13 Bitterne Way, Southampton SO19 4EB CHI/00MS/F77/2019/0026

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CHI/00MS/F77/2019/0026
Between
Mrs Judith SmithTenantNorthumberland & Durham Prop TrustLandlord
Before
Mr D Banfield FRICSMr M Donaldson FRICS MCIArb MAEDate 24 June 2019Property: 13 Bitterne Way, Southampton, Hampshire, SO19 4EB

REASONS

[1]On 6 March 2019 the landlord made an application to register the rent of the property at £212.50 per week.[2]On 8 April 2019 the Rent Officer registered the rent at £180.00 per week exclusive of rates with effect from 28 May 2019.[3]On 9 May 2019 the landlord objected, and the matter was referred to the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber. Inspection[4]We inspected the property in the company of the tenant. The landlord did not attend. We found the property to be a two-storey detached house built of brick under a tiled roof in the 1930s.[5]The accommodation comprises a hall with stairs up, a front living with bay window, a rear living room with double Upvc doors to the rear garden and a kitchen. On the first floor 2 double and 1 single bedroom and a bathroom/wc.[6]There are gardens front and rear with an outside WC and store and front driveway parking for 1 car.[7]Heating and hot water is provided by a gas boiler in the hall. The windows and external doors are UPVC double glazed units, the kitchen and bathroom fittings are in need of replacement. The tenant has provided a garden shed and electric shower unit in the bathroom.[8]We noted areas of damp throughout. Representations/ Hearing[9]In representations dated 3 June 2019 Grainger plc on behalf of the landlord accepted that the property may not be equivalent to modern standards, but that work was undertaken when reported by the tenant. In support of their proposed rent of £212.50 per week they referred to 2 similar properties available to let; Glenfield Avenue and Bitterne Crescent both available at £265 per week which provided the starting point for their valuation.[10]The rent of £265 per week was then adjusted by “Using the theoretical figure of £5.00pw per benefit/improvement” of the comparable property for Modernised bathroom and kitchen, floor coverings, white goods/appliances and garage resulting in a deduction of £25. “The Proposed rent of £212.50 is still £27.50 cheaper than the lowest market rent tenancy currently available within 1 mile of the subject property.” The law[11]When determining a fair rent the Tribunal, in accordance with the Rent Act 1977, section 70, must have regard to all the circumstances including the age, location and state of repair of the property. It must also disregard the effect of(a) any relevant tenant's improvements and(b) the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title under the regulated tenancy, on the rental value of the property.[12]Case law informs the Tribunal;a. 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 - other than as to rent - to that of the regulated tenancy) andb. That for the purposes of determining the market rent, assured tenancy (market) rents are usually appropriate comparables. (These rents may have to be adjusted where necessary to reflect any relevant differences between those comparables and the subject property). Valuation[13]Thus, in the first instance the Tribunal determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let today on the terms and in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. We considered the letting details provided and adopted the landlord’s starting point of £265 per week.[14]However, the rent referred to in the above paragraph is on the basis of a modern open market letting with where the tenant has no liability to carry out repairs or decorations and the landlord supplies white goods, carpets and curtains. In this case the Tenant supplies white goods, carpets and curtains, the bathroom and kitchen require replacement, the property is affected by damp and the tenant is responsible for internal decoration. We noted the deductions made by the landlord but do not consider them to be sufficient.[15]In making its own adjustments to reflect the lower bid a prospective tenant would make to reflect the differences between the property in a modern lettable state and that as found by the Tribunal we make a deduction of 25% arriving at a rent of £198.75 per week.[16]We then considered the question of scarcity as referred to in paragraph 12a above and determined that there was none in this area of urban Hampshire.[17]We therefore determined that the uncapped Fair Rent is £198.75 per week exclusive of council tax and water rates with effect from 24 June 2019.[18]However, as this amount is above the rent calculated in accordance with the Maximum Fair Rent Order details of which are shown on the rear of the Decision Notice we determine that the lower sum of ££190.50 per week is registered as the fair rent with effect from today’s date. D Banfield FRICS (Chairman) M J F Donaldson FRICS MCIArb MAE 24 June 2019[1]A person wishing to appeal this 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. 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.[2]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.[3]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/00MS/F77/2019/0026 Property : 13 Bitterne Way, Southampton SO19 4EB Type of Application : Decision in relation to Rent Act 1977 Date of Decision : 24 June 2019 Reasons for the decision Background[1]On 6 March 2019 the landlord made an application to register the rent of the property at £212.50 per week.[2]On 8 April 2019 the Rent Officer registered the rent at £180.00 per week exclusive of rates with effect from 28 May 2019.[3]On 9 May 2019 the landlord objected, and the matter was referred to the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber. Inspection[4]We inspected the property in the company of the tenant. The landlord did not attend. We found the property to be a two-storey detached house built of brick under a tiled roof in the 1930s.[5]The accommodation comprises a hall with stairs up, a front living with bay window, a rear living room with double Upvc doors to the rear 2 garden and a kitchen. On the first floor 2 double and 1 single bedroom and a bathroom/wc.[6]There are gardens front and rear with an outside WC and store and front driveway parking for 1 car.[7]Heating and hot water is provided by a gas boiler in the hall. The windows and external doors are UPVC double glazed units, the kitchen and bathroom fittings are in need of replacement. The tenant has provided a garden shed and electric shower unit in the bathroom.[8]We noted areas of damp throughout. Representations/ Hearing[9]In representations dated 3 June 2019 Grainger plc on behalf of the landlord accepted that the property may not be equivalent to modern standards, but that work was undertaken when reported by the tenant. In support of their proposed rent of £212.50 per week they referred to 2 similar properties available to let; Glenfield Avenue and Bitterne Crescent both available at £265 per week which provided the starting point for their valuation.[10]The rent of £265 per week was then adjusted by “Using the theoretical figure of £5.00pw per benefit/improvement” of the comparable property for Modernised bathroom and kitchen, floor coverings, white goods/appliances and garage resulting in a deduction of £25. “The Proposed rent of £212.50 is still £27.50 cheaper than the lowest market rent tenancy currently available within 1 mile of the subject property.” The law[11]When determining a fair rent the Tribunal, in accordance with the Rent Act 1977, section 70, must have regard to all the circumstances including the age, location and state of repair of the property. It must also disregard the effect of(a) any relevant tenant's improvements and(b) the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title under the regulated tenancy, on the rental value of the property.[12]Case law informs the Tribunal;a. 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 - other than as to rent - to that of the regulated tenancy) and 3b. That for the purposes of determining the market rent, assured tenancy (market) rents are usually appropriate comparables. (These rents may have to be adjusted where necessary to reflect any relevant differences between those comparables and the subject property). Valuation[13]Thus, in the first instance the Tribunal determined what rent the landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let today on the terms and in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. We considered the letting details provided and adopted the landlord’s starting point of £265 per week.[14]However, the rent referred to in the above paragraph is on the basis of a modern open market letting with where the tenant has no liability to carry out repairs or decorations and the landlord supplies white goods, carpets and curtains. In this case the Tenant supplies white goods, carpets and curtains, the bathroom and kitchen require replacement, the property is affected by damp and the tenant is responsible for internal decoration. We noted the deductions made by the landlord but do not consider them to be sufficient.[15]In making its own adjustments to reflect the lower bid a prospective tenant would make to reflect the differences between the property in a modern lettable state and that as found by the Tribunal we make a deduction of 25% arriving at a rent of £198.75 per week.[16]We then considered the question of scarcity as referred to in paragraph 12a above and determined that there was none in this area of urban Hampshire.[17]We therefore determined that the uncapped Fair Rent is £198.75 per week exclusive of council tax and water rates with effect from 24 June 2019.[18]However, as this amount is above the rent calculated in accordance with the Maximum Fair Rent Order details of which are shown on the rear of the Decision Notice we determine that the lower sum of ££190.50 per week is registered as the fair rent with effect from today’s date. D Banfield FRICS (Chairman) M J F Donaldson FRICS MCIArb MAE 24 June 2019[1]A person wishing to appeal this 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 4 with the case. 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.[2]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.[3]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.