2nd Floor Flat 7 Matheson Road London W14 8SN LON/00AN/F77/2019/0106
DECISION
The registered rent with effect from 31 July 2019 is £640 per month. © CROWN COPYRIGHT Background[1]On 8 March 2019 the landlord applied to the rent officer for registration of a fair rent of £925 per month for the above property.[2]The rent payable at the date of the application was £630.50 per week which had been registered by the rent officer on 21 April 2017 with effect from the 25 April 2017.[3]On 7 May 2019, the rent officer registered a fair rent of £699.50 per week with effect from the same date.[4]The tenant objected to the rent determined by the Rent Officer.[5]A hearing was held at 10 Alfred Place London WC1E 7LT attended by the tenant. The landlord’s representative arrived after the end of the hearing. The Tribunal explained that the hearing was over and could not be re-opened as the tenant had already left the building. In any event the landlord had confirmed in writing previously that the rent registered by the rent officer was acceptable.[6]The tribunal inspected the flat later on 26 July 2019. The Evidence[7]Mr Kardula said that he had lived at the premises for about 50 Years. The landlord had reconfigured his flat, removing the bath/wc and installing a shower/wc in what was originally part of his kitchen about 20 years ago.[8]The flat had only single glazing, the white goods, carpets and curtains were his own. The landlord’s floor covering in the kitchen and bathroom were about 20 years old. There was no gas to his flat although there was a gas supply to the other flats in the building which were all centrally heated. The electric wiring was very old and there were very few sockets. He used his own electric fires to heat the flat. He had added two wall cupboards in the kitchen and some wall tiling.[9]He was of the opinion that the flat was worth about £400 per month but had no evidence to which he could refer the tribunal. Inspection[10]The property is on the second floor of a terraced house, in a residential area close to local shops and restaurants.[11]The accommodation comprises two rooms, small kitchen and shower/wc. The flat has good natural light but is unmodernised and unheated. The electric wiring is old, the number of power points is inadequate for modern living, there was evidence of water ingress on the ceiling of the shower room which was cramped and the skirting in the bedroom was rotten in part. The entrance lobby in the flat was exceptionally small to have four doors opening onto it.[12]The landlord had supplied furniture at the beginning of the tenancy however those items present at the inspection added little if any value to the rental value of the flat. The law[13]When determining a fair rent the Tribunal, 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.[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 0rdinarily 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 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[15]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 in the condition that is considered usual for such an open market letting. As no evidence was supplied by the parties, it relied on its own general knowledge of rents in Hammersmith. Having done so, it concluded that the likely market rent for the flat would be £1300 per month.[16]However, it was first necessary to adjust the hypothetical rent of £1300 per month to allow for the considerable differences between the terms and condition considered usual for such a letting and the condition of the actual property at the date of the inspection, ignoring the tenant’s improvements, (disregarding the effect of any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title). The Tribunal considered that these differences required a deduction of £500 per month.[17]This leaves an adjusted market rent for the subject property of £800 per month. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was substantial scarcity in Greater London for similar sized properties and therefore made a deduction of 20% from the market rent to reflect this element. The uncapped fair rent is £640 per week. Decision[18]The uncapped fair rent initially determined by the Committee, for the purposes of section 70, was accordingly £640 per week.[18]The uncapped fair rent is below the maximum rent payable, by virtue of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 the maximum fair rent therefore the Order does not apply. (Details of the calculation are provided on the back of the decision form).[19]Accordingly the sum of £640 per week will be registered as the fair rent with effect from 31 July 2019 being the date of the Tribunal's decision. Chairman: Evelyn Flint Dated: 9 August 2019