Ground & Basement Maisonette, 36 Finborough Road, London SW10 9EG LON/00AW/F77/2024/0209
REASONS
[1]On 16 January 2024, the landlord applied to the Rent Officer for registration of a fair rent of £1,524.45 per month for the above property. The rent payable at the time of the application was £1,127 per month. On 20 February 2024, the rent officer registered a fair rent of £4,130.50 per quarter (£1,376.83 per month) with effect from 22 March 2024. By an email dated 9 April 2024, the tenant objected to the rent determined by the Rent Officer and the matter was referred to the Tribunal.[2]On 16 July 2024 the Tribunal issued directions setting the matter down for determination by written representations, unless either party requested a hearing which neither did. The parties were each directed to return a proforma Reply form to the Tribunal and each other. Neither party provided the completed proforma Reply form. 2 Inspection and the property[3]The Tribunal did not feel an inspection of the property was necessary and that the matter could be decided on the papers. Neither party requested an inspection.[4]The property is a circa 19th century two bedroom mainsonette with two rooms in the basement together with a bathroom and WC whilst the ground floor comprises two rooms and a kitchen. The property also benefits from a rear garden. There is no central heating.[5]The Rent Officer’s inspection note makes reference to the kitchen being a good size but unmodernsied. The sash window in the kitchen was replaced by the landlord with a new double glazed sash wondow and that the boiler has also been replaced by the landlord.[6]Whilst areas of the property have been carpeted this has been done by the tenant several years ago. A large newly renovated bay window lights up the front room.[7]The bathroom is small and unmodernised.[8]At basement level damp proofing works have been undertaken by the landlord together with replacement onf skirting on trated walls and the replacement of the wooden double doors leading to the garden with a new double glazed set of doors.[9]The landlord has also undertaken levelling works to the rear garden and renewal of the gully surround. Evidence The Landlord’s Case[10]The landlord provided submissions in relation to the works that had been undertaken by the landlord and that assessment of the property should be done on the current condition of the property rather than on historic condition. The Tenant’s Case[11]The tenant’s submissions related on the whole to comments on why the property had the second most expensive rent in the SW10 area. A copy of the current EPC Certificate for the property was also provided. Clarification was also provided in the form of an email from the tenant as to their tenancy commencement date being prior to 31 December 1976. Rent Officer 3[12]The Tribunal was supplied with documents sent to the rent officer with the application for registration including rental levels in the area and notes relating to the inspection of the property undertaken by the rent officer. 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 (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property.[14]In Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester etc. Tribunal (1995) 28 HLR 107 and Curtis v London Rent Assessment Tribunal [1999] QB 92 the Court of Appeal emphasised 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 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]As neither party had provided any rental comparables it was necessary for the Tribunal to rely on its own knowledge and experience. Whilst the tenant provided information relating to the registered rent for properties in the local area, the Tribunal would not consider these for the purposes of establishing the market rent as per the requirements set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 above.[16]The Tribunal considered that the subject property would command a rent of approximately £2,500 per month if it had been in the condition considered usual for a modern letting at a market rent. However, the subject property is not in such a condition and must also be valued as if the tenants’ improvements have not been carried out.[17]Therefore, it was necessary to adjust that hypothetical rent of £2,500 per month to allow for the differences between the condition considered usual for such a letting and the condition of the actual property as noted by the evidence provided. The Tribunal considered that adjustments from that rent are required as follows: No White Goods ) 3% No floor coverings / curtains ) 4% Tenant’s decoration liability ) 3% No central heating ) 5% 4 Unmodernised kitchen ) 10% Unmodernised bathroom ) 10% This gave rise to a total adjustment of 35% or £875 per month.[18]This leaves an adjusted market rent for the subject property of £1,625 per month.[19]The Tribunal found that there was substantial scarcity in the locality of Greater London and therefore made a deduction of 20% (£325 per month) from the adjusted market rent to reflect this element.[20]It follows that the Tribunal found that the uncapped fair rent was £2,500 per month less £1,200 per month and this equates to £1,300 per month or £3,900 per quarter. Effect of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 (“The Order”)[21]The property is subject to capping under the above Order. The calculations are included in the Notice of Decision. The capped rent is £4,244.50 per quarter. Services[22]There were no services that were part of the rental calculation that needed to be considered as part of this decision. Decision[23]The fair rent determined by the Tribunal, for the purposes of section 70, was accordingly £3,900 per quarter, with effect from 19 September 2024 being the date of the Tribunal’s decision. Mrs S Phillips MRICS Valuer Chair 20 January 2025 ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL• The Tribunal is required to set out rights of appeal against its decisions 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 5 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.