Cheniston Investments Ltd v Waddock and another; Waddock and another v Cheniston Investments Ltd and another
Cheniston Investments Ltd v Waddock and another; Waddock and another v Cheniston Investments Ltd and another
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8846) 19 November 1988, 88-99(6) .
CA 27 July 1988 Two appeals by the tenants Waddock and another (W) concerning fair rent registration, from a cc decision in favour of Cheniston Investments (C). The flat was the subject of a 1978 fair rent registration of £900 pa, inclusive of services and use of furniture. During a vacancy in the tenancy in 1980 the flat was modernised and fully furnished. Present tenants moved in 1983, paying £3,641,28 pa, rising in 1984 to £3,744. On discovering the existence of the 1978 registration, W brought proceedings in High Court for overpaid rent. Proceedings were transferred to cc and eventually heard together with C`s claim for possession for failure to pay rent due. Cc upheld C`s contention that the 1980 improvements had made the 1978 registration no longer applicable. CA held with reference to Kent v Millmead Properties Ltd , that the cc went wrong in asking whether there had been a material change in the specification of the dwelling-house or tenancy. He should have asked whether the
CA 27 July 1988 Two appeals by the tenants Waddock and another (W) concerning fair rent registration, from a cc decision in favour of Cheniston Investments (C). The flat was the subject of a 1978 fair rent registration of £900 pa, inclusive of services and use of furniture. During a vacancy in the tenancy in 1980 the flat was modernised and fully furnished. Present tenants moved in 1983, paying £3,641,28 pa, rising in 1984 to £3,744. On discovering the existence of the 1978 registration, W brought proceedings in High Court for overpaid rent. Proceedings were transferred to cc and eventually heard together with C`s claim for possession for failure to pay rent due. Cc upheld C`s contention that the 1980 improvements had made the 1978 registration no longer applicable. CA held with reference to Kent v Millmead Properties Ltd , that the cc went wrong in asking whether there had been a material change in the specification of the dwelling-house or tenancy. He should have asked whether the