52 Labrador Drive, Poole, Dorset BH15 1UX CHI/00HP/MNR/2019/0048

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CHI/00HP/MNR/2019/0048
Between
Mr Jason Anthony Bruno & Mrs Stephanie Audrey BrunoTenantKayvan BidadLandlord
Before
Mr D Banfield FRICSMr M Donaldson FRICS MCIArb MAEDate 10 September 2019Property: 52 Labrador Drive, Poole, Dorset, BH15 1UX

REASONS

[1]The Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £960.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £925 per month to take effect from 30 July 2019.[2]On 9 July 2019 the Tribunal received an application from the Tenant under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.[3]On 24 July 2019 the Tribunal made Directions requiring the landlord to send a statement to the tenants and to the Tribunal supporting the application for an increase in rent. The Tenants were also required to send a statement to the Landlord and to the Tribunal in support of his objection. The landlord was also asked to indicate whether he wished to be present at the inspection.[4]The Tribunal office informed the parties that the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on an inspection of the property and written representations subject to the parties requesting an oral hearing. No oral hearing was requested and the application is therefore determined on the basis of the written representations received and with the benefit of an inspection. Inspection[5]The Landlord did not reply to the Tribunal’s enquiry regarding his presence at the inspection and the inspection was therefore carried out in the presence of Mrs Bruno and family members.[6]We found the property to be a modestly sized modern inner terrace house situated on an estate of similar and somewhat larger properties. There was a small grassed front area and the front door lead into the living room with open riser stairs up and a modest fitted kitchen off. A casement door at the rear lead to the small patio garden with timber shed. On the first floor were two small bedrooms and a combined bathroom/WC.[7]We noted the dated and dilapidated kitchen cupboards, the failed double-glazed unit adjoining the casement door, the poor water pressure affecting the use of the hand shower and the dilapidated fencing in the patio area. The parties’ representations[8]Written representations from the Tenants included letting details of a 2-bedroom house in Taverner Close available for £900 pcm and a semi-detached house in Vallis Close for £895 pcm together with a reference to the defects referred to above and that the loft has an infestation of mice. They considered that the rent should be £900 pcm.[9]The landlord did not submit written representations. The law[10]S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy- (a) which is a periodic tenancy 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 the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded- (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 carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or (c) (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (d) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates or the following conditions are satisfied, namely- (a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling-house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit.(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation. Consideration and valuation[11]The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the parties is not relevant to this issue.[12]The tenants have provided letting details of two similar 2-bedroom properties in the general area which from the “Zoopla” details appear broadly comparable. Whilst the subject property suffers from the defects referred to at paragraph 7 above it is not possible to determine how its condition compares with the properties put forward as comparable.[13]The Tribunal finds the guidance provided by the asking rents of the comparables persuasive and considers that the rental value of the subject property is £900 pcm.[14]On the information available to the Tribunal in respect of the comparable properties it is not possible to make any adjustment to reflect the wants of repair referred to and we therefore determine the rent at £900 pcm. Determination[15]The Tribunal therefore determines that the rent at which the property would be expected to let on the terms of the existing tenancy and in its existing condition is £900.00 per month payable from 30 July 2019 being the date referred to in the Landlord’s notice. D Banfield FRICS (Chairman) M J F Donaldson FRICS MCIArb MAE 10 September 2019 PERMISSION TO APPEAL[1]A person wishing to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.[3]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. --- decision_2.pdf --- © CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CHI/00HP/MNR/2019/0048 Property : 52 Labrador Drive, Poole, Dorset BH15 1UX Type of Application : Decision in relation to Housing Act 1988 Date of Decision : 10 September 2019 Reasons for the decision Background[1]The Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £960.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £925 per month to take effect from 30 July 2019.[2]On 9 July 2019 the Tribunal received an application from the Tenant under Section 13(4) (a) of the Housing Act 1988.[3]On 24 July 2019 the Tribunal made Directions requiring the landlord to send a statement to the tenants and to the Tribunal supporting the application for an increase in rent. The Tenants were also required to send a statement to the Landlord and to the Tribunal in support of his objection. The landlord was also asked to indicate whether he wished to be present at the inspection.[4]The Tribunal office informed the parties that the Tribunal intended to determine the rent based on an inspection of the property and written representations subject to the parties requesting an oral hearing. No oral 2 hearing was requested and the application is therefore determined on the basis of the written representations received and with the benefit of an inspection. Inspection[5]The Landlord did not reply to the Tribunal’s enquiry regarding his presence at the inspection and the inspection was therefore carried out in the presence of Mrs Bruno and family members.[6]We found the property to be a modestly sized modern inner terrace house situated on an estate of similar and somewhat larger properties. There was a small grassed front area and the front door lead into the living room with open riser stairs up and a modest fitted kitchen off. A casement door at the rear lead to the small patio garden with timber shed. On the first floor were two small bedrooms and a combined bathroom/WC.[7]We noted the dated and dilapidated kitchen cupboards, the failed double-glazed unit adjoining the casement door, the poor water pressure affecting the use of the hand shower and the dilapidated fencing in the patio area. The parties’ representations[8]Written representations from the Tenants included letting details of a 2- bedroom house in Taverner Close available for £900 pcm and a semi- detached house in Vallis Close for £895 pcm together with a reference to the defects referred to above and that the loft has an infestation of mice. They considered that the rent should be £900 pcm.[9]The landlord did not submit written representations. The law[10]S14 Determination of Rent by First-tier Tribunal(1) Where, under subsection (4) (a) of section 13 above, a tenant refers to a First-tier Tribunal a notice under subsection (2) of that section, the Tribunal shall determine the rent at which, subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, the Tribunal consider that the dwelling-house concerned might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy- (a) which is a periodic tenancy 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; 3 (c) the terms of which (other than relating to the amount of the rent) are the same as those of the tenancy to which the notice relates; and (d) in respect of which the same notices, if any, have been given under any of Grounds 1 to 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, as have been given (or have effect as if given) in relation to the tenancy to which the notice relates.(2) In making a determination under this section, there shall be disregarded- (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 carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, if the improvement- was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord, or (c) (ii) was carried out pursuant to an obligation to his immediate landlord being an obligation which did not relate to the specific improvement concerned but arose by reference to consent given to the carrying out of that improvement; and (d) any reduction in the value of the dwelling-house attributable to a failure by the tenant to comply with any terms of the tenancy.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, in relation to a notice which is referred by a tenant as mentioned in subsection (1) above, an improvement is a relevant improvement if either it was carried out during the tenancy to which the notice relates or the following conditions are satisfied, namely- (a) that it was carried out not more than twenty-one years before the date of service of the notice; and (b) that, at all times during the period beginning when the improvement was carried out and ending on the date of service of the notice, the dwelling-house has been let under an assured tenancy; and (c) that, on the coming to an end of an assured tenancy at any time during that period, the tenant (or, in the case of joint tenants, at least one of them) did not quit.(4) In this section "rent" does not include any service charge, within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but, subject to that, includes any sums payable by the tenant to the landlord on account of the use of furniture, in respect of council tax or for any of the matters referred to in subsection (1) (a) of that section, whether or not those sums are separate from the sums payable for the occupation. 4 Consideration and valuation[11]The Tribunal is required to determine the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy. The personal circumstances of the parties is not relevant to this issue.[12]The tenants have provided letting details of two similar 2-bedroom properties in the general area which from the “Zoopla” details appear broadly comparable. Whilst the subject property suffers from the defects referred to at paragraph 7 above it is not possible to determine how its condition compares with the properties put forward as comparable.[13]The Tribunal finds the guidance provided by the asking rents of the comparables persuasive and considers that the rental value of the subject property is £900 pcm.[14]On the information available to the Tribunal in respect of the comparable properties it is not possible to make any adjustment to reflect the wants of repair referred to and we therefore determine the rent at £900 pcm. Determination[15]The Tribunal therefore determines that the rent at which the property would be expected to let on the terms of the existing tenancy and in its existing condition is £900.00 per month payable from 30 July 2019 being the date referred to in the Landlord’s notice. D Banfield FRICS (Chairman) M J F Donaldson FRICS MCIArb MAE 10 September 2019 PERMISSION TO APPEAL[1]A person wishing to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.[3]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to 5 appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.