The rent assessment committee had rejected proposed market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the premises, because they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity. The landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of registered fair rent comparables.
Held: The court set out the principles to be followed in assessing fair rent and considering different comparators: ‘(1) A ‘fair rent’ under Section 70 of the Rent Act 1977 is the market rent adjusted for the scarcity element under section 70(2) and disregarding the personal circumstances mentioned in section 70(1)and the matters specified in section 70(3). (2) There are various methods of assessing the fair rent, including the use of registered fair rent comparables and the use of assured tenancy comparables. (3) The method or methods adopted by a rent assessment committee may vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. (4) The rent assessment committee must consider, and have regard to, the method or methods suggested to them by the parties. (5) In deciding which method to adopt the rent assessment committee must take into account relevant considerations and give adequate reasons for their choice of method. (6) Subject to compliance with those requirements, the rent assessment committee is free to adopt the method which appears to them, on the evidence, to be the most appropriate method provided it is not a method which is either unlawful or unreasonable.
It follows from a consideration of those principles that a rent assessment committee is not bound to use assured tenancy comparable in determining a fair rent under section 70, although that method may be expected to be used increasingly in the future in the same way as registered fair rent comparables were used increasingly following the advent of the Rent Acts.’ It was open to a committee to adopt either the market rent or registered rent approach, or both, depending on the material before them, and that the absence of scarcity was no reason for rejecting market rent comparables. However, a committee would have to show weighty reasons for departing substantially from market rents recently agreed on similar flats within the same block, as in this case.
Judges:
Harrison J
Citations:
Times 13-Jul-1994, (1994) 27 HLR 243
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee CA 9-Aug-1995
The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not . .
Cited – Sheppard-Capurro, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel Admn 27-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Curtis v Chairman of London Rent Assessment Committee; Huntingford and Packford CA 9-Oct-1997
The claimant sought to appeal the quashing of determinations of a fair rent for two properties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.89448