Elizabeth Alexander & Anor v Mark Middleton

In determining market rent under Housing Act 1988, the relevant valuation date is the date on which the proposed new rent takes effect. Events occurring afterwards cannot affect the rent reasonably expected on that date. An FTT must make findings of fact on contested matters that materially affect the valuation, including whether a tenant refused access before the valuation date and thereby prevented remedial works. If the FTT has made no such findings, and its reasoning cannot be justified on the evidence, the determination contains an error of law. The Upper Tribunal may set it aside but cannot make the necessary factual findings on appeal; the matter must be remitted for redetermination.

The appellants, assured shorthold tenants of a house in Dagenham, referred a notice increasing the rent from £1,100 to £1,400 per month to the First-tier Tribunal. The property was in poor condition, with disputed disrepair and remedial works identified by an Environmental Health Officer.

The FTT determined the rent at £1,200 per month. It took account of the lack of modernisation but disregarded remedial works on the basis that the tenants had not provided the necessary access. The tenant appealed, arguing that any access difficulties arose after 31 March 2023, the date from which the new rent was to take effect. The central issue was whether the FTT had lawfully assessed matters relevant to the rent at that valuation date.

1. The appeal was allowed. The FTT’s determination was set aside and the matter was remitted to the FTT for redetermination.

2. Under section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, the rent is assessed by reference to the rent at which the dwelling-house might reasonably be expected to be let at the beginning of the new tenancy period. Here, the valuation date was 31 March 2023. Conduct or events after that date could not affect the rent at which the property would have been expected to let on that date. Any unreasonable refusal of access after 31 March was therefore irrelevant to the determination.

3. The FTT had made no finding of fact about when access was requested or refused. That omission was material because the relevance of the alleged refusal depended on whether it occurred before or after the valuation date. If the FTT had relied on post-valuation conduct, it had made an error of law. If it had relied on pre-valuation conduct, its conclusion could not be justified without findings of fact, particularly in light of the evidence indicating that the Environmental Health Officer’s inspection occurred only on 21 March and that the proposed works were extensive.

4. The Upper Tribunal could make no findings of fact in the appeal. The absence of findings by the FTT meant that the proper course was to set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The FTT’s rent determination was set aside and the matter was remitted for redetermination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Determined the market rent from 31 March 2023 at £1,200 per month.