Studley House Melton Road Melton Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 1NH CAM/42UG/MNR/2022/0083
REASONS
[1]The First Tier Tribunal received an application from the tenant before 31 August 2022. Subsequently the Directions dated 26 September 2022 explained and confirmed that the application was accepted by the Tribunal, in time.[2]Notice of a new rent dated 28 July 2022, was served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act) proposing a new rent of 2 £1,850 per calendar month (pcm) with effect from and including 31 August 2022. The passing rent was £1,700 pcm. Directions[3]Directions were issued on 26 September 2022. Both sides were invited to complete the standard ‘Reply Form’ and if they wished to rely on rentals for similar properties to provide details. A hearing was not requested but a determination was set down for the week commencing 7 November 2022. Inspection[4]Owing to the current approach of the Tribunal to the ongoing Covid ‘pandemic’ restrictions, the Tribunal would not now normally inspect the Property. It was understood that the tenancy was due to end soon on account of the ill health of the landlord at the time of the application. Hearing[5]Neither side requested a hearing. In addition to the Reply form, both parties submitted other detailed and helpful materials including a copy of the landlord’s notice, the tenancy and the condition report (including many monochrome prints on the interior and exterior) at the grant of lease in 2020. The printed version of these documents were all received and considered by the Tribunal.[6]The extent of accommodation was clarified. The Property is an Edwardian detached house of some character, set in its own modest grounds. Whilst it appears to have been formerly in a rural area it was now within a more modern residential area within Melton. Accommodation is said to be on 2 levels, ground and first. According to Reply Form and Condition Survey provided there were GF: 3 reception rooms, kitchen, WC. FF: 4 rooms, bathroom/wc and shower/ wc. There was no double glazing but full central heating. Outside there was a double garage, workshop, sizeable gardens, and ample off-road parking.[7]The landlord provided curtains and carpets and white goods to the kitchen. The condition was described as fair to good in the condition report from 2020. No particular defects were identified in the condition report or more specifically around the time of rent review.[8]Neither party provided details of properties to let or let at or around the time of the valuation date.[9]The Tribunal therefore could only have regard to the current AST when determining the new market rent and that document confirmed “This Agreement will constitute the entire agreement between the Parties. Any prior understanding or representation of ay kind preceding the 3 date of this Agreement will not be binding on either Party except to the extent incorporated in this Agreement.” The current AST did not reserve any unusual rights restrictions or reservations to either party. The tenancy allowed for alienation subject to prior landlord’s consent. Law[10]In accordance with the terms of S14 of the Act the Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which it considers the property might reasonably be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the property falls to be valued as it stands; but, assuming that the property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition. Decision[11]Bsed on the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in and around Woodbridge, Suffolk, the Tribunal determines that the subject property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £2,050 pcm, fully fitted and in good order. However, the Tribunal takes account of the absence of double glazing and the higher costs of heating the Property arising in particular as it is a detached house. Taking this into account the Tribunal deducts £200 pcm, to leave a new rent of £1850 pcm.[12]The new rent of £1,850 will take effect from and including 31 August 2022, being the date given in the landlord’s notice. Chairman N Martindale Dated 7 November 2022 --- decision_2.pdf --- © CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/42/UG/MNR/2022/0083 Property : Studley House Melton Road, Melton, Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 1NH Applicant : Rebecca Dunwoody Representative : None Respondent : Ms Jocelyn Saunders & Ms Noelle Gore (Landlords) Representative : G&K Estates Type of application : Application by the Appellant for permission to appeal Tribunal : N. Martindale FRICS Date & Venue : 9 December 2022 Cambridge County Court, 197 East Road, Cambridge CB1 1BA Date of decision : 9 December 2022 DECISION 2 Decision[1]The Tribunal has received the tenant’s application for a review and permission to appeal, dated and received 29 November 2022 and determines that:(a) it will not review its decision of 7 November 2022 (‘the Decision’); and(b) permission to appeal, will not be considered.[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, the respondent 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]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); or by email: lands@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Reason for the Decision[4]The tenant’s application form making an appeal states at section 5c The tribunal took account of irrelevant considerations, or failed to take account of relevant considerations or evidence, or there was a substantial procedural defect. In the text box below this, the applicant includes the following statements.[5]“Under section 8 of the decision the tribunal stated that neither party provided details of properties to let or let at or around the time of the valuation date. I had submitted details of 5 properties available to let in this area at the time. Some properties have been let and some are still available but have been reduced in price, with the most similar reduced from £1,800pcm to £1,500pcm. None of the properties I submitted exceeded £1,900pcm rent. And:[6]In addition, under section 7 the tribunal has considered the Landlord has provided white goods to the kitchen, however this amounts only to a dishwasher. The fridge, freezer, washer and dryer are provided by myself, the tenant. And:[7]Furthermore, there does not appear to have been any consideration to the current condition of the property, namely the garden which is supposed to be maintained by the landlord, with references only made to its appearance in 2020. 3[8]The Tribunal reviewed the contents of the unbound loose leaf ‘bundle’ received. It contained:[9]1. Printed formal reference of the case to the Tribunal from the Tribunal office to the Member.[10]2. Printed email from the landlord’s agent to the Tribunal office “Please find attached copies of documents as requested for the determination of a market rent case CAM/42UG/MNR/2022/0083..[11]3. Copy of the Directions to parties dated 26 September 2022 from Legal Officer Lyn Ajanaku. 4. Blank issued Reply Form for each party.[13]5. The completed ‘Form 6’ “Application referring a Notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy...” dated 26 August 2022, signed by the applicant.[14]6. The completed ‘Form 4’ “Landlords notice proposing a new rent under an Assured Periodic Tenancy’ from £1700 to £1850 wef 31 August 2022, dated 28 July 2022.[15]7. Copy of an unsigned AST of the Property.[16]8. Copy of the CPI Annual Index from the ONS.[17]9. A ‘Zoopla’ ‘Valuation’ of the Property showing a ‘Rental Estimate’ of £2,050 pcm with a ‘rental range’ of £1,750 to £2,350 pcm.[18]10. An ‘On the Market’ ‘Valuation’ at October 2022 with an ‘Estimated rent achievable per month’ of £2,767 and am estimated range achievable per month of £2,014 - £3,519’.[19]11. Another copy of the unsigned AST for the Property.[20]12. The completed ‘Reply Form’ dated 10 October 2022 from the landlord. It refers to the ‘white goods’ of the ‘cooker range’ and ‘dishwasher’ as included in the letting.[21]13. An 87No. A4 page ‘Inventory & Check-In Report’. It is marked as prepared 27 January 2020 and amended by the assessor on 28 January 2022. It was prepared by the Inventory Shop for the letting agent. It contains in excess of 200No. monochrome photographs of the interior and exterior of the Property. These include several which show a substantial freestanding gas fired ‘Aga style’ double sized stove and references a dishwasher. No mention is made of a fridge freezer, washer or drier being included in the let, by the landlord. The report comments on the construction, layout, finishes and condition of the interior and exterior of the property. Although the Inventory is signed by the assessor it is unsigned by either party.[22]The Tribunal did not receive a completed ‘Reply Form’ from the tenant dealing with the Property. 4[23]No other documents were received by the Tribunal.[24]In light of this review of the case file, the Tribunal did not receive any details of any comparable properties let or to let from either party, as stated in the original decision on the market rent. This is contrary to the assertion made in the appeal form by the tenant and set out again at paragraph 5 above.[25]In light of the review of the references in the Inventory and in the Reply Form from the landlord, the Tribunal correctly only took account of the white goods, identified as the dish washer and the cooker range; no others. This is contrary to the assertion made in the appeal form by the tenant and set out again at paragraph 6 above.[26]In light of the review of the references to the condition of the property, the Tribunal correctly relied on the ‘Inventory and Check In Report’ prepared for both parties at the lease start, as the basis for assessing condition. No representations were received on the accuracy of the contents of this Report, especially regards the garden, from either party. This is contrary to the assertion made in the appear form by the tenant and set out again at paragraph 7 above.[27]The Lands Chamber’s Practice Direction, which came into force on 19 October 2020, says this at paragraph 10.14: “Permission to appeal will be granted if the Tribunal considers that the proposed appeal has a realistic prospect of success, unless the sum or issue involved is so modest or unimportant that an appeal would be disproportionate. Permission may also be granted if the Tribunal considers there is some other good reason for an appeal.”[28]The decision will not be reviewed nor will an application for permission to appeal be considered. The refusal of a review and of consideration for granting permission to appeal is because there is no realistic prospect of success and there is no other good reason for an appeal. N Martindale FRICS 9 December 2022