Motion for mandamus directed to rent officer–Tenant’s application for determination of fair rent–Tenant evicted before consultation–Tenant’s failure to notify new address–Whether rent officer in error in treating application as withdrawn or considering that he was deprived of jurisdiction–Rent officer should have proceeded to determine rent–Order of mandamus issued
In these
proceedings counsel moved on behalf of Patrick Fox, a pensioner, for an order
of mandamus directed to the
application by Mr Fox for him to fix a fair rent for ground-floor premises
formerly occupied by Mr Fox at 121 Strathleven Road, Brixton, London. The rent
officer had purported to dismiss the application after Mr Fox had left the
premises pursuant to an order of the county court granting possession to the
landlords.
William
Bowring (instructed by James Woolley, Lambeth Community Law Centre) appeared
for the applicant; Harry Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor)
represented the respondent rent officer.
Giving the
first judgment at the invitation of Lord Widgery CJ, CUMMING-BRUCE LJ said that
the applicant’s case was that the rent officer had wrongly declined to hear his
application to have a fair rent fixed. The applicant applied in March 1976 for
a fair rent to be fixed but vacated the premises in July before the application
was heard. It was in these circumstances that the rent officer treated the
application as withdrawn and dismissed it on the ground that he had no
jurisdiction. In July 1976, the rent officer wrote to the applicant and
landlords inviting them to a consultation. The letter to the applicant was sent
to the only address known to the rent officer, the premises which were the
subject of the application. There was no reply to that letter. The applicant’s
only interest now was in recovering any difference in rent which might be due
to him from the date of the application to the date when he left the premises.
That sum might amount to about £30.
It was clear
from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hanson v Church
Commissioners for England [1977] 2 WLR 848 that the rent officer was wrong
in the view he formed that, without any intimation from a party, he could
safely regard the application to fix a fair rent as withdrawn. The rent
officer’s decision that he had no jurisdiction was also wrong. So far as the
question of withdrawal was concerned, Lord Denning MR had pointed out in Hanson
(p 854) that when the dispute is one in which there is a public interest
involved it may not be permissible for one of the parties to withdraw on his
own without the assent of the other, and even if they both agree, he may not be
able to withdraw unless the tribunal consents. It was, of course, a question
relating to the withdrawal of an objection in that case. A rent officer should
be extremely cautious in the public interest in dealing with withdrawals. It
was easy to see how the rent officer in the present case came to think that he
had solid reasons for inferring that the applicant had lost interest in the
application. The applicant had not replied to letters. He had failed to notify
the rent officer of his change of address.
The rent
officer had based his decision on an alternative ground. He had considered that
he had no jurisdiction because the applicant had vacated the dwelling before
the rent officer could proceed to registration. That view was wrong. The
relevant date for the purpose of jurisdiction was the date of the application.
The rent officer’s jurisdiction persisted despite the applicant’s subsequent
departure: see R v West London Rent Tribunal, ex parte Napper
[1967] 1 QB 169.
The next
question was whether, in the exercise of its discretion, the court should allow
mandamus to go. There were arguments for and against. On the one hand the court
should not put itself in the position of being a superior but expensive
debt-collecting agency, the applicant had been slack in not notifying his
change of address, the amount involved was small and there might be
difficulties in recovering it. On the other hand, the rent officer had been in
error, there was a public interest in the correct administration of the
statute, and the determination of rent would be in rem and would be
capable of affecting comparable properties. In all the circumstances mandamus
should go.
LORD WIDGERY
CJ and PARK J agreed.
The
application for mandamus was granted with costs.
