Curtis and others v London Rent Assessment Committee and others

Regulated tenancies — Registered rent — “Fair” rent within meaning of section 70 Rent Act 1977 — Whether rent assessment committees gave proper consideration to objective of achieving fair rent — Whether proper reasons given for decisions — Committee’s decision quashed in relation to first appeal; decisions upheld in relation to second and third appealsThe first appeal related to the registered rent of one of three identical ground-floor flats in a purpose-built block at 353a Higham Hill, London E17. It was the only flat subject to a regulated tenancy. The landlord asked for a referral to the rent assessment committee after the rent officer determined the rent at £3,120 pa. The committee determined the rent at £854 per quarter. The second appeal related to the rent of a second-floor flat at 67 Disraeli Road, London SW15; one of four flats in a terraced house and the only one subject to a regulated tenancy. The other flats were centrally heated and let on furnished assured tenancies. The landlord proposed a rent of £85 per week with reference to the rents of the other three flats. A rent of £46 per week was confirmed by the committee. The third appeal related to a self-contained maisonette at 142 Upper Richmond Road, London SW15. The committee fixed the rent at £70 per week, although the landlord had requested a fair rent of £120 per week. Held Decision quashed in relation to first appeal; decisions upheld in relation to second and third appeals. 1. A fair rent under section 70 was the market rent adjusted for the scarcity element under section 70(2), and disregarding the personal circumstances and other matters: see section 70(1) and (3). The objective was to achieve a fair rent thus defined; Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester Rent Assessment Committee [1995] 49 EG 128. 2. There were various methods of assessing the fair rent, including the use of: registered fair rent comparables and assured tenancy comparables. The methods adopted by the committees might vary according to the particular circumstances. 3. Whichever method was used, the objective was to achieve a fair rent as defined in 1 above. 4. In all three appeals, the questions were: whether the respective committees gave proper consideration to that objective; and whether they gave proper reasons for their decisions. 5. In the first appeal the committee recorded the landlord’s argument fairly, but appeared not to have considered the market rent of an identical flat to be the appropriate basis from which to calculate the fair rent. Instead, they appeared to apply an uplift from the flat’s previous registered rent. No explanation was given for this approach. The determination was quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted committee. 6. In the second appeal the committee rejected the assured tenancy rents as providing a sensible basis for comparison and, on the facts, was clearly entitled to reach that conclusion. The reasons given were not so defective as to amount to a breach of obligation. However, committees could expect the court to look with some care at the sort of bare assertions set out in the light of the Spath Holme decision. 7. The third appeal was dismissed for the same reasons and with the same caveat as the second. James Bonney QC (instructed by Drewitt Willan, of Manchester) appeared for the appellants; John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the rent assessment committee.