Dorrington Residential Ltd (Landlord)ApplicantMs Carol Bavin (Tenant)RespondentMS CAROL BAVINTenantDORRINGTON RESIDENTIAL LIMITEDLandlord
Before
Mr J A Naylor FTPIValuer ChairmanDate 15 June 2026Property: FT 51 ,FLORIN COURT, 6-9, CHARTERHOUSE SQUARE, LONDON, EC1M 6EU
REASONS
[1]On 6th August 2025 the landlord sent an RR1 application for rent registration of a fair rent to the Rent Officer. The previous rent was determined by the First Tier Tribunal on 3rd October 2023 at £24,358.59.[2]On 1st October the Valuation office registered a fair rent of £23,100.00 effective from 3rd October 2025.[3]In a letter dated 3rd December 2025 the landlord objected to the Valuation Officer’s registration.[4]By a letter dated 17th December 2025 the Valuation Office referred the matter to the Tribunal referring the registered rent for determination.[5]On 21st January 2026, the Tribunal issued directions to the parties requiring them to produce any evidence on which they wish to rely in support of their respective cases including by use of a reply form. The matter was set down for determination on the papers unless either party requested a hearing which neither did. The landlord was directed to return the reply form with any documents upon which it wished to rely by 4th February 2026. The tenant was directed to do likewise by 18th February 2026 with the landlord given further opportunity to respond by 25th February 2026.[6]Both parties took the opportunity to make submissions.[7]In consideration of the fair rental value of the subject property, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all documentation before it, including letters and reply forms returned by the parties.[8]In particular, the tenant queried the date of the increase with the Valuation Officer, in an email dated 23rd September 2025. The Valuation Officer explained that the rent was last registered on 3rd October 2023, but that the landlord chose to increase the rent incrementally. This, the Valuation Officer explained, means that while the rent has only recently been increased, the re-registration can be pursued after a period of two years from the date of the las registration namely 3rd October 2023.[9]By way of a letter dated 27th January the Tenant says that the kitchen and bathroom are antiquated they provide photographic evidence of this and state that the heating has not work properly since October 2025 although the issues are currently under investigation .[10]In the landlord’s RR1 application, dated 6th August 2025, they confirm that services are £2,475 per quarter and that they seek a rent of £29,229.60 to include services.[11]The landlord has confirmed that tenancy began initially in January 1987 and by way of a supporting statement, states that Savills (who are making the application on behalf of the landlord) have a large number of clients and have seen a 7.5% increase in rent over 2025. They claim that there is no scarcity because landlords in the rented sector are experiencing voids, indicating a slack demand. They provide service charge accounts of Florin Court Management Ltd for the year ending March 2022 submitted we believe in error .Within the RR1 application dated 5th August 2025 the service charge is stated as £2475.00 per quarter ( £9,900.00 per year )[12]It is noted that the tenant is responsible for repair and maintenance as detailed within Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.[13]Neither a hearing, nor an inspection were requested by the landlord or tenant.[14]During their consideration of the paperwork the Tribunal determined that there was an issue relating to the means in which the rent was to be determined; specifically, whether the rent paid was inclusive of services and fuel or whether a payment for services was made separately . As this affected the way in which the indexation for capping was applied and thus the final figure for the cap the tribunal wrote to the parties on 23rd April 2026 giving the parties an opportunity to make representations on the issue .[15]The tenant replied by return and advised that they make no payment to the Landlord for fuel and that they pay EDF separately on a monthly basis. Further they advised that they were not liable to pay service charge.[16]No response was received from the landlord and the Landlord was chased by phone and email . It came to light that correspondence should perhaps have been addressed to a different individual in the landlords’ agents offices and thus copy correspondence was issued accordingly and a further 10 days granted for response. No response was received.[18]As this issue was fundamental to the calculation of rent the Tribunal wrote to the parties on 9th June 2026 advising that the application ( made by the Landlord) may be struck out if no response from the landlords was received by 24th June 2026.[19]Finally on 10th June 2026 a response was received from the Landlord representative , Savills . They confirmed that the Landlord did not receive payment for fuel and that the tenant had separate heating for which they paid the supplier directly. They also confirmed that the tenant did not pay service charge directly nor pay the Landlord separately for services .[20]On this basis the tribunal proceeded to make its determination.[21]After consideration of the evidence in front of it the Tribunal has concluded that the rent paid by the tenant is to include the cost of services provided by the landlord , that the rent is not variable and that indexation should be applied to to the full rent registered on 3rd October 2023. It is on this basis that the Tribunal has completed its calculation of the cap to be applied under the provisions of Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. Hardship[22]No submissions relating to hardship were received from the tenant.[23]On 18th March 2026 on the basis of paper submissions and without a hearing, the Tribunal determined the fair rent of the above property at £27,936.00 per annum. The Law[24]When determining a fair rent the Tribunal in accordance with the Rent Act 1977 Section 70, had regard to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property. Section 70 is set out in the Appendix below.[25]In Spathholme Limited vs. Chairman of the Greater Manchester, etc. Tribunal (1995) 24HLR 107 and Curtis vs. London Rent Assessment Tribunal (1999) QB92 the Court of Appeal emphasised that ordinarily a fair rent is the market rent for the property discounted for “scarcity” (i.e. that element of 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 purpose of determining 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). The Property[26]From Google Maps and information included on the rent register as well as information provided by the parties, the Tribunal were able to determine the following: The property comprises a self-contained flat.[28]From the Rent Register the flat is understood to comprise: A purpose built self contained flat on the fourth floor . The accommodation comprises a lounge 2 bedrooms kitchen and bathroom / WC.[29]The property is in a busy and popular location within central London well placed for transport and shopping facilities. Valuation[30]From Spathholme Limited vs. Chairman of the Greater Manchester etc. Tribunal, other registered rents are not relevant as a starting point because they are not market rents.[31]The Tribunal must first determine the market rent for the property of this size, in this location and in its current condition. It must also disregard the personal circumstances of either party. The Tribunal notes that the Rent Officer adopted a starting point of £3,000 per month (£36,000 per annum). Using its own general knowledge of the Greater London property market, the Tribunal disagrees with the Rent Officer and considers that the market rent for the property of this size and in this location, in good condition, with the usual white goods, carpets and decorated to a good condition would be £42,000.00 per year. However, all white goods, carpets and curtains are presumed to be the property of the tenant. In addition, a tenant of a Rent Act property has more onerous repairing obligations than those under an assured shorthold tenancy.[32]Lastly, the Tribunal is mindful of the fact that there are differences in the condition of the subject property and property that is available to let on the market.[33]The Tribunal therefore made the following deductions from the market rent of £42,000.00 per annum to reflect those differences: Market rent (per year) £42,000.00 Less deductions for:• Tenant’s decorative and repairing liability• No whitegoods• No floor coverings• Dated kitchen• Dated bathroom. Less 23%= £9,660.00 Adjusted rent £32,340.00[34]The Tribunal found that there was substantial scarcity in the locality of Greater London, having taken judicial notice of long housing association and local authority waiting lists in Greater London. It therefore made a deduction in respect of scarcity of 20% (£6,468.00 per annum) from the adjusted market rent to reflect this element. This left a final rental figure of £25,872.00 per annum.[35]The Tribunal is then required to apply the Rent Act (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. The calculation was included on the decision sheet and produced a maximum fair rent of £27,936.00 per annum.[36]The Tribunal must register the lower of the adjusted market rent or maximum fair rent as the fair rent for the property. In this instance the maximum fair rent produces a lower figure, and the Tribunal therefore registered the rent at £25,872.00 per annum with effect from 15th June 2026 being the date of the Tribunal decision. Name: Mr J A Naylor FRICS FTPI Date: 15th June 2026 ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its Decision by virtue of the Rule 36(2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below: If a party wishes to appeal against this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the Decision to the person making the application. 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. APPENDIX Rent Act 1977 Section 70 Determination of Fair Rent(1) In determining, for the purpose of this part of this Act, what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling house, regard shall be had to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) and, in particular, to – (a) the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling house… (b) if any furniture is provided for use under the tenancy, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture and… (c) any premium, or sum in the nature of a premium, which has been or may be lawfully required or received on the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of the tenancy)(2) For the purpose of the determination, it shall be assumed that the number of persons seeking to become tenants of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to rent) of the regulated tenancy is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in the locality which are available for letting on such terms.(3) There shall be disregarded: (a) any disrepair or other defect attributable to a failure by the tenant under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of his to comply with any terms thereof; (b) any improvement carried out, otherwise than in pursuance of the terms of the tenancy; by the tenant under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of his; (c) If any furniture is provided for use under the regulated tenancy, any improvement to the furniture by the tenant under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of theirs or, as the case may be, any deterioration in the condition of the furniture due to any ill-treatment by the tenant, any person residing or lodging with them, or any sub-tenant of theirs. (d) In any case where under Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the landlord or a superior landlord is liable to pay Council Tax in respect of a hereditament (“the relevant hereditament”) of which the dwelling-house forms part, regard shall also be had to the amount of Council Tax which, as at the date on which the application to the rent officer was made, was set by the billing authority – (i) for the financial year in which that application was made, and (ii) for the category of dwelling within which the relevant hereditament fell on that date, but any discount or other reduction affecting the amount of Council Tax payable shall be disregarded. In subsection (3d) above – “hereditament” means a dwelling within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. “billing authority” has the same meaning as in that part of the Act, and “category of dwellings” has the same meaning as in Section 30(1) and (2) of that Act.] “improvement” includes the replacement of any fixture or fitting. “premium” has the same meaning as in part IX of this Act and “sum in the nature of a premium” means – (i) any such loan as is mentioned in Section 119 or 120 of this Act, (ii) any such excess over the reasonable price of furniture as is mentioned in Section 123 of this Act, and (iii) any such advance payment or rent as is mentioned in Section 126 of this Act.(4) ……………………………………………………………. --- decision_2.pdf --- FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/OOAU/F77/2026/0018 Hearing Type : By Way of Written Representations Property : Flat 51, Florin Court, 6-9 Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6EU Applicant : Dorrington Residential Ltd (Landlord) Respondent : Ms Carol Bavin (Tenant) Type of Application : Referral of a Registration of Fair Rent under the Rent Act 1977 Tribunal Member : Mr J A Naylor FTPI Valuer Chairman Date of Decision : 15th June 2026 FULL REASONS 2 REASONS Background[1]On 6th August 2025 the landlord sent an RR1 application for rent registration of a fair rent to the Rent Officer. The previous rent was determined by the First Tier Tribunal on 3rd October 2023 at £24,358.59.[2]On 1st October the Valuation office registered a fair rent of £23,100.00 effective from 3rd October 2025.[3]In a letter dated 3rd December 2025 the landlord objected to the Valuation Officer’s registration.[4]By a letter dated 17th December 2025 the Valuation Office referred the matter to the Tribunal referring the registered rent for determination.[5]On 21st January 2026, the Tribunal issued directions to the parties requiring them to produce any evidence on which they wish to rely in support of their respective cases including by use of a reply form. The matter was set down for determination on the papers unless either party requested a hearing which neither did. The landlord was directed to return the reply form with any documents upon which it wished to rely by 4th February 2026. The tenant was directed to do likewise by 18th February 2026 with the landlord given further opportunity to respond by 25th February 2026.[6]Both parties took the opportunity to make submissions.[7]In consideration of the fair rental value of the subject property, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all documentation before it, including letters and reply forms returned by the parties.[8]In particular, the tenant queried the date of the increase with the Valuation Officer, in an email dated 23rd September 2025. The Valuation Officer explained that the rent was last registered on 3rd October 2023, but that the landlord chose to increase the rent incrementally. This, the Valuation Officer explained, means that while the rent has only recently been increased, the re- registration can be pursued after a period of two years from the date of the las registration namely 3rd October 2023.[9]By way of a letter dated 27th January the Tenant says that the kitchen and bathroom are antiquated they provide photographic evidence of this and state that the heating has not work properly since October 2025 although the issues are currently under investigation . 3[10]In the landlord’s RR1 application, dated 6th August 2025, they confirm that services are £2,475 per quarter and that they seek a rent of £29,229.60 to include services.[11]The landlord has confirmed that tenancy began initially in January 1987 and by way of a supporting statement, states that Savills (who are making the application on behalf of the landlord) have a large number of clients and have seen a 7.5% increase in rent over 2025. They claim that there is no scarcity because landlords in the rented sector are experiencing voids, indicating a slack demand. They provide service charge accounts of Florin Court Management Ltd for the year ending March 2022 submitted we believe in error .Within the RR1 application dated 5th August 2025 the service charge is stated as £2475.00 per quarter ( £9,900.00 per year )[12]It is noted that the tenant is responsible for repair and maintenance as detailed within Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.[13]Neither a hearing, nor an inspection were requested by the landlord or tenant.[14]During their consideration of the paperwork the Tribunal determined that there was an issue relating to the means in which the rent was to be determined; specifically, whether the rent paid was inclusive of services and fuel or whether a payment for services was made separately . As this affected the way in which the indexation for capping was applied and thus the final figure for the cap the tribunal wrote to the parties on 23rd April 2026 giving the parties an opportunity to make representations on the issue .[15]The tenant replied by return and advised that they make no payment to the Landlord for fuel and that they pay EDF separately on a monthly basis. Further they advised that they were not liable to pay service charge.[16]No response was received from the landlord and the Landlord was chased by phone and email . It came to light that correspondence should perhaps have been addressed to a different individual in the landlords’ agents offices and thus copy correspondence was issued accordingly and a further 10 days granted for response. No response was received. 4[18]As this issue was fundamental to the calculation of rent the Tribunal wrote to the parties on 9th June 2026 advising that the application ( made by the Landlord) may be struck out if no response from the landlords was received by 24th June 2026.[19]Finally on 10th June 2026 a response was received from the Landlord representative , Savills . They confirmed that the Landlord did not receive payment for fuel and that the tenant had separate heating for which they paid the supplier directly. They also confirmed that the tenant did not pay service charge directly nor pay the Landlord separately for services .[20]On this basis the tribunal proceeded to make its determination.[21]After consideration of the evidence in front of it the Tribunal has concluded that the rent paid by the tenant is to include the cost of services provided by the landlord , that the rent is not variable and that indexation should be applied to to the full rent registered on 3rd October 2023. It is on this basis that the Tribunal has completed its calculation of the cap to be applied under the provisions of Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. Hardship[22]No submissions relating to hardship were received from the tenant.[23]On 18th March 2026 on the basis of paper submissions and without a hearing, the Tribunal determined the fair rent of the above property at £27,936.00 per annum. The Law[24]When determining a fair rent the Tribunal in accordance with the Rent Act 1977 Section 70, had regard to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property. Section 70 is set out in the Appendix below. 5[25]In Spathholme Limited vs. Chairman of the Greater Manchester, etc. Tribunal (1995) 24HLR 107 and Curtis vs. London Rent Assessment Tribunal (1999) QB92 the Court of Appeal emphasised that ordinarily a fair rent is the market rent for the property discounted for “scarcity” (i.e. that element of 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 purpose of determining 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). The Property[26]From Google Maps and information included on the rent register as well as information provided by the parties, the Tribunal were able to determine the following: The property comprises a self-contained flat.[28]From the Rent Register the flat is understood to comprise: A purpose built self contained flat on the fourth floor . The accommodation comprises a lounge 2 bedrooms kitchen and bathroom / WC.[29]The property is in a busy and popular location within central London well placed for transport and shopping facilities. Valuation[30]From Spathholme Limited vs. Chairman of the Greater Manchester etc. Tribunal, other registered rents are not relevant as a starting point because they are not market rents.[31]The Tribunal must first determine the market rent for the property of this size, in this location and in its current condition. It must also disregard the personal circumstances of either party. The Tribunal notes that the Rent Officer adopted a starting point of £3,000 per month (£36,000 per annum). Using its own general knowledge of the Greater London property market, the Tribunal disagrees with the Rent Officer and considers that the market rent for the property of this size and in this location, in good condition, with the usual white goods, carpets and decorated to a good condition would be £42,000.00 6 per year. However, all white goods, carpets and curtains are presumed to be the property of the tenant. In addition, a tenant of a Rent Act property has more onerous repairing obligations than those under an assured shorthold tenancy.[32]Lastly, the Tribunal is mindful of the fact that there are differences in the condition of the subject property and property that is available to let on the market.[33]The Tribunal therefore made the following deductions from the market rent of £42,000.00 per annum to reflect those differences: Market rent (per year) £42,000.00 Less deductions for:• Tenant’s decorative and repairing liability• No whitegoods• No floor coverings• Dated kitchen• Dated bathroom. Less 23%= £9,660.00 Adjusted rent £32,340.00[34]The Tribunal found that there was substantial scarcity in the locality of Greater London, having taken judicial notice of long housing association and local authority waiting lists in Greater London. It therefore made a deduction in respect of scarcity of 20% (£6,468.00 per annum) from the adjusted market rent to reflect this element. This left a final rental figure of £25,872.00 per annum.[35]The Tribunal is then required to apply the Rent Act (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. The calculation was included on the decision sheet and produced a maximum fair rent of £27,936.00 per annum.[36]The Tribunal must register the lower of the adjusted market rent or maximum fair rent as the fair rent for the property. In this instance the maximum fair rent produces a lower figure, and the Tribunal therefore registered the rent at £25,872.00 per annum with effect from 15th June 2026 being the date of the Tribunal decision. 7 Name: Mr J A Naylor FRICS FTPI Date: 15th June 2026 8 ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its Decision by virtue of the Rule 36(2)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and these are set out below: If a party wishes to appeal against this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the Decision to the person making the application. 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. APPENDIX Rent Act 1977 Section 70 Determination of Fair Rent(1) In determining, for the purpose of this part of this Act, what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling house, regard shall be had to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) and, in particular, to – (a) the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling house… (b) if any furniture is provided for use under the tenancy, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture and… 9 (c) any premium, or sum in the nature of a premium, which has been or may be lawfully required or received on the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of the tenancy)(2) For the purpose of the determination, it shall be assumed that the number of persons seeking to become tenants of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to rent) of the regulated tenancy is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in the locality which are available for letting on such terms.(3) There shall be disregarded: (a) any disrepair or other defect attributable to a failure by the tenant under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of his to comply with any terms thereof; (b) any improvement carried out, otherwise than in pursuance of the terms of the tenancy; by the tenant under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of his; (c) If any furniture is provided for use under the regulated tenancy, any improvement to the furniture by the tenant under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of theirs or, as the case may be, any deterioration in the condition of the furniture due to any ill-treatment by the tenant, any person residing or lodging with them, or any sub-tenant of theirs. (d) In any case where under Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the landlord or a superior landlord is liable to pay Council Tax in respect of a hereditament (“the relevant hereditament”) of which the dwelling-house forms part, regard shall also be had to the amount of Council Tax which, as at the date on which the application to the rent officer was made, was set by the billing authority – (i) for the financial year in which that application was made, and (ii) for the category of dwelling within which the relevant hereditament fell on that date, but any discount or other reduction affecting the amount of Council Tax payable shall be disregarded. 10 In subsection (3d) above – “hereditament” means a dwelling within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. “billing authority” has the same meaning as in that part of the Act, and “category of dwellings” has the same meaning as in Section 30(1) and (2) of that Act.] “improvement” includes the replacement of any fixture or fitting. “premium” has the same meaning as in part IX of this Act and “sum in the nature of a premium” means – (i) any such loan as is mentioned in Section 119 or 120 of this Act, (ii) any such excess over the reasonable price of furniture as is mentioned in Section 123 of this Act, and (iii) any such advance payment or rent as is mentioned in Section 126 of this Act.(4) …………………………………………………………….