Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1521709
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 JUNE 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Postponed surgeries A friend of mine was recently given an appointment for a day surgery at Mater Dei Hospital. She went for the pre-op appointment a week before and was given the time for her surgery. What she was not waiting for was the caution given to her by the doctor who saw her at pre-op stage that the surgery could be postponed if something else cropped up. And that is what precisely happened on the day of her scheduled surgery. After being prepped, she was left waiting un- til someone informed her the operation was being postponed to another day. It seems this is not an isolated incident. I cannot say how regular this occur- rence is and whether the situation has improved or gotten worse over time but it is definitely unfair on patients, especially if they had been waiting for more than a year, as my friend had been, for the surgical appointment. Something, somewhere is wrong and it needs fixing. Pamela Attard Mosta Aren't we Maltese before anything else? IT disheartens me to see people who suddenly lose their good sense when the political party they support comes under fire. Why should support for your party translate into insults against political opponents? Aren't we Maltese before anything else? Don't we earn a living at the same places of work? Let us argue and debate our differences and push forward our views because that is the essence of democracy, but this should never translate into insults and hate. We are all Maltese before we are Labourites, Nationalists, Greens or whatever hue and colour we subscribe to. L. Mifsud Msida THE Court should take into account the value of the property when calculat- ing the increase in rent. This was held in a judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal in Maria Carmela Bugelli et vs Saviour Bonnici et on 29 May 2024. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff presided over the Court of Appeal. The Applicants, Maria Carmela Bugel- li and others appealed from a decision delivered by the Rent Regulation Board on 5 October 2023. The Board decid- ed that the rent should be increased by 1.1% meaning €9,790 annually, but it did not order the eviction of the De- fendants. From the acts of the case, the Appli- cants had inherited a property in Borm- la. The property was requisitioned in 1986 and given to the Defendants. They paid €83.86 as rent per year. The Applicants asked the Board to or- der means test in terms of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordi- nance and the Civil Code. They also asked the Board to order an increase of a maximum of 2% of the value of the property. The Housing Authority, which inter- vened in the case, and the Defendant filed statements of defence. The De- fendants argued that they had followed the law when they rented the property and that the increase in rent should not be the maximum rate. The Board in its decision pointed out that the 2021 amendments referred to the regulations on the means test. The criteria of the means test is the income and the capital of the tenant should not be above the limits established by the Regulations. The Defendants, who are the tenants, are well over 70 years and their income does not exceed €46,500, a limit listed in the Regulations. The Board held that it is obvious that the Defendants passed the means test. It al- so analysed whether it should establish the maximum rate of increase in rent – 2% of the value of the property. The property was valued at €890,000. The Board may use its discretion on the per- centage it may increase the rent if it is not above 2% of the value of the proper- ty. The Board quoted from a Constitu- tional Court judgment Gerald Camilleri vs Attorney General. In this judgment, the Court held that there is a need to control the increase in rent. The rules are flexible and in terms of Article 12B of the Housing Decontrol Act should calibrate the percentage of increase in rent. The Court held that the Board should aim more for the maximum. The rent can be scaled; however, the rent will have to increase toward the highest rate. As to when the increase in rent should commence, the Board explained that Article 12B(2) of the Act, does not spec- ify that the increase should commence from 1 January of the year that the ap- plication before the Board, but merely it should be calculated from then. The Applicants appealed this decision on the increase should have been 2% of the value of the property. The Defend- ants and the Housing Authority held that this appeal should be rejected. The Court of Appeal first look at the logic of the Board on how it arrived at a 1.1% increase of rent. The Board took into consideration the age of the Defendants, 76 and 78 and that their income and capital are not more than €46,500 as dictated in the Continuation of Tenancies (Means Testing Criteria) Regulations (SL.16.11). Therefore, the Defendants did satis- fy the criteria of the means test. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Board considered the increase of the rent in relation to the Defendant's income. The value of the property was calculat- ed to be €890,000. The Board also held that it was following the dictates of the Constitutional Court and guided by the Housing (Decontrol Ordinance the in- terpretation of that law. For example, in Maria Pintley vs State Advocate de- cided on 1 December 2021, the Consti- tutional Court held that the increase should commence from the date of the judgement. The Court of Appeal also took into account those considerations taken by the Rent Regulation Board. The Court held that in order to see whether the maximum increase of 2% on the value of the property, it has to also see what takes place in the free market. The rent for this property can easily fetch 3.5% or 4% on the open market. The techni- cal experts also held that the property could mean that the owners receive a considerable amount of rent if it was to be converted into a commercial prop- erty. The property in Bormla had a sea view. As such the Court held it was un- fair for the owners to receive 1.1% in- crease when it deserves much more. The Court moved to uphold the appeal and ordered that the increase should be 2% of the value of the property. Increase in rent should reflect the open market value of the property LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates