40 Dempster Road, London, SW18 1AT LON/00BJ/MNR/2025/0628
DECISION
The Tribunal determines a rent of £609.00 per week with effect from 9 December 2024. ____________________________________ Full REASONS Background[1]On 6 November 2024 the Landlord served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988 which proposed a new rent of £900.00 per week in place of the existing rent of £554.00 per week to take effect from 9 December 2024.[2]On 29 November 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 (c) Crown Copyright 2025 2 Tribunal on 5 December 2025. No copy of a tenancy agreement was supplied, the tenant noting none was supplied by the landlord.[3]The tenant succeeded the tenancy from their parents' regulated tenancy and holds a secure assured tenancy from 2009.[4]The current rent of £554 per week is a result of a determination by the tribunal on 25 March 2024. This related to the rent payable from the date of the previous notice which was 4 December 2023.[5]The hearing was carried out by remote video. For the Applicant Tenant, Mrs Meredith was present and supported by her son Mr Meredith. For the Respondent Landlord, Mr St Pier accompanied by the property manager who manages the property Ms Bracegirdle. Inspection[3]The Tribunal did inspect the property. The property description is carefully set out in the tenants Reply Form and it accorded with the condition found by the tribunal. The tribunal would add that the exterior of the property looks sound and well maintained and the roof new. It is understood from the papers that the exterior of the property was repaired in or around 2023. The property was originally constructed as a five-bedroom semidetached house with three reception rooms, and kitchen, three bedrooms on the first floor with a bathroom and WC and two further bedrooms in the attic. One room at first floor level however is currently used as a kitchen / breakfast room. During the inspection, Mrs Meredith was present and as was her son. Evidence[4]The Tribunal has consideration of the written submissions provided by the Tenant and the Landlord. These have been considered in full, and the details not replicated within the tribunal decision in detail. The tenant supplied as completed Reply Form requesting an inspection and a hearing. The form identified the property as a three-storey house, on the ground floor a living room, kitchen, on the first, a second living room, bedroom and bathroom, and on the second-floor bedroom 2 and 3. The tenant contends the property has damp issues cracking, partial central heating only partial double glazing. The tenant also submitted photographs of the interior and exterior of the property. The landlord submitted a schedule of rental properties details which were contended as comparable, £4600 to £7000 per calendar month. A letter dated 4 December 2023 noting completion of roof works and double- glazing works. A copy of an Electrical installation certificate. (c) Crown Copyright 2025 3 A completed Reply Form. A written submission – the contents of which are noted. The submission notes “ the condition of the property has not changed since last year and internally it doesn't present well.” Submissions from the landlord gave details of comparables in the vicinity whose rent achieved ranged from £4600 to £7000.00 per calendar month. A valuation is included which starts at £ 7000 per month and then with adjustments reaches £5885 pcm. The Hearing Applicant Tenant Submissions The Property The Applicant Tenant Mrs Meredith supported by her son Mr Meredith gave an overview of the nature and condition of the property which accords with the completed Reply Forms and Inspection. In addition, it was noted by Mrs Meredith that the property whilst built as one house and currently occupied as one house had at one stage in its life accommodated two families. This had resulted in there being two sets of services installed, and s two sets of standing charges were payable by the occupier. The Rent The Applicant Tenant did not have a view of what rent the property would command in a contemporary condition. However, Mrs Meredith pointed out that the subject property was in a layout as built and had not been reconfigured to meet modern contemporary living requirements. Hardship The Applicant noted that previously there had been three children living with Mr and Mrs Meredith in the property. Two, it was understood had moved out, leaving Mr Meredith her son. In terms of income Mrs Meredith noted that both her and her husband had state pensions, in addition her husband had a private pension. Mr Meredith her son was currently looking for work. Mrs Meredith and her son confirmed that neither was in receipt of housing benefit, and informed the tribunal they were not eligible. Landlord Respondent Submissions The Property The Applicant landlord described the outside works to the property which he said was in good order. In terms of the inside, the landlord contended that he (c) Crown Copyright 2025 4 was willing to undertake a repairing programme inside but that the tenant had frustrated access and as a consequence the inside was in a poor state. The Rent The landlord submitted the tribunal should determine the valuation that had been set out in his submission. Per month Comparable Market Rent £7000 Less discounts bst £750 WC to ground floor £25 Second Bathroom £50 Internal amenity £ 150 White goods/ carpets £ 210 Addition semidetached £50 Rental value £ 5865 per month Determination and Valuation The Property The property internally is set out in the original Victorian layout which differs from modern contemporary living in particular number of bathrooms and size of kitchen. The Rent The tribunal has made adjustments for(a) difference from modern layout and(b) internal condition and specification including two sets of services Open market Rent[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 and the existing layout would be £4500 per month.[6]The full valuation is shown below: per calendar month Market Rent £4400.00 (c) Crown Copyright 2025 5 Less Deductions 40% £1760.00 No central heating Partial double glazing Inadequate electrical installation by modern standards Kitchen is inadequate by modern standards Bathroom is inadequate by modern standards Damp in places and defective plaster Net Rent £2640.00 Weekly equivalent of rent £609.23 The tribunal therefore determines that the market rent value of the property should be £609.00 Hardship The tribunal was in various oral evidence on income sources of the Applicant tenant and wider family. The tribunal heard that the family is not in receipt of housing benefit. The tribunal did not have details of the additional source of income in the form of a private pension held by Mr Meredith senior. Nor did the tribunal understand why housing benefit was not obtainable. In the circumstances the tribunal determines the case for hardship has not been made. Decision[8]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 £609.00 per week with effect 9 December 2024.[9]The Tribunal directs the new rent of £609.00 per week to take effect on 9 December 2024. This being the date as set out in the Landlord’s Notice of Increase. Chairman: R Waterhouse FRICS Date: 12 May 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.