Gidvani, R (on the application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel

A statutory appeal from a Rent Assessment Committee is confined to errors of law. The court does not rehear the merits or substitute its assessment of the premises. It may intervene in relation to factual conclusions only where they are manifestly unreasonable.

A failure to consider a material matter may constitute an error of law. However, an earlier registered rent may have little or no materiality where a later registration exists and the statutory scheme treats the later determination as final. A conventional scarcity deduction does not itself disclose an error of law.

The claimant challenged a Rent Assessment Committee decision dated 9 December 2005 concerning the registered fair rent for residential premises. The Committee increased the rent officer’s figure from £520 to £525 per calendar month.

She argued that the Committee had made unjustified deductions for the condition of the property, had wrongly deducted for scarcity, and had failed to consider an alleged registered rent of £110 per week in 1993. The court also considered, but did not need to determine, whether time should be extended for the statutory appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court’s jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the Committee had made an error of law. It was not an appeal on the merits. The Committee had inspected the premises, and its conclusions about their condition could only be challenged if manifestly unreasonable. No such error was shown.
2. The scarcity deduction was conventional under the statutory scheme. Its use disclosed no error of law.
3. Failure to take account of a material consideration could potentially amount to an error of law. There was, however, an unresolved factual dispute about whether there had been a registered rent of £110 per week in 1993 or merely a proposal to register that rent.
4. That dispute did not affect the result. The Committee’s reasons showed that a rent of £500 per calendar month had been registered on 10 April 2003 following a rent officer’s determination. Under the statutory scheme, the Committee was entitled to take the later registration as its starting point. The alleged 1993 registration would have had little or no materiality in light of the subsequent registration. There was therefore no failure to consider a material matter and no arguable error of law.
5. The court did not decide whether time should be extended. The application was substantially out of time, but the absence of any demonstrated error of law made the issue academic.

• Rent Assessment Committee: on 9 December 2005, determined the registered fair rent at £525 per calendar month, slightly increasing the rent officer’s figure of £520.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal. The court held that no error of law had been demonstrated.