[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Sheppard-Capurro, R (on the application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel [2005] EWHC 1867 (Admin) (27 July 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1867.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 1867 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		27th July 2005

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal by a tenant against the decision of the London Rent Assessment Panel, following a hearing on 16th November 2004, whereby it ordered that the fair rent for the flat, which the appellant occupied, should be £78 per week. He was of the view that the appropriate amount should have been £56.50 per week and accordingly he was dissatisfied with the decision which was eventually reached.
2. He is a litigant in person. Unfortunately he has failed to attend the hearing today and the notice of this hearing was sent to him at the address in question. He has provided a contact telephone number. Attempts have been made to find out why he has failed to attend, but unfortunately they have been unsuccessful. In those circumstances it seems to me that I should deal with this appeal. If there is a good reason why the appellant failed to attend this morning, he will be able to make an application for a rehearing giving those reasons if he wishes to do so. However, having regard to what I am about to say, it may well be that he would be sensible not to seek to pursue this claim.
3. The appeal lies on law only. The Grounds of Appeal simply state that he appeals on a mistake of law in the process carried out by the Rent Assessment Panel. He does not see fit to identify any specific error of law in the decision and that is not, in my view, surprising since there is no error of law, so far as I can see. Unfortunately at the hearing no evidence was produced by either side of the market rents for similar properties. Accordingly, the Panel had to do its best on the basis of its own knowledge and its own experience.
4. The concerns by the tenant related in part, at least, to alleged failures by the landlords to deal with defects in the structure and persistent failures in the past. As the Committee pointed out, and correctly pointed out, it had no power to punish a landlord or to compensate a tenant with a reduced rent. Section 70 of the 1977 Act makes it plain that those sorts of matters have to be disregarded. What the Committee is bound to do is to look at the state of the premises at the time that the assessment is carried out and to decide, in the light of that, what is the appropriate rent.
5. They also have to disregard any improvements carried out by the tenant and equally any disrepair, or other defect, attributable to a failure by the tenant, or any predecessor of his, to comply with the terms of the tenancy. They did not have, it seems, a copy of the tenancy, but assumed that it contained the usual clause which would be that repairs were the responsibility of the landlord, but internal decoration the responsibility of the tenant. It is not suggested by the appellant, in any of the documentation, that that assumption was an erroneous one.
6. The Committee approached its task directing itself in accordance with the authorities of Spath Holme Limited v Chairman of the Greater Manchester Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107 and Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee [1999] QB 92, and in addition they had regard to guidance in relation to scarcity. As it seems to me that self-direction was manifestly correct and no error of law can be seen in the manner in which the Committee approached its task. They relied, as I say, on their own general knowledge of market rent levels in the area of Clapham and concluded that such a likely market rent would be £180 per week.
7. However, they then had regard to the condition and identified the various defects which had been apparent both from their inspection and from the evidence put before them, and reduced by one third the amount in question. They then reduced the figure of £120 per week, which resulted, by a further 25 per cent in order to deal with scarcity. Again, that was following guidance by the court to which they have referred. They also had regard to decisions of other Rent Assessment Committees in relation to other premises in London in order to identify the appropriate discount in relation to scarcity. This led them to reach an uncapped fair rent figure of £90 per week. The maximum permitted by the 1999 order was £78 per week and that is how that figure was reached.
8. It is clear, beyond any doubt, that there is no conceivable error of law to be identified in the decision in question. This was, I am afraid, an utterly hopeless appeal and in those circumstances it would be foolish of the appellant to seek to reinstate it if he has a good reason for not having attended today. He will run the risk, if he does, of having to pay costs should the respondents decide that it is necessary to produce argument before the court.
9. Accordingly this appeal will be dismissed but the appellant must have liberty to apply to the court within 14 days of being served with this decision to apply to set it aside, if so advised, and if he does so he must set out good reasons why he has failed to attend the court today. I direct that a transcript should be produced at public expense and the appellant has 14 days after receipt of the transcript to make an application.