Kensington Avenue Limited v Nadia Curlin

A tribunal determining a fair rent must give intelligible reasons which address substantial points raised by the parties. Where letting comparables are relied on, it must explain why its assessment of open-market rent is consistent with that evidence, or why the comparables have been rejected. Reasons need not be lengthy, but they must enable the parties to understand why the decision was reached.

An unexplained departure from material comparable evidence is an error of law. The decision must be set aside and the fair-rent determination remitted for redetermination.

The landlord appealed by way of review from the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 4 March 2024, for which written reasons were given on 16 April 2024. The First-tier Tribunal had determined the fair rent of a one-bedroom flat under Rent Act 1977, section 70.

The landlord had supplied a schedule of recent lettings of one-bedroom flats in the area and contended for a higher registered rent. The First-tier Tribunal assessed the open-market rent at £2,600 per month, made deductions for condition and scarcity, and determined a fair rent of £1,352 per month. Permission was granted on the issue whether the tribunal had adequately explained its open-market assessment in light of the comparable evidence.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the matter was remitted for redetermination.

2. The applicable requirement, stated in The Trustees of the Israel Moss Children’s Trust v Bandy [2015] UKUT 0276 (LC), is that reasons in a fair-rent determination need not be elaborate or lengthy, but must be intelligible, address substantial points raised, and enable the parties to understand why the decision was reached.

3. The First-tier Tribunal had recorded the landlord’s schedule of recent lettings, whose rents were materially higher than its own assessment of the assumed open-market rent. It gave no explanation of how its assessment of £2,600 per month was consistent with that evidence, or why the landlord’s comparables were rejected.

4. That omission prevented the landlord from understanding the basis of the decision. The fair-rent determination therefore could not stand. The rent fixed by the set-aside decision was no longer payable; a new rent would become payable when the First-tier Tribunal made its fresh determination, and could be higher or lower.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the landlord’s appeal by way of review, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s fair-rent determination, and remitted the matter for redetermination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 4 March 2024, with written reasons dated 16 April 2024, determined the fair rent at £1,352 per month.