000			02085cad a22002535a 4500
001			L147293
008			090427e20090325xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u147293
041	0		_aeng
245	0	4	_aCherry Sheila Hughes v Borodex Limited _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2009
520			_a[2009] EWHC 565 (Admin), 25 March 2009. The case turns around a determination of rent and the loss of protection on assured tenancy. Cherry Sheila Hughes (H) appealed against a decision of the rent assessment committee on the amount of rent payable to Borodex Limited (B). H had a long lease with B. In 2003 the long residential tenancy ended and was replaced by an assured periodic tenancy under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. No agreement on the rent payable was reached and the decision was taken, in H's favour, by disregarding improvements carried out by her. In 2007 she made another application to the Rent Assessment Committee. It determined her rent at more than £25 000 per annum. As a result, her rent would not be classified as an assured tenancy any more. The Committee concluded that the sums for improvements are disregarded for a year. "Held": Appeal dismissed. When an initial reference to a Rent Assessment Committee is made after creation of an assured tenancy, a tenant can rely upon the provisions of the 1989 Act. Any following application would be made under the 1988 Act S13(4). H could therefore not take advantage of the provisions of the 1989 Act.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCHERRY SHEILA HUGHES V BORODEX LIMITED
650	2	4	_aTRUSTEES OF HENRY SMITHS CHARITY V HEMMINGS
650	2	4	_aEAST COAST AMUSEMENT V BRITISH TRANSPORT BOARD
650	2	4	_aINCO EUROPE LTD V FIRST CHOICE DISTRIBUTION
650	2	4	_aLOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989
650	2	4	_aHOUSING ACT 1988
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-TENANCIES-TENANCY RENT REVIEW
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/565.html _zView the case free of charge at www.bailli.org...
942			_n0
999			_c81469 _d81469