Waddington v Surrey and Sussex Rent Assessment Committee

Rent Act 1977 — Statutory appeal under Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 against decision of rent assessment committee — Landlord’s appeal against committee’s assessment of the fair rent at a figure lower than that determined by the rent officer — Complaint that committee did not give adequate reasons for their decision and that there was no evidence on which they could reasonably find the fair rent to be the figure assessed by them — Committee referred in their decision to a neighbouring property cited by both parties in support of different conclusions, but did not indicate why they rejected it as supporting the landlord’s case — Committee stated that their decision was based upon taking into account all that they saw at the inspection, the representations made by both parties and using their knowledge and experience — In allowing the landlord’s appeal Stephen Brown J took a stringent view of the extent of a rent assessment committee’s duty to give reasons — It was incumbent on the committee to deal with the hard evidence before them — If they were going to reject it or disregard it as irrelevant they ought to specify that fact and should give reasons for a rejection of alleged comparables — In the present case no satisfactory reason was given for rejecting the next-door property as a comparable or for rejecting the assessment of the rent officer — Present decision of Stephen Brown J goes somewhat beyond that of Sir Douglas Frank QC in Guppys Properties Ltd v Knott (No 3) — Tenant did not appear and was not represented in the High Court proceedings — No amicus curiae was instructed This was an appeal by the landlord, Anthony John Waddington, from a decision of a rent assessment committee of the Surrey and Sussex Rent Assessment Panel in respect of the fair rent of a house at 42 Minster Drive, Herne Bay, Kent, occupied by the tenant, a Mr Gillespie. The Surrey and Sussex Rent Assessment Panel is now the South Eastern Rent Assessment Panel and includes the Kent area. S Bickford-Smith (instructed by Ward Bowie, agents for Girling, Wilson & Harvie, of Herne Bay) appeared on behalf of the appellant landlord; the tenant did not appear and was not represented. Giving judgment, STEPHEN BROWN J said: This is an appeal against a decision of the Surrey and Sussex Rent Assessment Committee dated October 8 1981 in respect of their determination of the fair rent of a property known as 42 Minster Drive. Herne Bay, Kent. The matter came before the committee upon the application of the appellant, Mr Waddington, the landlord, when he sought the increase of the fair rent of the property which was occupied by the tenant, a Mr Gillespie, from the then current rent of £7.75 per week which had been effective from March 1978. The tenant has not appeared at this hearing, but I am satisfied that he has been served with the notice of motion and also given notice of the date of this hearing. The rent assessment committee also were not represented. Mr Bickford-Smith complains that in their decision of October 8 1981 by which the committee fixed the fair rent of this property at £13.50 per week, the tenant paying rates and water charges, the assessment committee did not give adequate or sufficient reasons for their determination having regard to the evidence which was before them. The substantive complaint, among the many grounds of appeal which are set out in the notice of motion, is that there was no evidence before the committee upon which they could reasonably find that a fair rent for the premises was £13.50 per week. In making that bold submission Mr Bickford-Smith relies upon the particular grounds that, firstly, the committee failed to take into account sufficiently, or at all, the fact that the neighbouring comparable premises at 40 Minster Drive, relied upon by both parties in argument before the committee, was a property with a fair rent fixed at £14.50 per week; and further and beyond that, Mr Bickford-Smith submits that the rent officer had assessed the fair rent of this very property, the subject of this appeal, at £14.20 per week and that, despite that fact, the rent assessment committee did not give sufficient or adequate reasons for adopting a lesser figure, that is to say £13.50 per week. In addition to that, Mr Bickford-Smith relies upon grounds of appeal which complain that, although the assessment committee referred to various improvements having taken place at the property since the last assessment decision, they did not indicate which, if any, of those improvements they took into account in coming to their decision. The reasons and the decision of the committee appear in the bundle of documents which is submitted to the court. The chairman there sets out the nature of each party’s submissions. In respect of the appellant he records that the landlord set out his representations in a document dated September 23 1981. The chairman then went on to say: He that is the landlord is of the opinion that the £14.20 per week exclusive rent registered by the rent officer in May 1981 was, at that time, consistent with other registrations and decisions of the Kent Rent Assessment Panel for the area as a whole but since that date the tone of the register has risen considerably. He also records that the landlord drew attention to repair work carried out since 1978, and then the chairman continues by saying: Both the tenant and the landlord use a house owned by the landlord, situated next door to the subject property, for the purposes of comparison. The committee were able to view this property from the outside at the time of the inspection of the subject property. The committee had before it a copy of a previous RAC decision dated February 2 1978 relating to the subject property and this they found helpful. The committee is of the opinion that a rent of £14.20 per week reflects an increase since the last registration above that which the committee would expect to find on a property of this type, in this area and with no great improvements made in the time that has elapsed. Pausing there, Mr Bickford-Smith says that that is a somewhat remarkable statement to make having regard to the fact that the next-door property has a rent of £14.50 per week and that at the last assessment in 1978 the rent of that property was £8 and the subject property £7.75 per week respectively. The decision is brought to its conclusion by the following paragraph: Taking into account all they saw at the inspection, the representations made by both parties and using its knowledge and experience, the committee determines that the fair rent for 42 Minster Drive, Herne Bay, Kent, shall be £13.50 per week with the tenant in addition paying the rates and water charges. The effective date is given as October 8 1981. 108 I have been referred by Mr Bickford-Smith to the reported decision of Sir Douglas Frank sitting as a deputy judge of this division on March 20 1981 in the case of Guppys Properties Ltd v Knott (No 3) (1981) 258 EG 1083, [1981] 1 EGLR 85. There Sir Douglas Frank considered the duties of an assessment committee to give reasons, and he said in terms that they are not obliged to give greatly detailed reasons but sufficient reasons which are not jejune (I think that was the phrase) to support their decision and to indicate grounds upon which they had arrived at it. In that case the appeal of the landlord was rejected, but the facts were somewhat different. In this appeal I am satisfied that substantial evidence was submitted on behalf of the landlord to be found in his submission which indicated the increase in registrations shown in the area as a whole. It set out a number of alleged comparable properties and in particular relied upon the adjacent premises, 40 Minster Drive. In their decision the rent assessment committee through their chairman acknowledged that document but did not deal with any of its details. It records that both the parties relied upon the next-door house, no 40, but it does not set out the basis upon which they rejected the apparent comparison of £14.50 in that case against £14.20 in the subject property, which was the rent officer’s assessment. The decision is recorded as being based upon ‘taking into account all that they saw at the inspection, the representations made by both parties and using its knowledge and experience the committee determines that the fair rent for 42 Minster Drive shall be £13.50 per week.’  That, submits Mr Bickford-Smith, is not sufficient having regard to the evidence which was before it. I am bound to say that, while one does not expect a rent assessment committee to give very detailed reasons, it is incumbent upon them to deal with the hard evidence which is before them; if they are going to reject it or disregard it as being irrelevant, then they ought to specify that fact, and in the event of a finding that the alleged comparables are not in fact comparable there should be some indication as to the reason for that. I think this is particularly relevant where one has a next-door property which one would expect should carry considerable weight. In this case, too, no reason is given for rejecting the assessment of the rent officer, whom one would expect to be in touch with the general level of registrations in the relevant area and to be giving weight to comparable properties. I am bound to say that, while appreciating that the rent assessment committee do not have an easy task and that they may well have in mind factors which appear from their own knowledge and experience, there is in this instance no satisfactory reason given for rejecting the comparable rent of the next-door property and also the assessment of the rent officer. In these circumstances I propose to allow this appeal and to remit the matter to the rent assessment committee for further consideration. The appeal was allowed. No order was made as to costs.