Flat 2, 22 Callcott Road London NW6 7EA LON/00AE/F77/2025/0310
REASONS
[1]1 By an application of 31 July 2025 the landlord applied to the Rent Officer for registration of a fair rent. The rent stated as payable at the time of the application was £433.50 including 31.13 service charge. The landlord sought a new rent of £650 pcm. The registered rent from 9 June 2020 was £433.50 pcm.[2]2 With effect from 24 September 2025, the Rent Officer registered a fair rent of £623.50 pcm including a service charge of £52.02 pcm, with an[3]2 uncapped fair rent of £744 pcm. There was an objection to the new fair rent from the tenant. The First Tier Tribunal was notified of this objection and a request for a fresh determination of the rent.[5]3 Directions were issued by the Tribunal, for case progression. Neither party requested a hearing.[7]4 Standard Reply Forms were issued by the Tribunal prior and both parties invited to complete and return them. The Tribunal received the completed forms and is grateful to the parties for the representations made.[8]5 The tenant drew attention to the partial double glazing to her flat, the Property, facing the rear of the building. There was reportedly persistent rising damp to the external wall in part and a more general “bug infestation” to several flats at the Building. The Property and the communal areas of the building were looking run-down with some 25 years of light maintenance only.[9]6 The landlord referenced the shower door replacement at the Property and minor works to keep the Building at the Property up to minimum standard.[11]7 The Tribunal did not inspect the Property. The Tribunal was however able to externally view it from Google Streetview (@ June 2022). The Property appeared to be the end terraced house 1890’s purpose built late Victorian, since converted into several self contained flats. There is restricted on street and no off street parking, in what is an established residential area of similar ages and conditions. The road appears to be a side street not subject to heavy road traffic.[12]8 Externally the building containing the Property, appeared to be in good condition, with fair faced brick finish to the front external walls. There was a double pitched slated roof, over the building, hipped over the front bays. The Property is a studio flat with kitchenette and shower room/WC off a single main room. The flat is at the rear of the building. There is a communal garden/ yard to the front; a private garden by the Property at the rear.[13]9 There appears to be wooden double hung sash single glazed windows and full central heating. The shower room and kitchenette are assumed to be functional but basic. The floor coverings to communal areas were said to be worn. The curtains and some of the white goods were provided by the tenant, the other white goods by the landlord.[14]3 10 The Tribunal is grateful for such representations as were received from the parties.[16]11 When determining a fair rent the Committee, in accordance with the Rent Act 1977, section 70, had regard to all the circumstances including the age, location and state of repair of the property. It also disregarded 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.[17]12 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 emphasized[18](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[19](b) 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).[20]13 Where the condition of a property is poorer than that of comparable properties, so that the rents of those comparables are towards twice that proposed rent for the subject property, it calls into question whether or not those transactions are truly comparable. Would prospective tenants of modernized properties in good order consider taking a tenancy of an un-modernised house in poor repair and with only basic facilities or are they in entirely separate lettings markets? The problem for the Tribunal is that the only evidence of value levels available to us is of modernised properties. We therefore have to use this but make appropriate discounts for the differences, rather than ignore it and determine a rent entirely based on our own knowledge and experience, whenever we can.[21]14 On the evidence of the comparable lettings and our own general knowledge of market rent levels in and around Brent, the Tribunal accepts that the Property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1,200 pcm. This then, is the appropriate starting point from which to determine the rent of the Property as it falls to be valued.[22]4 15 The Tribunal noted the absence of double glazed units to the windows, assumed functional but basic kitchen and bathroom fittings and older floor coverings to communal areas. There was a persistent problem with bed bugs in the building and minor rising damp to the Property. A deduction for these shortcomings amounts to £200, so that the adjusted market rent is £1000 pcm.[23]16 The Tribunal also has to consider the element of scarcity and whether demand exceeded supply. The Tribunal found that there was scarcity in the locality of Brent for this type of property and makes a further deduction of 20% from the adjusted market rent, leaving an uncapped fair rent of £800 pcm.[24]17 The fair rent to be registered on this basis alone would be £800 pcm, but, the new rent is limited by the statutory Maximum Fair Rent Cap calculation. The MFRC limits any increase to the change in RPI (set two months prior at each date), between the date of the last registration of a fair rent and the current, plus 5%. The calculations are shown in the MFR form and this caps the new fair rent at £676.86 pcm. As the MFR cap is below the uncapped fair rent above, the new fair rent will be capped at £676.86 pcm. The new fair rent is therefore registered at this figure.[25]18 The Rent Act makes no allowance for the Tribunal to take account of hardship arising from the new rent payable compared with the existing rent registered. The landlord is entitled but, not compelled, to charge the tenants rent at the registered figure from the effective date below. The landlord may not charge more than the fair rent but may charge less if it wishes to, or is otherwise required to, under other regulations which may limit its increases in rent as a landlord.[26]Chairman N Martindale FRICS Dated 13 January 2026[28]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 either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.[29]Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the[30]5 application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).[31]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).