Flat 3, 16 Collingham Place, London, SW5 0PZ LON/00AW/MNR/2024/0269

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00AW/MNR/2024/0269
Between
Mr John BiddolphApplicantTriton Limited c/o Hamlins LLPRespondentMr John BiddolphTenantTriton Limited c/o Hamlins LLPLandlord
Before
Judge TuejeDate 14 February 2025Property: Flat 3, 16 Collingham Place, London, SW5 0PZ

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,280.00 per calendar month with effect from 5th June 2024. ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) 2 SUMMARY REASONS Background[1]On 24th April 2024 the landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,838.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,850.00 per month, to take effect from 5th June 2024.[2]By an application dated 25th April 2024, made under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the tenant referred the landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent. The tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 25th April 2024.[3]In a determination dated 20th August 2024 (the “original determination”) the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to deal with the substantive application. By a notice dated 16th September 2024, the tenant sought permission to appeal against that decision. On 29th October 2024, and in light of the recent decision in Bank Holdings Limited v Lupo [2024] UKUT 316 (LC), the Tribunal reviewed the original determination, set it aside, and directed there should be a substantive determination of the tenant’s application. Inspection[4]As part of the determination, the Tribunal carried out an inspection of the property on 20th January 2025. The tenant was present, and Ms Saunders attended the inspection on behalf of the landlord.[5]The subject property is a furnished studio flat on the ground floor of a five storey building. The parties agree the property is 360 ft2.[6]We found the property to be modernised and in a good condition. The tenant complained the air conditioning was not working properly, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that this is an intermittent fault as it appeared to be working when switched on during the inspection. Evidence[7]The Tribunal considered the tenant's evidence from the London Rent Map showing a median market rent for a studio flat in SW5 as £1,473 per month in November 2024. He also provided rental information for other properties: the closest in size (at 384 ft2) was located approximately ½ mile away, and advertised at £1,885 per month.[8]The Tribunal also considered the landlord’s comparable evidence, including a ground floor studio and a third floor studio at 18 Collingham Place. Both were smaller than the subject property, and were advertised to let at £75/ft2 and £93/ft2 respectively. Determination and Valuation[9]Having consideration of the above evidence provided by the parties and of our own expert, general knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would 3 be in the region of £2,400 per calendar month. This equates to £80/ft2 .We have taken into account that the rent includes hot water and the internet.[10]The full valuation is shown below: Market Rent £2,400 per calendar month Less Less adjustment for the intermittent air conditioning (approx. 5%) (£120) £120 £2,280.00[11]The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,280.00 per calendar month and this equates to £27,300 per annum. Decision[12]The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £2,280.00 per calendar month.[13]The Tribunal received no evidence of hardship, and therefore directs the new rent of £2,280.00 per month to take effect on 5th June 2024, being the date specified in the landlord’s notice proposing a new rent. Chairman: Judge Tueje Date: 14th February 2025 APPEAL PROVISIONS These summary reasons are provided to give the parties an indication as to how the Tribunal made its decision. If either party wishes to appeal this decision, they should first make a request for full reasons and the details of how to appeal will be set out in the full reasons. Any request for full reasons should be made within a month. Any subsequent application for permission to appeal should be made on Form RP PTA. --- decision_3.pdf --- Case Reference : LON/00AW/MNR/2024/0269 Property : Flat 3, 16 Collingham Place, London, SW5 0PZ Tenant : John Biddolph Landlord : Triton Limited Date of Objection : 25th April 2024 Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal Member : Judge Tueje Mrs A Flynn MA MRICS Date of Summary Reasons : 14th February 2025 Date of Extended

REASONS

The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,280.00 per calendar month with effect from 5th June 2024. ____________________________________ © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) EXTENDED REASONS Background[1]These proceedings relate to a monthly periodic assured tenancy agreement commencing 5th March 2016 in respect of the property known as Flat 3, 16 Collingham Place, London, SW5 0PZ.[2]On 24th April 2024 the landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £2,838.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £1,850.00 per month, to take effect from 5th June 2024.[3]The rent does not include council tax or water charges.[4]The application states the tenancy is subject to the implied repairing obligations set out at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.[5]By an application dated 25th April 2024, made under Section 13(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988, the tenant referred the landlord’s notice proposing a new rent to the Tribunal for determination of a market rent. The tenant’s referral was received by the Tribunal on 25th April 2024.[6]In a determination dated 20th August 2024 (the “original determination”) the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to deal with the substantive application. By a notice dated 16th September 2024, the tenant sought permission to appeal against that decision. On 29th October 2024, and in light of the recent decision in Bank Holdings Limited v Lupo [2024] UKUT 316 (LC), the Tribunal reviewed the original determination, set it aside, and directed there should be a substantive determination of the tenant’s application. Inspection[7]As part of the determination, the Tribunal carried out an inspection of the property on 20th January 2025. The tenant was present, and Ms Saunders attended the inspection on behalf of the landlord.[8]The subject property is a furnished studio flat, which the parties agree measures 360 ft2. It is located on the ground floor of a five storey Victorian terrace building, situated on a residential street lined with similar properties.[9]We found the property to be modernised and in a good condition. The tenant complained the air conditioning was not working properly, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that this is an intermittent fault as it appeared to be working when switched on during the inspection.[10]Furniture, appliances and fixtures and fittings provided under the tenancy include the following:10.1 Studio room - Dining table - Side table - Bedside tables (x2) - Dining chairs (x2) - Small settee - Fitted wardrobe unit - Fitted chest of drawers - King size bed and mattress - Free standing set of drawers10.2 Kitchen - Fitted wall and base kitchen units - Fridge freezer - Built-in oven and hob10.3 Shower room - Walk-in shower - Close coupled toilet - Wash hand basin - Heated towel rail The Tenant’s Evidence[11]The Tribunal considered the tenant's evidence from the London Rent Map showing a median market rent for a studio flat in SW5 as £1,473 per month in November 2024.[12]The tenant provided evidence regarding the following rental properties:12.1 Cromwell Road, SW5 at £1,800 per month;12.2 Penywern Road, SW5 at £1,800 per month;12.3 Nevern Road, SW5 at £1,885 per month;12.4 Knaresborough Place, SW5 at £2,097 per month;12.5 Nevern Square, SW5 at £2,249 per month;12.6 Old Brompton Road, SW5 at £2,002 per month;12.7 Old Brompton Road, SW5 at £2,149.98 per month; and12.8 Philbeach Gardens, SW5 at £1,907 per month.[13]The properties at paragraphs12.1 and12.2 measure 293 ft2 and 333 ft2 respectively, so are therefore smaller than the subject property, and both are located on roads that have a mixture of residential and commercial buildings. Cromwell Road is a busy road forming part of the A4 arterial route to the west.[14]The property at paragraph 12.3 is the closest in size (at 384 ft2); it is located approximately ½ mile from the subject property.[15]The property at paragraph 12.4 is around a 2-minute walk from the subject property, on a mixed residential road which includes various bed and breakfast establishments, and where there are two large hotels, one of which is a budget hotel.[16]The remainder of the above properties at paragraphs 12.5 to 12.8 are located between ½ mile to ¾ from the subject property.[17]We note the tenant has complained about various planning breaches and about the quality of the refurbishment carried out in around 2016. According to the landlord’s solicitor, these allegations have been investigated by the local authority, which has not imposed any sanction on the landlord. The Landlord’s Evidence[18]The Tribunal also considered the landlord’s comparable evidence, which included two properties at 18 Collingham Place, namely:18.1 Ground floor studio at £1,430 per month measuring 227 ft2; and18.2 Third floor studio at £1,300 per month measuring 167 ft2.[19]Both were significantly smaller than the subject property: the ground floor studio being around 2/3 of the size, and the third floor studio being around ½ the size. Their advertised rent equated to £75/ft2 and £93/ft2 respectively. The Law[20]The rules governing a determination are set out in section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, the Tribunal is to determine the rent for at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy, subject to disregards in relation to the nature of the tenancy (i.e. it being granted to a “sitting tenant”) and any increase or reduction in the value due to the tenant’s improvements or failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy. Determination and Valuation[21]We found the tenant’s comparable evidence to be of limited assistance, particularly the properties at paragraphs 12.3 and 12.5 to 12.8 above, due to their distance from the subject property. The remainder of the tenant’s comparables were either smaller than and/or in locations of a different character to Collingham Road.[22]The landlord’s comparable properties were also smaller than the subject property. However, because the two referred to at paragraphs18.1 and18.2 above were studio flats located within a neighbouring building, we consider they are of some assistance. In particular, we consider due to their proximity, the rent per square foot provides some guidance.[23]Therefore, having consideration of the above evidence provided by the parties and of our own expert knowledge of rental values in the area, we consider that the open market rent for the property in good tenantable condition would be in the region of £2,400 per calendar month. This equates to £80/ft2 , which is within the range of the rent per square foot of the two comparable properties at 18 Collingham Place. We have also taken into account that the rent for the subject property includes hot water and the internet.[24]The full valuation is shown below: Market Rent £2,400 per calendar month Less Less adjustment for the intermittent air conditioning (approx. 5%) (£120) £120 £2,280.00[25]The Tribunal determines a rent of £2,280.00 per calendar month and this equates to £27,300 per annum. Decision[26]The Tribunal therefore determined that the rent at which the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing Landlord under an assured tenancy was £2,280.00 per calendar month.[27]The Tribunal received no evidence of hardship, and therefore directs the new rent of £2,280.00 per month to take effect on 5th June 2024, being the date specified in the landlord’s notice proposing a new rent. Name: Judge Tueje Date: 8th April 2025 RIGHTS OF APPEAL 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 a party wishes to appeal 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form- rp-pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal- lands-chamber 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. Please note that if you are seeking permission to appeal against a decision made by the Tribunal under the Rent Act 1977, the Housing Act 1988 or the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, this can only be on a point of law. If the First-tier Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).