30 Bowland Avenue, Liverpool L16 1JP MAN/00BY/F77/2019/0020
REASONS
A fair rent of £130.00 per week was determined by the Tribunal on 17 May 2019 with effect from the same date REASONS Preliminary[1]On 7 December 2018, an application for registration of a fair rent for 30 Bowland Avenue (“the Property”) was received by the Rent Officer from Grainger Residential Management Limited (“the Agent”) on behalf of BPT (Bradford Property Trust) Limited (“the Landlord”). The Property is tenanted by Gertrude Jolliffe (“the Tenant”). There is no service charge.[2]A rent of £122.00 per week was determined by the Rent Officer on 22 January 2019 with effect from 8 March 2019.[3]On 15 February 2019, the Agent objected to the registered fair rent and requested the Rent Officer to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Inspection[4]The Tribunal inspected the Property internally and externally on 17 May 2019. The Property is a semi-detached house comprising two ground floor living rooms and a kitchen and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor, with gardens front and rear. There is PVC double-glazing and central heating. The letting is unfurnished.[5]The Tribunal noted the following items of landlord’s disrepair: door frame on porch, damp in the bedrooms, slight cracking in bedroom 2. Necessary improvements consist of a new roof and porch roof. Tenant’s improvements consist of fire and surround, new kitchen and bathroom. 3 Evidence[6]The Tribunal received written representations from the Agent which provided details as to the location of the Property, that they considered the Landlord to be responsible but recognised that the Property was not to modern day standards. Also included were details of three other properties, all three-bedroom semi-detached houses in Childwall, available for letting together with the asking rents: at Bentham Drive, at £206.53 per week, Bowring Park Road at £196.15 per week, and Dominic Close at £183.46 per week. No written representations were received from the Tenant. Neither party requested a hearing when oral representations could have been made. The Tribunal therefore re-convened following the inspection to consider its decision. Law[7]When determining a fair rent the Tribunal, in accordance with the Rent Act 1977, Section 70: 7.1. Has regard to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances) including the age, location and state of repair of the property; 7.2. Disregards the effect on the rental value of the property of(a) any relevant tenant improvements and(b) any disrepair or other defect attributable to the tenant or any predecessor in title under the regulated tenancy; 7.3. Assumes (as required by s70(2) that, whatever might be the case, the demand for similar rented properties in the locality does not significantly exceed the supply of such properties for rent. In other words that the effect of such 'scarcity' on rental values is not reflected in the fair rent of the subject property. 4[8]In Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester etc. Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee [1999] QB 92 the Court of Appeal emphasised that section 70 means: 8.1. that ordinarily a fair rent is the market rent for the subject property discounted for “scarcity”, and 8.2. 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 these comparables and the subject property)[9]Thus, once the market rent for the Property has been determined by the exercise above, that rent must be adjusted, where necessary, for any scarcity.[10]The Tribunal must consider the application of the provisions of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 by calculating the maximum fair rent applicable to the Property in accordance with the formula contained in the Order. Valuation and Fair Rent[11]The Tribunal determined what rent the Landlord could reasonably be expected to obtain for the property in the open market if it were let now in the condition that is considered fit and usual for such an open market letting.[12]The Tribunal carefully reviewed the comparables provided and it was considered that their condition was of a much higher quality than the Property and the Tribunal also had regard to the fact that these were 5 asking rather than actual rents. The Tribunal considered that in the light of the evidence and its general knowledge of rents in the locality the market rent for the Property in the condition referred to in paragraph 11 above would be £180.00 per week including white goods and some furnishings.[13]Having regard to the condition of the property from its inspection and relying on its own and general experience in the region the Tribunal concluded that the property is below the condition considered fit and usual for a modern letting at such a market rent. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to make some adjustment and allow for the condition of the property as seen and commented upon by the Tribunal.[14]Accordingly, the assessment of the fair rent is as follows: Market rent in good condition 180.00 per week White goods and furnishings (18.00) Landlord’s neglect (7.00) Necessary improvements (10.00) Tenant’s improvements (15.00) (50.00) Occupational rent per week 130.00[15]The Tribunal does not consider that in the present-day market, there is any substantial scarcity element and accordingly no further deduction is made for scarcity 6[16]The rent is however, subject to the capping provisions of the 1999 order. After effecting the appropriate calculation, the Tribunal determined that the fair rent assessed above was below the maximum fair rent for the Property, which was calculated to be £132.00 per week. Signed: Judge C. Green Dated: 17 June 2019