The rental values of a block of flats were increased because of the presence nearby of an American school; the case turned on the equivalent provisions in the Rent Act 1968 to section 70(1) in the 1977 Act.
Held: One must have regard to the sort of factors which tend to push rents up or down on the market, to the age of the premises, up or down according to whether the premises are old or modern, to their character and their locality, because a house situate in pleasant surroundings, and with the advantage of local amenities, may command a higher rent than an identical house in a less attractive setting. If the committee took the view that the presence of a school made the houses in the surrounding area, and in particular these flats, more attractive, and thus likely to command more rent, then so far as section 46 (1) is concerned the fair rent ought to reflect that factor. In subsection (1), any amenity,any advantage which the premises inherently have, in their construction, their nature, their scale, their situation, their proximity to a school, a zoo or a theatre, whatever it may be, all those factors which would tend in the market to increase the rental, are factors to be taken into account by the committee in fixing the fair rent. The presence of an attractive school would tend to put up the fair rent because it would be an amenity making the premises more attractive.
Judges:
Lord Widgery
Citations:
[1975] 1 WLR 349
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina, Ex Parte Spath Holme Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and The Regions, Secretary of State For Wales CA 20-Jan-2000
Regulations made to ease the effect of changes on the calculation of registered rents were ultra vires and void. The Act under which they were made was intended to control inflation. The purpose of these Regulations was to ease the effect on . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Chairman of the London Rent Assessment Committee Admn 19-Apr-2002
The respondent had determined a fair rent under the 1977 Act, on the grounds that LRAC had adopted an impermissible approach to the question of whether any ‘scarcity’ deduction fell to be made and to its assessment of that deduction as 30%. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.180399
