Landlord and tenant – Fair rent assessment – Sufficiency of reasons – Rent being assessed by First-tier Tribunal (FTT) including £40 per month in respect of services – Appellant tenant objecting on the ground that sum excessive and poor services provided – Entry phone broken, common parts not maintained or cleaned – Point not dealt with in decision – Whether FTT giving adequate reasons for decision – Appeal allowed
The appellant had been the tenant of Flat 1, Codrington Mansions, 139 Western Road, Brighton for over 50 years. He was 78 years old and lived there with his 73 year old wife. The property was part of a mixed residential/retail building probably built over 100 years ago. It comprised a large hall, front bedroom, rear living room, bathroom/WC and a small rear kitchen approached by way of a narrow passage. There was no central heating. The rent was registered in 2001 and again in 2008 at £5,526.50 pa or £460.54 per calendar month. On 5 April 2017 the landlord applied to the rent officer for the registration of a fair rent. In the application form it sought a rent of £7,200 pa and stated that it provided services under the tenancy which were described as “cleaning, lighting of public ways, entry phone system”. The landlord suggested that £30 per week of the rent was attributable to the services. On 5 May 2017 the rent officer determined the rent at £597.50 per calendar month. He attributed £40 per month as being attributable to services. He noted that the uncapped rent would have been assessed at £600 per calendar month. The appellant objected to the rent determined as excessive, alleging that the services provided were very poor. The matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
The FTT made a paper determination of a fair rent for the property. The FTT carried out an inspection of the flat on 31 July 2017 and determined a fair rent to be £600 per month with effect from that day. The rent included the sum of £40 per calendar month attributable to services. A number of grounds of appeal were raised against that decision. None found favour with the FTT. However, the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on the sole ground that the FTT did not explain why it agreed with the rent officer that the value of the services provided by the landlord should be valued at £40 per month in the light of the criticisms of those services by the appellant.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
(1) Under rule 36(2)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the FTT had to provide each party with written reasons for the decision or, in cases relating to rents, notification of the right to request written reasons. The reasons need not be elaborate. They had to identify the issues for decision and provide a summary of the tribunal’s basic factual conclusions. They need not recite the evidence in detail, but they had to briefly explain why the tribunal had arrived at its conclusions. In Tintern Abbey Residents Association Ltd v Owen [2015] UKUT 232 (LC); [2015] PLSCS 163, the Upper Tribunal held that the reasons given by the FTT fell below the minimum standard required under rule 36(2). The Deputy President noted that whilst the document comprehensively recorded the determinations made and the submissions received, it made no connection between them. No facts were found. No conflicts of evidence were addressed. The necessary connection between what the parties argued and what the FTT decided need not have been lengthy or complicated. A very few additional sentences were likely to have been sufficient for the purpose, but they were missing and without them the tribunal was not in a position to understand the FTT’s thinking or determine whether the appellant had justifiable grounds of complaint.
(2) In the present case, the calculation of the maximum rent permissible had been calculated correctly in accordance with the relevant order and was correct. It was clear that the appellant had put in issue the nature and the quality of the services provided by the landlord. It was clearly the appellant’s contention that there should be a further allowance to reflect the difference between services provided in the notional market rent which it had assessed at £775 per month and those actually provided by the landlord. The FTT’s decision was completely silent on that issue. It set out the appellant’s allegations but made no further reference to the service charge at all. Thus, there were no findings of fact and no consideration of the issue at all. Therefore, on that issue the FTT had failed to give sufficient reasons and, as a result, the Upper Tribunal was not in a position to understand the FTT’s thinking or determine whether the appellant had justifiable grounds of complaint. In those circumstances, the FTT’s decision had to be quashed and the matter remitted to the FTT to consider whether any further deduction should be made to the notional rent to reflect the condition of the common parts and the services provided by the landlord: Tintern Abbey Residents Association Ltd v Owen [2015] UKUT 232 (LC); [2015] PLSCS 163 followed.
Written representations made by appellant; No representations made on behalf of the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Click here to read transcript: Augousti v Bailey Holdings Ltd
