66 Burford Road Liverpool L166AQ MAN/00BY/MNR/2018/0033
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No MAN/00BY/MNR/2018/0033
Between
Ms Shirley Paula BanksApplicantBPT (Bradford Property Trust) LimitedRespondentMs Shirley Paula BanksTenantBPT (Bradford Property Trust) LimitedLandlord
Before
Judge Colin GreenN/A Tenant : Shirley Paula Banks Representative : N/A for the ApplicantDate 8 March 2019Property: 66 Burford Road, Liverpool L16 6AQ
REASONS
The rent at which the Property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy is £146.00 per week exclusive of water rates and council tax. This rent will take effect from 25 June 2018, being the date specified by the landlord in the notice of increase. REASONS Background[1]The Property is held on an assured periodic tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The tenant is Shirley Paula Banks. The landlord is BPT (Bradford Property Trust) Limited.[2]The tenancy commenced on Monday, 17 March 2014 by way of a succession to the tenant’s mother’s regulated tenancy. There is no written tenancy agreement. The repairing obligations of the parties are governed by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As at the date the landlord gave notice proposing an increase in rent, the rent was £145.00 per week. There is no service charge.[3]By a notice to the tenant dated 17 May 2018 the landlord proposed a new rent for the Property of £155.00 per week with effect from Monday, 25 June 2018.[4]On 31 May 2018 the tenant referred the landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13(4) of the Housing Act 1988. The tenant’s application was in the prescribed form and was made before the date specified in the landlord’s notice for the start of the proposed new rent. Inspection[5]The Tribunal inspected the Property on the morning of 8 March 2019 in the presence of the tenant. The Property is a semi-detached house with a reception room and kitchen on the ground floor and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor, with gardens front and rear. There were no signs of landlord’s disrepair and no tenant’s improvements since the commencement of the current tenancy. There were, however, necessary improvements as the Property lacks central heating. Evidence[6]The landlord’s agents, Graingers, submitted written representations and advertising details of three comparable properties – at Dunham 3 Road L15, at £162.00 per week, Renville Road, L14 at £150.00 per week, and Glendevon Road, L16 at £150.00 per week.[7]Neither party elected for a hearing so that following the inspection the Tribunal reconvened to make its determination. Law[8]Where a tenant has referred a valid landlord’s notice to the Tribunal under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, section 14 of that Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considers that the property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy. In so doing the Tribunal is required, by section 14(1) of the Act, to ignore the effect on the rental value of the property of any relevant tenant's improvements as defined in section 14(2).[9]For these purposes, “rent” includes amongst other things any sums payable to the landlord by the tenant in respect of council tax. It does not include a “service charge” within the meaning of section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (i.e. where the service charge payable by the tenant is variable from time to time according to the relevant costs). However, it does include a “fixed” service charge. Validity of the landlord’s notice[10]The Tribunal must first determine that the landlord’s notice under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served. Those requirements are that the notice was given in the prescribed form and was accompanied by the relevant guidance notes, that it gave at least one month’s notice of the proposed increase, and that it must specify a start date for the proposed new rent which coincides with the beginning of a period of the tenancy.[11]The Tribunal determined that the landlord’s notice complied with these requirements and was therefore validly served. Valuation[12]The Tribunal next determined the rent at which the Property could reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing landlord under an assured tenancy if it were let today in the condition that is considered usual for such open market lettings.[13]Having taken into account the comparables provided and having had regard to its general knowledge of market rent levels in the area, the Tribunal concluded that a likely market rent for a property such as the subject property would be £170.00 per week exclusive of water rates and council tax. 4[14]However, the Property is not in the condition considered usual for a modern letting at a market rent and so the Tribunal proceeded to make a number of deductions from the hypothetical market rent of £170.00 per week to take account of relevant differences.14.1 A deduction of £17.00 per week was made because the landlord does not provide carpets, curtains and some white goods which would usually be provided in an open market letting.14.2 A deduction of £7.00 per week was made for the need for central heating.[15]These deductions totaled £24.00 per week and reduced the net market rent for the Property to £146.00 per week.