Anderson vs Kokins & Kokina

This case concerned an appeal by Mr. Anderson, the landlord, against the First-tier Tribunal's decision to restrict a proposed rent increase for a flat in Shepperton due to disputed property conditions.

TLDR:

• Landlord Anderson appealed against the FTT's decision to restrict rent increase.
• FTT had made deductions based on disputed property conditions.
• Upper Tribunal found procedural irregularities in FTT's decision.
• Rent redetermined at £1,550 per month.

The appellant, Mr. Anderson, a landlord, appealed against the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decision that restricted a proposed rent increase for a two-bedroom flat at 62 Swan Walk, Shepperton. The tenants, Mr. Kokins and Ms. Kokina, were represented by Mr. Romans Fomins, a lay representative.

The flat, part of a gated riverside development, had been let to the tenants since January 2016. The landlord served a notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 proposing a new rent of £1,700 per month, up from £1,250. The tenants referred the notice to the FTT, citing various disrepair issues.

The FTT determined the rent on the papers at £1,390 per month, making deductions for alleged disrepair and tenant improvements. The landlord appealed, arguing procedural irregularities and insufficient reasoning by the FTT.

The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had made significant deductions based on disputed facts without conducting a hearing or allowing the landlord to respond adequately. The Tribunal also noted that the FTT failed to explain the quantum of adjustments made to the base rent.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Upper Tribunal determined that the appropriate rent, considering the disputed issues, should be £1,550 per month. The Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision and substituted its own determination.

The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in rent determination cases and clarifies the responsibilities of landlords and tenants under assured shorthold tenancies.

Legal representatives: Mr. Anderson represented himself, Mr. Romans Fomins (lay representative) for the respondents.

Judicial Panel: Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President and Diane Martin MRICS FAAV

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKUT 91 (LC)