Judgment is now pending in a High Court challenge to a rent officer’s refusal to deal with an application for registration of a fair rent on the ground that, under section 67(3) of the Rent Act 1977, a period of less than two years had expired since the previous registration date in July 1998.
The challenge has been brought by Haysport Properties Ltd, the landlord of 41 Parklands Road, Hassocks, West Sussex, which has been occupied by tenant Dennis Wakeford since 1956. Weekly rental of the premises as at May 1998 was £54 a week. In July 1998, at the request of Haysport, the Rent Officer registered an increased rent of £62 a week.
After an objection by Wakeford, however, the Assessment Panel ruled that the rent was too high and should be reduced to £35 per week on the basis of the property’s “very poor state of repair”.
Among other things, the panel found that the ground floor front room was uninhabitable, the ceiling in the bathroom was probably dangerous in its current condition and the room should not be used, and the same applied to the front bedroom.
Shortly after this determination, the landlord undertook substantial repair work in accordance with a repair notice issued by the Mid-Sussex District Council in September. That work was completed by April 1999.
However, when the landlord applied for a fresh registration on the ground that there had been a change in condition of the house, the Rent Officer refused to entertain the application as he was not satisfied the changes were sufficient to render the registered fair rent unfair.
Counsel for the landlord, Steven Woolf, argued that the Rent Officers decision was “perverse, unreasonable and not one which any ordinary Rent Officer acting within the four corners of his jurisdiction could reasonable have arrived at”.
Counsel for the Rent Officer, Martin Rodger, argued that under section 67(3)(a) of the Act, a pre-condition of a mid-term review was that there should have been such a change in the condition of the house, including structural alteration, extension of addition and the provision of additional fixtures or fittings, but not including anything done by way of decoration or repair, so as to make the registered rent no longer a fair rent.
Mr Rodger said the work done by the landlord was work of repair. He argued that there had been no change in the condition of the house, other than changes attributable to work of repair, and no “improvement” in the condition of the house for the purpose of section 67(3)(a).
R v The Rent Officer of the West Sussex Registration Area, ex parte Haysport Properties Ltd Queens Bench Division: Crown Office List (Mr Jack Beatson QC sitting as a deputy judge of the division) 6 July 2000.
Steven Woolf (instructed by Wallace & Partners) appeared for the applicant; Martin Rodger (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
PLS News 11/7/00
