R v Brighton Rent Officer ex parte Elliott

Assessment of fair rent–Purpose of rent officer’s consultations with parties–No obligation to decide beforehand what comparable rents are to be used–No obligation, therefore, to disclose such comparables to landlord beforehand This was an application by Mr Grant Elliott, of Broad Street, Cuckfield, Sussex, for an order of prohibition addressed to the respondent, the Brighton rent officer, to prevent his further proceeding to determine fair rents for the front basement flat and flats 1 and 3 Rendell Court, Chichester Terrace, Brighton. Mr B Galpin (instructed by Dollman & Pritchard) appeared for the applicant, and Mr H K Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the respondent. Giving judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that the applicant asked for a prohibition order to operate for not less than 14 days after he had been given notice specifying which properties the respondent wished to consider as comparables, together with their registered rents and dates of registration. The authority of a rent officer was defined under section 44 of the Rent Act 1968. The procedure to be adopted was to be found in Part I of the sixth schedule, which provided that on receiving applications the rent officer might, by serving notice in writing on either the landlord or the tenant, ask them for such information as he might reasonably require. If either party disagreed with the rent proposed in the application by landlord or tenant, they might make representations to the rent officer. When representations were made or the rent officer was not satisfied with the figure applied for, then he served a notice on the landlord and tenant informing them that he proposed to consider in consultation with them what new rent should be registered for the property. If either party was dissatisfied with the rent fixed by the rent officer, the matter was referred to the local rent assessment committee. In the present case the rent officer, having received the landlord’s application to fix a fair rent, sent out a notice calling in the landlord and his tenants for consultations on February 6. He made it clear that in determining fair rents he would be guided by other comparable rents already registered by the Brighton rent assessment committee. The rent officer was following directions given recently by the House of Lords in Mason v Skilling [1974] 1 WLR 1437, and the procedure was one which had been followed by valuers over many years. However, it produced a complaint from the applicant. He said it was unfair to him to be required to attend consultations without being told what comparable properties the rent officer wanted to rely on. His argument was that this was the only opportunity he as landlord would have of influencing the mind of the rent officer, and he could only bring his influence to bear if he knew what was in the rent officer’s mind and what comparables he would rely on. The rent officer refused to reveal what comparable properties he would be guided by, and the applicant thought this refusal unfair. Consultations such as those required by the sixth schedule provided an opportunity for the parties to sit round the table and, if possible, for the rent officer to help them reach a settlement. Any difficulties between the parties might be resolved in a consultation with a skilled rent officer. The main function was to enable the rent officer to approach the problem knowing the views of all parties. He (his Lordship) did not take the view that the rent officer was expected to decide on a rent only from the consultations or that he would go to the consultations with no opinion of what the rent ought to be. The consultations nevertheless enabled the rent officer to take an objective attitude to the matter, and should help him reach a decision that reflected what all the parties said. There was no kind of obligation on him to determine what comparables he would rely on before he went to the consultations. Once the comparables were decided on, then the result was often just a matter of mathematics. A rent officer would be wrong to go to the consultations with the comparables already firmly fixed in his mind. BRIDGE and EVELEIGH JJ agreed, and the application was dismissed with costs.