Re Leeds Federated Housing Association Ltd

Rent Act 1977 and Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 — Statutory appeal by housing association — No respondent — Complaint by association that rents fixed by rent assessment committee of Yorkshire Rent Assessment Panel were too high — In the course of their decision the committee had incorrectly assumed that certain properties cited as comparable, and included in a previous committee decision, were properties in the private rented sector whereas they were in fact housing association properties — The committee had therefore rejected the comparison with these properties on a wrong assumption — The judge held accordingly that the committee had made an error of law — Case remitted to the panel with a direction that it should be reheard by a committee, it being left to the panel to decide whether case should go to the same committee or a different committee — Rehearing, not merely reconsideration by committee, ordered This was a statutory appeal by Leeds Federated Housing Association Ltd under section 13 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 from a decision of a rent assessment committee of the Yorkshire Rent Assessment Panel. There was no respondent to the appeal, the tenants not being named as respondents and the committee not being capable of appearing or being represented under RSC, Order 55, rule 8. For the assistance of the court, however, counsel was instructed and appeared as amicus curiae. Andrew Arden (instructed by Pearlman, Grazin & Co, of Leeds) appeared on behalf of the appellant association; Andrew Collins (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared as amicus curiae. Giving judgment, SIR DOUGLAS FRANK QC said: These are two statutory appeals under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 by, paradoxically, the landlords, who say that the rent determined by a committee of the rent assessment panel for Yorkshire was too high. Mr Coulter appeared before the committee for the association. He invoked 83 Wickham Street as a comparable, the property for consideration by the committee being 17 Wickham Street. He urged that as one of the comparables which should be taken into account. The committee took that into account and, having made the adjustments which they thought appropriate, came to the conclusion that it supported a rent of £9 per week. Mr Arden has made a certain criticism about the adjustment for inflation which, in my judgment, is ill-founded. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on that. The committee then went on to deal with properties in Stratford Terrace which had been the subject of a decision by another committee, differently composed but from the same assessment panel, and they, in dealing with that in their decision, said: ‘The committee have found difficulty in accepting the level of rents set by this decision.’ They then went on to make certain further observations and they then said: The decision of September 24 1980 that is the one, it appears, which was only made six weeks before relies heavily on the use of rents for ‘comparable’ properties in the private sector. This method of determination is of limited use where a committee does not have access to the comparables quoted and are unable to compare the quality of the accommodation, improvements and repairs. The improvements and repairs undertaken by the housing association are of a very much higher standard than is normally the case. The committee therefore consider that, even by using the comparative method, the rents fixed on September 24 1980 were low. Mr Arden, relying on a number of authorities, in particular Ezekiel v Orakpo [1977] QB 260 and Mason v Skilling [1974] 1 WLR 1473, submits that, as a matter of law, the committee were bound to accept the decision relating to Stratford Terrace as being correct unless it was wrong in law. On a literal reading of parts of the judgments in the cases I have cited, there is some support for that. I am not sure that I would accept such a broad proposition, because it does seem to me that if it can be shown that a previous decision is open to attack, for example, that the evidence was incomplete, inaccurate or false, then it would be quite wrong for a committee to accept it as they would then be relying on a fair rent which had been determined on a false basis in fact and therefore it might not be a fair rent as prescribed by the statute. In Mason v Skilling, Lord Reid said: Of course it must be open to the either party to show that those comparable rents have been determined on a wrong basis but until that is shown it must be assumed that rents already determined have been rightly ascertained. In this case, the committee rejected the Stratford Terrace comparables because they in turn were based on comparables in the private sector contrasted with comparables of properties owned by a housing association. As now appears from an affidavit put in by Mr Coulter, which is not challenged, in fact the only properties before the committee deciding the Stratford Terrace case were properties owned by the housing association. So, in short, what the committee did in the instant case was to reject the Stratford Terrace properties on a wrong assumption. There is no knowing what view they might have taken or what weight they might have given to the Stratford Terrace decision had they known that the comparables invoked in that decision were not properties in the private sector but owned by a housing association. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that there is an error of law in the decision. I should say, however, that the committee went to a great deal of trouble in considering this case and their reasons are set out in a manner which is to be commended and it is not to be taken as any criticism of them that the court feels bound to remit this case for further consideration so that they can again consider the Stratford Terrace properties and what weight they should give to them. Accordingly, this case will be remitted. The case was remitted to the Yorkshire Rent Assessment Panel for rehearing by a committee.