Sheppard-Capurro, R (on the application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel

An appeal from a rent assessment panel lies on a question of law only. A panel does not err in law by assessing market rent from its own knowledge and experience where neither party supplies evidence of comparable rents. In fixing a fair rent, the panel must assess the premises in their actual state at the date of assessment. It must disregard matters which the governing legislation requires to be excluded, including defects attributable to a landlord’s past failures where those matters are relied on as punishment, compensation or a rent reduction. The panel may apply the statutory cap after making the uncapped assessment. A decision based on the panel’s inspection, evidence, market knowledge and relevant guidance will stand where no specific legal error is identified.

The claimant, a tenant, appealed against a decision of the London Rent Assessment Panel fixing the fair rent of his flat at £78 per week. The panel had assessed an uncapped fair rent of £90 per week after considering market rent, the condition of the premises and scarcity, then applied the maximum permitted by the 1999 order.

The claimant contended generally that the panel had made a mistake of law. He did not identify any specific legal error. Neither party had produced evidence of market rents for comparable properties. The central issues were whether the panel could rely on its own knowledge and experience, and whether alleged structural defects and historic failures were relevant to the assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal lay on law only. The claimant had identified no specific error of law, and none was apparent.
2. The panel was entitled to do its best using its own knowledge and experience of market rents because neither party had produced evidence of rents for similar properties. Its self-direction in accordance with Spath Holme Limited v Chairman of the Greater Manchester Committee and Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee, together with guidance on scarcity, was manifestly correct (see para [6]).
3. Under section 70 of the 1977 Act, the panel had to disregard alleged failures by the landlords to remedy structural defects and persistent past failures where those matters were relied on to punish the landlord, compensate the tenant or reduce the rent. The relevant assessment was the state of the premises when the assessment was carried out (see para [4]).
4. The panel also had to disregard improvements made by the tenant and disrepair or other defects attributable to the tenant’s failure, or that of a predecessor, to comply with the tenancy. The panel’s assumption that the tenancy contained the usual allocation of repair and internal decoration responsibilities was not shown to be erroneous (see para [5]).
5. The panel had properly considered the market rent, the condition of the premises, scarcity and the statutory maximum. Its calculation of an uncapped figure of £90 and final figure of £78 disclosed no error of law (see para [7]).
6. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had liberty to apply within 14 days of service of the decision to set it aside, but any application had to give good reasons for his failure to attend. A transcript was directed at public expense.

The judgment records an appeal by the tenant against the decision of the London Rent Assessment Panel following its hearing on 16 November 2004. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and granted liberty to apply to set aside the decision within 14 days of service, subject to the stated conditions.