damaged flooring, black mould and missing plaster in pantry, front gutter overflows in heavy rain and an infestation of pigeons in the gable at the front of the house.[11]He stated that there was dampness throughout the house. He had installed secondary glazing to the front of the house in 1980. He had provided a storm porch in 1985 and renovated it in 2025. Internally the kitchen and bathroom had been refitted by himself some years ago.[12]The rent officer provided his inspection notes from an inspection in November 2025. The property was generally in poor condition, the roof had been replaced in in 1988, external decorations had been completed in 2004 when the house was rewire4d with surface mounted wiring. There were only a limited number of power points. The fourth bedroom was a box room 2m x2.4m. The Law[13]When determining a fair rent I, in accordance with section 70 of the Rent Act 1977, must have regard to all the circumstances including the age, location and state of repair of the property. I also must disregard the effect of any relevant tenant’s improvements and the effect of any disrepair or any other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title under the regulated tenancy, on the rental value of the property. I am unable to take into account the tenant’s personal circumstances when assessing the fair rent.[14]In Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester etc Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee (1999) QB 92 the Court of appeal emphasised: That ordinarily a fair rent is the market rent for the property discounted for scarcity i.e. that element, if any, of the market rent, that is attributable to there being a significant shortage of similar properties in the wider locality available for letting on similar terms to that of a regulated tenancy, and That for the purposes of determining the market rent, assured tenancy market rents are usually appropriate comparables; adjusted as necessary to reflect any relevant differences between the comparables and the subject property. Valuation[15]In the first instance I determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let today in the condition and on the terms considered usual for such an open market letting. As neither party provided any rental evidence I relied on my own general knowledge of rents within an area to the west of Ipswich and concluded that if the house was in the condition usually found on the open market it would let for £300 per week.[16]However, it was first necessary to adjust the hypothetical rent of £300 per week to allow for the differences between the terms and condition considered usual for such a letting and the condition of the actual property at the valuation date, ignoring any tenant’s improvements, (disregarding the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title). I determined that the hypothetical rent should be reduced by £135 to reflect the lack of central heating, modernisation, outstanding repairs including a lack of a functioning hot water system and damp throughout the main rooms, floor coverings, curtains and white goods and difference in terms and conditions.[17]This leaves an adjusted market rent for the subject property of £165 per week. I am of the opinion that there is substantial scarcity for similar sized properties in the commuter belt of East Anglia and therefore made a deduction of approximately 10% for scarcity. The uncapped fair rent is £150 per week. Decision[18]The uncapped fair rent initially determined for the purposes of section 70, is below the maximum fair rent of £171.50 per week calculated under the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. Therefore, the rent will not be capped under the provisions of the Order.[19]Accordingly, the sum of £150 per week will be registered as the fair rent with effect from 2 February 2026 being the date of my decision. Chairman: Evelyn Flint Dated: 2 February 2026 ANNEX - 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands chamber 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. Please note that if you are seeking permission to appeal against a decision made by the Tribunal under the Rent Act 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this can only be on a point of law. If the First-tier Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).