Campbell v Gardner

Fair rent of furnished premises–No rule binding committee to start by finding unfurnished rent–General propositions about typical periods of furnished tenancies do not represent a reference to the personal circumstances of the landlord–Committee’s assessment confirmed This was an appeal by Mr Thomas McDonald Campbell, of 33 Rosetta Road, Nottingham, from a decision of the East Midlands Rent Assessment Panel dated June 18 1975 fixing the fair rent of the premises let to him at that address by the respondent, Mr W A Gardner, at £8.50 per week inclusive of furniture but exclusive of rates. Mr C Anderson (instructed by Turner Peacock, agents for Fraser, Brown, White & Pears, of Nottingham) appeared for the appellant. The respondent appeared in person. Giving the first judgment, WATKINS J said that the appellant was a student and in July 1974 became a tenant of the respondent in premises at 33 Rosetta Road, Basford, Nottingham. The premises were in a residential area about three miles from the town centre, and had been built in 1910. It was a house built for the artisan class. By the contract he entered into with the respondent, the appellant agreed to pay a weekly rental of £13 inclusive of rates and furniture. On January 20 1975 the appellant made application to a rent officer for a fair rent. On February 11 1975 the rent officer registered a fair rent of £5.50 per week exclusive of rates, and indicated that 72 pence per week was attributable to furniture. The respondent, in turn, appealed to the rent assessment panel, which on June 18 1975 resolved that the rent to be registered should be £8.50 per week exclusive of rates. It was from that decision that the appellant now appealed. The effect, in general terms, of the 1974 Rent Act, so far as furnished lettings were concerned, was to bring them into the same category of control as unfurnished lettings under the 1968 Act and to allow not only the same procedures for assessment of a fair rent to apply but also for the same criteria to be used for assessing a fair rent. Neither of the Acts defined ‘fair rent,’ but a number of criteria were set out in section 46 of the 1968 Act. A rent officer was entitled to have regard to the capital return to the landlord, the area in which the premises were situated, etc. By section 46 (3) no regard was to be paid in assessing a fair rent to disrepair82 or defects due to a tenant’s failure to do improvements which he should do, or to the personal circumstances of either landlord or tenant. What a committee had to do in assessing what a fair rent should be was generally to be as fair as possible both to landlord and tenant and see that the rules of natural justice were obeyed. Counsel for the appellant had criticised the approach of the tribunal here. He had contended that a panel should first determine what a fair rent would be if the premises were unfurnished, and then add on something for furniture. In the present case the panel had made no secret of the fact that they had not adopted that approach. They had viewed the premises as a whole and then had asked themselves what would be a fair rent. There was nothing wrong with that approach. Then counsel had contended that the panel had erred in law in taking into account the fact that in general, tenants of furnished tenancies remained for shorter periods than tenants of unfurnished tenancies and that therefore the landlords’ expenses were greater. That, contended counsel, represented taking the landlord’s personal circumstances into account, which was forbidden. Further, it was argued, the panel had concerned itself with the personal circumstances of those landlords who let premises to students. There were no valid grounds for such criticism. At no time had the panel paid special regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord. The panel had expressed itself in general terms, and he (his lordship) thought that the appeal should be dismissed. LORD WIDGERY and KILNER BROWN J agreed. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.