VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Declares Rent Increase Notice Invalid

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal declared a landlord's notice of rent increase invalid because it did not follow the necessary steps outlined in the Housing Act 1988. The notice was found to be invalid as it did not start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy, as required by law.

⚖️ Legal holding

A landlord's notice of rent increase must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.

Topics

rent increasetenancy agreementstatutory compliance

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.13

This section applies to certain types of assured periodic tenancies. It requires that a landlord's notice proposing an increase in rent must specify a new rent that will begin at the start of a new period of the tenancy. This period must begin at least two months after the notice is served.

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section allows a tenant to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under an assured tenancy. The tribunal can then determine the open-market rent for the property, considering various factors including the terms of the existing tenancy and any improvements made by the tenant.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal found the landlord's notice of rent increase invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tribunal ruled that a landlord's notice of rent increase was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements under the Housing Act 1988. The notice failed to meet the requirement that the proposed new rent must start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/42UD/MNR/2021/0065 HMCTS code : P:PAPERREMOTE Property : 132 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] Respondents : [redacted] : Section 14 of the Housing Act 1988 Determination of market rent payable.

Tribunal member(s)

:

[NAME](Hons)

Date of decision : 8 February 2022

DECISION

Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The documents that I was referred to are in individual responses produced by the Applicant and the Respondent. I have noted the contents and my decision is below.

2 Background

1. By way of an [NAME] received on 23 November 2021 the Applicants, the Tenants of the Property, referred to the Tribunal an [NAME] (the [NAME]) referring a notice of increase in rent (the Notice) by the Landlord of the property under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.

2. The Notice is dated 15 November 2021 and proposed a new rent of £797.50 per month instead of the existing rent of £725 per month to take effect from 1 January 2022.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the [NAME] and fixed the date of week commencing 14 February 2022 to consider the matter. Neither Party requested a Hearing.

4. Each Party was invited to submit representations to include photographs and all relevant details. Representations were received from both parties, including a copy of the Tenancy Agreement .

5. For reasons which will become clearer below the Tribunal do not intend to detail these submissions.

The Law

6. The Tribunal first had to determine that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the [NAME] by reference to the validity of the Notice, in order to determine a rent under S14 of the Act. In short the Tribunal must determine that the landlord’s notice under Section 13 (2) satisfied the requirements of that section and was validly served.

7. The Act provides in section 13(2) as amended by the Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003 that the date in paragraph 4 of the Landlord’s notice (the date the new rent becomes payable) must comply with three requirements

8. The first requirement is that a minimum period of notice must be given before the proposed new rent can take effect.

9. The second requirement is that the starting date must not be less than 52 weeks after the date on which the rent was last increased using this procedure although there are exceptions to this.

10. The third requirement is that the proposed new rent must start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy (see paragraph number 17 of the Guidance Notes forming part of the prescribed form of the Landlord’s Notice).

11. Section 14 of the Act requires the Tribunal to determine the rent at which it considered the subject property might reasonably be expected to be let on the open market by a willing Landlord under an Assured Tenancy in so doing the Tribunal is required by Section 14 (1) to ignore the effect on the rental value of

3 the property of any relevant tenants’ improvements as defined in Section 14 (2) of the Act.

12. Only if a landlord’s notice complies with each of the requirements referred to above does a Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine a rent under section 14 of the Act.

The Tribunal’s Decision

13. The Tribunal directed the landlord to provide the tribunal with a copy of the Assured Tenancy Agreement. This is dated 31 May 2012 between the Landlord, Mr [APPELLANT] and the Tenants, [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] .

14. The Agreement is stated to be for a term of 6 months commencing 31 May 2012 at a commencement rent of £650 per calendar month. At paragraph 1 of the Agreement it is stated that the first rent payment shall be made on the date of signing the tenancy agreement, 31 May 2012 and thereafter, payments are due on the 19th day of each month.

15. The Landlord’s Notice stated the Landlord proposed a new rent of £737.50 per Month and the starting date for the new rent is stated to be 1 January 2022.

16. The Tribunal find the Notice to be invalid for the following reason: The Tenancy commenced on 31 May 2012, and the first rent payment was due on that date. Whilst future rent payments were to be made on the 19th day of each month that does not change the commencement date of the Tenancy. The Notice does not therefore comply with the third mandatory requirement of the Law as set out in paragraph 10 above.

17. In the absence of a valid notice of increase the tribunal determines it has no jurisdiction to consider the case. The existing rent will continue to be payable until such time as a valid notice of increase is served.

[NAME](Hons) Regional Surveyor

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

4 The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference

: CAM/42UD/MNR/2021/0065

Property : 132 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted] [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT]

Respondents : [redacted]

[NAME] : [NAME] for permission to Appeal

Tribunal members : [NAME](Hons)

Date of Decision : 9 March 2022

___________________________________

DECISION REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL ____________________________________

2 Decision 1. The tribunal has considered the Respondent’s request for permission to appeal dated 2 March 2022 and determines that: a. it will not review its decision; and b. permission be refused.

2. In accordance with section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, [NAME] may make further [NAME] for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Such [NAME] must be made in writing and received by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) no later than 14 days after the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent notice of this refusal to the party applying for permission to appeal.

3. Where possible, any further [NAME] for permission to appeal should be sent by email to [EMAIL], as this will enable the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to deal with it more efficiently. Alternatively, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) may be contacted at: 5th [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (tel: [PHONE]). [NAME]

4. The [NAME] was made on 23 November 2021 for the determination of a market rent under Section 14(1) of the Housing Act 1988 by Mr [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] the tenants, following service of a notice in the prescribed form by the landlord on 15 November 2021.

5. The landlord’s notice proposed a new rent of £797.50 per calendar month to be effective from 1 January 2022. This was in lieu of the £725 per month.

6. The tenancy agreement provided by the Respondent was dated 31 May 2012 between the Landlord, Mr [APPELLANT] and the Tenants, Mr [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] .

7. The Agreement was stated to be for a term of 6 months commencing 31 May 2012 at a commencement rent of £650 per calendar month. At paragraph 1 of the Agreement, it is stated that the first rent payment shall be made on the date of signing the tenancy agreement, 31 May 2012 and thereafter, payments are due on the 19th day of each month.

8. The Tribunal determined that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the rent, because the landlord’s notice under Section 13 (2) was not validly served.

9. It is a requirement that the proposed new rent must start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy – and as set out in paragraphs 5 and 7 above it did not.

3 Reasons for the decision

10. [NAME] [NAME] grounds of appeal are not altogether clear, referring to the rent payable date of 19th as both ‘not and error but clearly an oversight’ and subsequently referring to an ‘error’.

11. However, ultimately, they are appealing the decision of the tribunal in respect of its finding that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the rent.

12. The tribunal has no discretion in respect of the requirement that the proposed new rent must start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy for the notice to be valid. It does not, and the tribunal does not have jurisdiction

13. It has decided not to review its Decision and refuses permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal because it is of the opinion that there is no realistic prospect of a successful appeal in this case.

14. The tribunal will correct the error in the proposed rent amount in paragraph 15 under Rule 50 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

[NAME] 9 March 2022

4

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

As the [NAME] for permission to appeal the decision is refused, an [NAME] for permission to appeal against that refusal may be made to the Upper Tribunal under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. An [NAME] to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission must be made within 14 days of the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent you the refusal of permission.

Tribunal member(s)

:

[NAME](Hons)

Date of decision : 8 February 2022

CORRECTED DECISION

Background

The Law

the property of any relevant tenants’ improvements as defined in Section 14 (2) of the Act.

The Tribunal’s Decision

15. The Landlord’s Notice stated the Landlord proposed a new rent of £797.50 per Month and the starting date for the new rent is stated to be 1 January 2022.

[NAME](Hons) Regional Surveyor

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant challenged the rent increase because the landlord’s notice did not meet statutory requirements.
  • The tenant continued paying rent according to the original agreement when the landlord’s notice was non-compliant.
  • The landlord's notice proposing a new rent failed to comply with all statutory requirements.
  • The tenant challenged the rent increase notice due to its failure to comply with statutory requirements.
  • The tenant requested a reduced rent due to vermin infestation issues.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant's challenge was dismissed because the notice of rent increase, despite non-compliance, was not thoroughly contested on statutory grounds.
  • The landlord's notice proposing a new rent was found to comply with some but not all statutory requirements, leading to dismissal.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision found the landlord's notice of rent increase invalid.

Who was involved?

The case involved a tenant and a landlord.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the notice was invalid because it did not comply with statutory requirements.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the proposed new rent did not start at the beginning of a period of the tenancy.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their landlord's notice of rent increase complies with statutory requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The tenancy agreement and the landlord's notice of rent increase were important documents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving rent increases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.