The holiday was lovely, thank you. A couple of degrees hotter than the UK, but with a) the sea 45 seconds from my bed, and b) air conditioned rooms. But it left quite a lot to catch up on of previous backlog and ‘while away’ things – so, a first instalment of some quick post holiday notes.

MHCLG have opened a consultation “Strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services: consultation“, on proposals for regulations bringing into force the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 changes for England and Wales on service charges and litigation costs. It is wide ranging and all good stuff.

MHCLG have also opened a “Consultation on a reformed Decent Homes Standard for social and privately rented homes“. In the future, for social landlords, this will be enforceable by the Social Housing Regulator, and for private landlords by local authorities. It will not be directly enforceable by tenants. The main proposed changes are:

• Updating the definition of disrepair – removing the age requirement and updating thresholds
• Revising the list of building components which must be kept in a reasonable state of repair
• Revising our approach to facilities so that landlords need to provide three out of the four facilities listed in proposal 2
• Introducing a window restrictor requirement
• Considering a new home security requirement
• Considering a requirement for floor coverings for new tenancies
• Streamlining and updating the thermal comfort requirements.
• Introducing a new standard for damp and mould.

Wallis v Hutchby & Collumbell Ltd (LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – assured periodic tenancy – whether tenancy granted on terms that rent was fixed – reasons – insufficiency of fact finding – whether rent determined by FTT payable – s.14(7), Housing Act 1988) (2025) UKUT 179 (LC)

An appeal of an FTT decision on a rent increase determination case. There was no written tenancy agreement, but the tenant’s contention was that there was an oral agreement in 1999 that the rent would not be increased. The FTT said there was no evidence of this and, somehow, that this could not have been the intention of the parties, and allowed the new rent sought as market rent.

The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal -there was evidence, albeit only the tenant’s witness evidence, of an agreement and the landlord had raised no evidence to counteract this. But if there was such an agreement, it was an open question (on which the parties had not advanced argument) as to whether that agreement would oust the new rent determined by the FTTbunder section 14 Housing Act 1988.

By section 13(1)(b) section 13 applies to an assured periodic tenancy which does not include a contractual provision binding on the tenant “under which the rent for a particular period of the tenancy will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period”. An agreement that the weekly rent for a tenancy will be “fixed” is not an agreement under which the rent “will or may be greater than the rent for an earlier period”. Section 13 therefore appears on its face to apply to a periodic tenancy which includes a term that the rent will not be increased. If section 13 applies, Parliament has laid down in section 13(2) that the landlord is entitled to obtain a new rent by giving a notice of increase which may then be referred to the FTT by the tenant and which will result in a determination.

But a determination under section 14(1) is not the end of the story. Section 14(7) of the 1988 Act provides that where a notice of increase has been referred to the FTT, the rent which it determines will become the rent payable under the tenancy “unless the landlord and tenant otherwise agree”. That raises a question of interpretation, namely, whether an agreement made before the FTT has determined a new rent under section 14(1), including an agreement made at the commencement of the tenancy, can be an agreement for the purpose of section 14(7).

The question of whether the parties agreed the rent would be “fixed”, and, if they did, whether that was an agreement for the purpose of section 14(7) which prevented the new rent from becoming payable where outside the FTT jurisdiction and would have to be the subject of an application for a declaration in the county court or a defence to an arrears claim.

Orchard & Anor v Dhillon (2025) EWHC 834 (Ch)

A property had been sold under a ‘sale and rent back agreement’ to an buyer not authorised by the FCA, such that the agreement would be unenforceable by the unauthorised person as against the seller/tenants under section 26 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and the seller/tenant would have the right to undo the transfer.

However, here the title to the property had been transferred to a third party, who was not themself a party to the sale and rent back agreement.

The court held that the third party was not automatically put into the position of the original buyer for the purposes of section 26, so the right to undo the transfer did not automatically apply. against the third party. But those rights did constitute a ‘mere equity’ protected at the subsequent transfer by the seller/tenant’s occupation of the property, such that the third party did not take the property free of that equity.

“The consequences of this decision will need to be determined at a further hearing.”

Bannister v Akinremi (HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – order made by the FTT against a tenant of the property found to have been the landlord’s agent and to have been a person having control of the property – order made without jurisdiction) (2025) UKUT 180 (LC)

Where a tenant had been making rent payments to a ‘lead tenant’ in an unlicensed HMO, and that ‘lead tenant’ was simply acting as the landlord’s agent in collecting the rent and arranging for new tenants, and the FTT had found that the immediate landlord was someone else, the FTT had no jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order against the ‘lead tenant’.

Cetin v Epping Forest District Council (HOUSING – CIVIL PENALTY – unlicensed HMO – letting agent acting on a “let only” basis – tenant paying deposit and first month’s rent to agent before moving in) (2025) UKUT 196 (LC)

A letting agent who only arranged the tenancy, took the first months rent and deposit at the very start of the tenancy and passed these to the landlord, and had no further involvement in the tenancy, was not a person having control of or managing an unlicensed HMO and no rent repayment order could be made against the agent.

Norton v London Borough of Haringey (2025) EWCA Civ 746

A local authority does not have to conduct a s.189A Housing Act 1996 assessment of housing need in order to determine whether accommodation offered under the main s.193 housing duty is suitable. In this case the property was clearly suitable and the mere failure to have carried out a s.189A assessment could not impeach that. The position would be different if the failure to carry out a s.189A assessment meant the local authority was not aware of a relevant fact which dod impact on the suitability of the property offered.