Act: Sutherland; Drummond Miller

Alt: Reid, Q.C.; Barne; Tods Murray

5 February 2010

[1] This is an appeal against a decision of a Private Rented Housing Committee dated 19^th September and 20^th November 2007.

[2] Three grounds of appeal are presented. In the course of the submissions before us the issues narrowed, and we did not detect any serious divergence between the parties as to the law to be applied. It is a compliment to, and not a criticism of, counsel that we are able now, shortly, to give our decision.

[3] As presented in argument, the first ground of appeal is that there was no good reason, in particular absent any evidence, for the Committee's stated position that, on consideration, they did not find assistance in Appendix 2, the schedule relating to sixteen properties let on assured tenancies. Having considered the full terms of the decision and parties' submissions, we are not persuaded that there is force in this criticism. In our opinion, there was sufficient material, in particular in the submission of Mr Rowlands, to justify the position taken by the Committee (assuming that any evidence at all was necessary in relation to a matter on which the members of the Committee themselves would, it seems, have been able to bring to bear their knowledge and experience).

[4] The second ground of appeal, as presented in argument, is that no reason, or in any event no good reason, was given for the Committee to leave out of account some of the headings in the schedule relative to improvement works produced by Mr Rowlands, especially re-roofing and re-rendering. Again we are not persuaded that there is force in this submission. First of all it is plain that the reason given by the Committee was that they were prepared, in essence, to start with the headings set out in the report of the expert who was led on behalf the tenants, the headings being those improvements which he considered necessary to one particular property. In any event, in our opinion, the Committee was entitled, having regard to Mr Rowlands' evidence as a whole, to draw from it that re-roofing and re-rendering was not generally required in the improved properties.

[5] The third ground of appeal is that the decision is defective in respect of the Committee's failure to give reasons for the figure of 20 years selected as the period over which the identified costs fell to be defrayed. However, in circumstances where it seems that the parties themselves were content to leave that to the skill and expertise of the Committee, no submissions having been made on this matter, we do not consider that the decision can be criticised on this point. In particular we do not think that, in the circumstances, any further explanation was necessary. There was, in any event, in our view, plainly material available to the Committee on which that decision could, as a matter of valuation judgement, have been reached, not least the planned maintenance programme produced by the expert led on behalf of the tenants.

[6] For all of these reasons we are not persuaded by any of the three grounds advanced, and the appeal is refused.