A note on a couple of Upper Tribunal appeals of FTT determinations of rent – because there may be more of these applications and determinations when the Renters’ Rights Bill comes into force…

Kensington Avenue Ltd v Curlin (LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – fair rent – s.70 Rent Act 1977 – sufficiency of reasons for FTT decision on open market rent and comparable properties) (2024) UKUT 341 (LC)

This was a fair rent determination for a Rent Act tenant. The landlord had put in submissions to the FTT:

The landlord provided a schedule of one bedroom flats in Queens Gate that have been let recently giving floor area, brief details of accommodation, floor and date of letting and ranging between £3,445 per calendar month to £4,312 per calendar month.
17. They submitted that the fair (Registered) rent for the subject flat should be £2,492 per calendar month.”

The FTT had decided that the market rent was £2,600 per month and the fair rent £1,352 per month. The landlord appealed on the basis that the FTT had provided no reasons for its conclusion on the market rent and the disregard of the landlord’s schedule.

The UT allowed the appeal. It was incumbent on the FTT to give reasons.

“… the reasons need not be elaborate or lengthy but they must be intelligible and deal with the substantial points which have been raised. Having read the reasons the parties should be able to understand why the decision had been reached.”

The FTT had failed to do so, appeal allowed and the matter remitted to the FTT.

Rylands v Hopkins & Anor (LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION) (2024) UKUT 276 (LC)

An FTT assessment of market rent on an assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord had proposed raising the rent of a flat from £900 per month to £1050 per month by section 13 notice. The tenant applied to the FTT.

The FTT found that the market rent would be £1,100 per month, but reduced that by £90 per month for lack of some white goods, dated bathroom and general disrepair.

The tenant appealed on the basis that the FTT had failed to consider that the property did not have a valid EICR (electical safety certifciate), that the landlord had carried out electrical works to the bathroom himself

and left the electrical installations in a dangerous state (with sockets incorrectly wired) which a visiting electrician would not touch. He produced a report dated 13 March 2024 from OVO energy confirming that that was the position when their engineer visited on 13 September 2022.

The Upper Tribunal found that there was no mention of this or address to the issue in the FTT’s decision. The electrical problem had apparently been resolved, according to the landlord, but some time after the FTT’s decision.

Appeal allowed – the FTT had either failed to consider the issue, or had failed to give adequate reasons as to its decision on the issue. Remitted to the FTT for a fresh consideration.