Pimlott v Varcity Accommodation Ltd

When determining rent for an assured periodic tenancy under Housing Act 1988, a Rent Assessment Committee must apply the statutory criteria but may consider any material relevant to the open-market assessment. Section 14 does not prevent comparison with premises let on assured shorthold tenancies. The Committee must assess the premises’ condition at the time of assessment and disregard qualifying tenant improvements. A failure to investigate undue hardship will not ordinarily be an error of law where the tenant raised no matter that should have prompted such an inquiry. An alleged error will not justify appellate intervention where it was beneficial to the tenant and could not have produced an excessive rent.

The appellant was the tenant of residential premises held under an assured periodic tenancy that had arisen after an initial fixed-term letting. Following a notice proposing an increased rent under section 13(2) of the Housing Act 1988, she referred the notice to a Rent Assessment Committee.

The Committee assessed the rent at £495 per calendar month. The tenant appealed to the Administrative Court, alleging errors of law in the Committee’s use of assured shorthold tenancy comparables, treatment of improvement notices and tenant improvements, assessment of the locality, and failure to investigate undue hardship under section 14(8). The central issue was whether the Committee’s determination disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Rent Assessment Committee had not erred in law in determining the rent at £495 per calendar month.
2. Section 14(1) of the Housing Act 1988 requires assessment of the rent at which the premises might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord under an assured periodic tenancy having the same relevant terms. Nothing in section 14 prevents the Committee from considering relevant evidence derived from comparable premises let under assured shorthold tenancies.
3. The statutory distinction between assured periodic and assured shorthold tenancies is material, particularly because the former gives greater security of tenure. Nevertheless, a comparable assured shorthold tenancy rent may be relevant evidence. Even if its use had been erroneous, the error would have benefited the tenant, since the evidence did not suggest that the assessed rent was too high.
4. The Committee was required to assess the condition of the premises at the time of its assessment. Its reference to the improvement notices served under the Housing Act 2004 and the landlord’s assurance that the works would be completed did not show that those matters had been ignored.
5. Section 14(2)(b) required qualifying improvements carried out by the tenant otherwise than pursuant to an obligation to the immediate landlord to be disregarded. The Committee’s reasons showed that it had disregarded improvements outside the tenant’s repairing obligations.
6. The Committee was entitled to rely on its specialist knowledge and experience in assessing the locality. Section 14(8) did not require it to investigate undue hardship of its own motion where the tenant had raised no matter before the Committee that should have prompted such an inquiry.

• Rent Assessment Committee: On 6 August 2010, determined that the rent for the premises should be £495 per calendar month from 1 March 2010.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the tenant’s appeal on the ground that the Committee’s determination disclosed no error of law.