NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE HOMES LIMITED v NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE HOMES LIMITED v MRS AMY MURTINGA BENTLEY

Decision date: 13 August 2015

Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 451 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to reduce the market rent for 16 Pelham View to reflect disrepair when the tenant had persistently refused the landlord access for repairs. The Upper Tribunal held the F-tT erred in law by making deductions from the assessed modernised market rent where the adverse condition of the dwelling was directly attributable to the tenant’s refusal of access, and remitted the matter to the F-tT for reconsideration without those improper deductions.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

Where a tenant’s refusal of access to permit repairs causes a reduction in the dwelling’s value, that reduction is attributable to the tenant and falls within the class of reductions to be treated under section 14(2)(c) (i.e. disregarded) when determining fair rent; a tribunal should not make rent deductions for disrepair resulting from the tenant’s non‑compliance without applying that statutory provision.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Deputy President observed it may be arguable that, for valuation purposes, repairs should be assumed to have been carried out where the landlord was refused access; the notes also record the landlord’s proposed new rent in February 2014 (£99.39/week), mentioned without forming part of the binding decision.

Warning

Chunk is repetitive and contains formatting noise; some passages duplicated.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML