Daejan Properties Ltd v Chambers

Rent Act 1977 — Appeal by landlords against decision of rent assessment committee — Rent officer determined a fair rent of flat at £2,325 per annum inclusive of £826.58 per annum in respect of services — Landlords had asked for £2,555 per annum inclusive of £898 for services — Rent assessment committee fixed fair rent at £2,365 per annum inclusive of £865.97 for services — Committee gave reasons for their decision, as requested, and the landlords on appeal to the court put forward two main grounds of complaint — The first was that the reasons contained a statement that ‘In view of the fact that the committee were unable to gain access to the flat, they made an adjustment in the total rent to reflect the updated service schedule’ — This, it was submitted, indicated that the committee considered that inability to obtain access justified them in merely updating the service schedule and not reviewing the rent in the light of all the material before them and their knowledge and experience — The second complaint was that the committee did not take into account evidence of valuation which was submitted to them on behalf of the appellants or at least did not show in their reasons that they had taken it into account — Held that the case must be remitted to the committee for reconsideration in view of their apparent failure to consider the whole of the evidence presented to them, or at any rate their failure to give reasons for rejecting it, and in view of the fallacious ground mentioned in their reasons that they were unable to obtain access to the premises — Committee’s decision remitted for reconsideration in the light of the judgment This was an appeal by landlords Daejan Properties Ltd from a decision of a rent assessment committee for the London area, in respect of the committee’s determination of a fair rent of a flat at 17 Conduit House, Hyde Vale, London SE10, of which the tenant was Miss Doris Chambers. P Wulwik (instructed by Clifford Watts, Compton & Co) appeared on behalf of the appellant landlords. The respondent, Miss Chambers, did not appear and was not represented. Giving judgment, McNEILL J said: This is an appeal from a decision of a London rent assessment committee, dated October 5 1984, determining the fair rent of a dwelling, 17 Conduit House, Hyde Vale, London SE10. The appellants are the landlords of the premises and by the notice of motion ask that the decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the committee for rehearing and determination. Neither the committee nor the respondent, who is the tenant of the premises, has appeared before me. The premises, no 17, are a flat in a building of which the appellants are the owners. From time to time, over the years, fair rent for the premises has been determined under the provisions of the Rent Act 1977. The matter fell to be reconsidered in 1984 on what I assume was the normal biennial reconsideration. On July 11 1984 the rent officer made a determination to which the appellants objected and the objection therefore came before a London rent assessment committee. The position was this. The rent officer had determined the fair rent at £2,325 per annum inclusive of £826.58 per annum for services. I need say little about the service element because the committee were persuaded that the figure for services was too low in the light of material which was more up to date than that which was available to the rent officer. The result of that readjustment, however, meant that the fair rent was determined by the committee at £2,365 per annum, that is to say an increase of £40. It now appears that the appellants were contending for a total figure, by way of fair rent, of £2,555 per annum, including £898 for services. The committee, as they are required to do, gave their reasons. They are at p 31 of the bundle. The chairman provided her notes and they are to be found at p 38. The tenant, the present respondent, did not attend the hearing or communicate with the committee. The first paragraph of the reasons at p 31 reads as follows: ‘At the hearing the landlord company was represented by Mrs Carlyle, an employee of the Freshwater Group of Companies. Mr P Miles of May & Philpot who was appearing in the following case was able to assist the committee by answering some questions.’ They then deal with the updated service schedule, and continue: ‘The Committee inspected the subject block but were unable to gain access to Flat 17.’  They deal with the general description of the block and were ‘inclined to agree with Mr Miles that Flat 17 was probably the most attractive situation in the block with a southerly view across the park’. Then, omitting the next paragraph, which is not material for these purposes, they said this: In view of the fact that the committee were unable to gain access to the flat they made an adjustment in the total rent to reflect the updated service schedule. Having regard to all the evidence put before us, to our inspection, to our knowledge and experience, and to the provisions of section 70 of the Rent Act 1977 we determined the fair rent, to be registered exclusive of rates, at £2,365 per annum. The chairman’s notes, which I need not set out in detail, refer in an abbreviation to written representations by the appellants: ‘Mrs Carlyle: from Freshwaters. Written proof of evidence.’  Then there are three short descriptions of the contents of that proof, which in fact adopted the rent officer’s description of the premises. There then appears this line: ‘She could not answer Mr Emeny’s questions.’  Mr Emeny, it appears from the documents, was the surveyor member of the committee. That is the whole of the material which the committee have disclosed, and upon that three points are taken. First of all it is said in relation to the penultimate paragraph of the reasons, which I have read, that the committee were determining that in view of the fact that they were unable to gain access to the flat they should only make an adjustment to reflect the updated service schedule, that they were applying the wrong test in law and that their inability to gain access was not a reason of itself for failing to apply their experience and knowledge and such material as was before them to reviewing the rent. Of course, at the end of the day they were entitled to say that the rent should remain as it was, which is what they did, as long as they applied themselves to the material that was before them. In the second ground of appeal it is said that the committee failed to consider adequately or at all the evidence of the appellants’ surveyor that there should be such an increase, that is to say the increase to which I have already referred of some £200 per year. Third, it is said they failed to give any adequate reasons or explanation in respect of their decision and in particular for not accepting the evidence of valuations submitted by the appellants’168 surveyor. The appellants’ surveyor, Mr Miles, has sworn an affidavit which is before me. At para 8 he says: The appellants’ evidence before the Rent Assessment Committee consisted of written proofs of evidence from Mrs Carlyle and from myself, together with an updated service schedule . . . True copies of the said proofs of evidence and service schedule which were before the Rent Assessment Committee are now produced . . . He refers to his proposal as to the fair rent. Whatever be the force, if there is force in the first of those submissions, it seems to me entirely clear from what the committee have recorded in their reasons and from what appears in the notes of the chairman that they do not appear to have regarded Mr Miles as a witness whose evidence was before them, or to have taken into account in any way the proof of evidence which is before me and which plainly refers to no 17. In that respect at the very least the committee were in error in disregarding that material or, if they took it into account, in failing to deal with it in their reasons. It might be said that the penultimate phrase is badly worded. It may well be the committee felt they should record the fact that they were unable to obtain access to the flat, but that is wholly insufficient when set against the fact that they also seem wholly to have disregarded the fact that Mr Miles provided evidence in relation to no 17. It also makes even more mysterious the chairman’s note that Mrs Carlyle could not answer Mr Emeny’s questions when, if Mr Miles was there, as he clearly was (although the committee seem to have thought he was there for a different case), Mr Emeny should have put his questions to Mr Miles, who no doubt would have been able to deal with them. For those reasons it seems to me that this matter must go back to the committee for reconsideration. They may come to the same conclusion having considered the whole of the evidence, but it is I think plain that they failed to consider it, or, if they did, they failed entirely to give any reasons for rejecting it or for coming to the conclusion which they did other than, if I may say so, the fallacious reason that they were unable to get access to the premises. Accordingly, the matter will be remitted. There was no order for costs.