76 Corporation Street London E15 3HD LON/00BB/MNR/2024/0370

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00BB/MNR/2024/0370
Between
Miss Dana MadutaApplicantChien Van DuongRespondentMiss Dana MadutaTenantChien Van DuongLandlord
Before
R Waterhouse FRICSO MillerDate 29 November 2024Property: 76 Corporation Street, London, E15, 3HD

DECISION

The Tribunal determines a rent of £1750 per calendar month with effect from 29 November 2024 ____________________________________ FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) 2 SUMMARY REASONS Background[1]On 31 May 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1800.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £ 1300.00 per month to take effect from 19 July 2024.[2]On 17 July 2024 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 17 July 2024. Inspection[3]The Tribunal did inspect the property and found a mid-terrace house with two bedrooms. living room, kitchen, utility area and bathroom/WC and a garden. The house has double glazing and central heating. There are two rooms each of double bedroom size. Evidence[4]For the Respondent did not attend the hearing and the tribunal relies on papers. The Applicant submitted with the Application a written submission dated 17 July 2024, covering a chronology of the occupation including repairs and improvements. The Applicant submitted that over the course of the tenancy work has been carried out to the property including but not limited to replacement of carpets with engineered flooring m addition of cupboards, plaster repairs and decoration. The general approach to these works has been the landlord pays for the materials and the tenant provides the labour either directly or sourcing outside assistance. In terms of rental levels, the tenant noted that they were aware of a property in the vicinity whose rent had changed from 1800 to £2100 per month this was a four-bedroom house. Additionally, the tenant was aware of a 3-bedroom house with a rent set at £1650 per month. The tenant noted that they had been paying £1300 since 2016 and in their view the correct level of rent given the works carried out by tenant should be £1400. Valuation[5]Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved 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 be in the region of £2050.00 per month. 3[6]The property, however, is not in that condition and so a £300.00 per month is deducted giving £1750 per month. Decision[7]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 £1750 per month. The tenant in their submission mentions and applies for hardship and requests the effective date of the rent increase moved forward. The Tribunal understands the tenant is not in employment and is in receipt of universal credit. The Tribunal determines there would be hardship if the tenant was required to address a back dated increase, the date of the increase is therefore determined on 29 November 2024.[8]The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1750 per month to take effect on 29 November 2024. Chairman: R Waterhouse FRICS Date: 29 November 2024 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 --- 1 Case Reference : TR/LON/00BB/MNR/2024/0370 Property : 76 Corporation Street London E15 3HD Tenant : Dana Maduta Landlord : Chien Van Duong C/O Lexingtons Property Management and Maintenance Ltd Date of Objection : 17 July 2024 Type of Application : Determination of a Market Rent sections 13 & 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Tribunal : R Waterhouse FRICS O Miller Hearing followed by Inspection Date of Summary Reasons : 29 November 2024 Date of Full Reasons : 10 December 2024 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024 _______________________________________________ DECISION The Tribunal determines a rent of £1750 per calendar month with effect from 29 November 2024 ____________________________________ FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) 2 Full REASONS Background[1]On 31 May 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £1800.00 per month in place of the existing rent of £ 1300.00 per month to take effect from 19 July 2024.[2]On 17 July 2024 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 17 July 2024. Inspection[3]The Tribunal did inspect the property and found a mid-terrace house with two bedrooms. living room, kitchen, utility area and bathroom/WC and a garden. The house has double glazing and central heating. There are two rooms each of double bedroom size. Evidence[4]The Respondent did not attend the hearing and the tribunal relies on papers. The Applicant submitted with the Application a written submission dated 17 July 2024, covering a chronology of the occupation including repairs and improvements. The Applicant submitted that over the course of the tenancy work has been carried out to the property including but not limited to replacement of carpets with engineered flooring in addition of cupboards, plaster repairs and decoration. The general approach to these works has been the Landlord pays for the materials and the Tenant provides the labour either directly or sourcing outside assistance. In terms of rental levels, the Tenant noted that they were aware of a property in the vicinity whose rent had changed from £1800 per month to £2100 per month this was a four-bedroom house. Additionally, the Tenant was aware of a 3- bedroom house with a rent set at £1650 per month. The Tenant noted that they had been paying £1300 per month since 2016 and in their view the correct level of rent given the works carried out by Tenant should be £1400 per month. Valuation 3[5]Within the Tenant's submission was an article from Zoopla dated 21 August 2024 titled “Rents start falling in Major Cities”. The Tribunal notes this in context, but comments that rental markets are often very geographically defined, and the best source of information is contained in properties that are let or to let in the vicinity. The Tenant within their application form noted a number of comparables; “Number 43 -3-bedroom house on the street, at no. 43 has been increased to £1650 in December 2023. It is bigger in size with the double size kitchen and a security gate. Number 34, which is a 4-bedroom house in much better state, the rent has been increased with £300. A 3-bedroom house, 3 doors up the road, listed at £2500 sits empty for about a year. In June, a rental agent has seen the house and stated that, if painted, the house could fetch £1800-£1850. To bring the property to a good standard, it would cost around average over £3000 based on 3 quotes that I have been given.” The Tribunal using its knowledge considers that 3-bedroom terraced properties in good condition, in the area would rent for £ 2200 per month to £2500 per month. Likewise ,2-bedroom properties would rent for around £2100 per month. Looking at the rental evidence supplied by the Tenant, the Tribunal is concerned that in the case of 43, it is not known if this is a open market letting or an increase in rent to a Tenant already in place. With 34 an increase in rent of £300 does not inform the tribunal of the actual amount of rent being charged and it would appear this would be an increase to an established Tenant. The house to let at £2500 is in line with other properties to let , why this one has not let is unknown. The rental agents view is noted within the overall context. Having consideration of the comparable evidence proved 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 be in the region of £2050.00 per month.[6]The property, however, is not in that condition and so a £300.00 per month is deducted giving £1750 per month. Decision 4[7]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 £1750 per month. The Tenant in their submission mentions and applies for hardship and requests the effective date of the rent increase moved forward. The Tribunal understands the Tenant is not in employment and is in receipt of universal credit. The Tribunal determines there would be hardship if the Tenant was required to address a back dated increase, the date of the increase is therefore determined on 29 November 2024.[8]The Tribunal directs the new rent of £1750 per month to take effect on 29 November 2024. Chairman: R Waterhouse FRICS Date: 10 December 2024 Appeal to the Upper Tribunal A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Property Chamber) on a point of law must seek permission to do so by making a written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case which application must:a. be received by the said office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.b. identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the application is not received within the 28 –day time limit, it must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for it not complying with the 28- day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.